Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Joerg Fritsche
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Okay, we have 126 votes now (without the abstains). 106 got it wrong and 20 didn't get it right. Zero of you chose, what the TDs at Wroclaw decided.
Of course I hoped for the answers you gave - or do you really think, I would have posted the poll if answer 1 was right?

I was South. It was the 1st board against these opponents and like many other opponents my screenmate didn't put a convention card on the table. Yes, he should have, yes, the CoC demanded that, but he didn't. And I was really tired of asking ‘where is your convention card’. Instead I asked him ‘how many s does your 1 promise?’ and he answered ‘3’. So I bid my weak 2 in , he passed and my passed hand partner bid 2. I didn't care whether he had -support for that or not as I hade -support and passed of course. Some -ruffs and other tricks later (opponents had more s than we) he was 3 down for probably a Zero.

We checked, that we have got different explanations concerning the length of the opening bid and called for the TD. He wrote everthing down and went away.
During the next seesion my partner informed me, that the TD told him between the sessions, that the score stands. But he couldn't explain me the reasoning. So after this session I went to the TD and asked him. For me the explanation was nonsense and I told the TD, that I was going to have a review because of the impossible explanation. He said ‘wait, i will talk to the Chief TD and come back’. After the session he came back and asked me, to contact the Chief-TD, so that he can explain me his decision (which didn't sound like ‘we changed the score because of misinformation’).

The Chief-TD explained: the North player had all informations he needed to know, that partner doesn't have both Majors, but a weak 2 in . He was told, that I will be given a wrong explanation of the bid and should have acted accordingly.

I was really shocked and had a long discussion with the Chief TD. At some point he said in despair ‘I can’t find other words to explain you the decision, so that you understand it'.
I asked him if - just by chance - my opponent had shown me a convention card and I had found there, perhaps hidden, that 1 promises only 2 cards. ‘Irrelevant’ he said. I asked him, whether he had checked the convention card what the documented agreement is. ‘Irrelevant’ he said. I asked him what if the partner had erred and I had gotten the correct explanation. ‘Relevant’, he said. Then my partner would have had a misexplanation and the score would be corrected.

So if your opponent tells you, that his partner will give your partner a misexplanation, that is part of full disclosure and has to be taken as true. At least, if this decision is right. What of course must be the case, as it was a World Championship and we can expect the highest standards there.

I must say, I am still not convinced, but I accepted it. It was in the semifinals of the pairs, we qualified anyway and there was no carryover.
Sept. 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You can be sure your partner will check. He is not playing a Worldchampionship just for fun. But your opponent just told you something similar to ‘your partner might not get the correct explanation’
Sept. 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You can be sure, that partner asked. You cannot be sure, what answer he got. He will bid according to the number of clubs his screenmate told him.
Sept. 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You have all the informations, that the North player had at this moment. He doesn't know, if there is a convention card on the other side of the screen, he doesn't know which questions his partner might have asked and he doesn't know, which answers partner has got. Maybe ‘ask your opponent more questions’ would be a 5th option.
Sept. 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Linda, i cannot disagree more on your view. Maybe you had good experiences with the directors in the mixed competition, I hadn't in the Open Pairs.

1. About half ot the pairs had no convention card (maybe in their pocket, but not on the table). The directors sometimes announced ‘please put your convention cards on the table’ but never did something to enforce it.

2. Many of the convention cards didn't give proper explanations of the pair's system. We felt damaged more than once by a bid which had a different meaning than was written on the conventions cards and/or misexplained. Most times the director said ‘we will have a look at the hand and come back’ but less than half the time they really came back. Once to correct the score, the other times to tell us, that everything is fine. Well, nearly fine. Of course the players made a mistake on their convention card, but none of them was forced to play the WBF-Standard-System. That was announced in Bulletin Nr. 1 ('Players will be forced to use standard WBF convention cards if their own card and supplements are found unsatisfactory'). Of course there can be differrent views when a card is found unsatisfactory.

I would not insist on such a rule. But inventing it for the championship and then not even considering to use it, looks ridiculous to me.

I don't complain about the results in those boards, I can accept most decisions if they come with an explanation. But not coming back when a player clearly demanded a decision? Not giving a decision? I have never seen such a behaviour by directors before.

3. It was forbidden to bring any mobile to the playing area. Of course nobody was punished, when his mobile rang during the session.

4. 51 rounds in the final we were following the slowest pair in the tourney. They did'nt finish a single round in time! Most times 2 directors were standingg at the corners of the screen and sometimes even watching the players bidding hand Nr. 2 after the director had called for the new round. Oh, of course they sometimes said ‘please hurry up, someone is waiting for you’. But nothing else happened.

5. Well, the score-control is already discussed in another thread. I know of more scores from other players (not in the Open Pairs), which were entered incorrectly and couldn't be changed any more after being noticed by the players when they had time to check.

No, the directing service was not satisfying.
Sept. 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So first I let opener inform opponents about his shape, then I transfer to make the so far unknown hand dummy? Looks like a strange kind of camouflage to me. And, even worse, I miss the fit in opener's shorter major. What are the advantages of this method?
Aug. 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner had:
x, J10x, 10xxx, Qxxxx. 4 was cold, 5 if you drop the singleton -K on your left.
March 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have played: on A or Q against NT and on A or K against suit we give standard signals, else UDCA. If partner's suit is good enough against NT, he leads the K and wie unblock or give special length signals.
The reason we changed to that, was your described holding of J10x.
Feb. 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And what was the damage? A -Lead would beat 7, but East had the proper Information.
Feb. 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I play this sequence as only showing mild interest opposite a very fitting hand. The hand is too strong for that bid, so I would transfer to 2, then transfer again with 3 to show 6+ hearts and either game interest or slam interest. With his controlrich minimum N will cue and slam will be reached.
If you can only bid the hand via 4, blame the system.
Jan. 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
West has UI: he didn't notice by himself, that he misbid (assuming trf to is the agreement), but only through partner's alert.
Did he use the UI? Yes, because he passed 6, which must be a worse contract than 6. But he feared to climb higher, so he took his chances by passing 6.
Were opponents damaged? Maybe, if W bids 6 and E doesn't pass, then EW might end in a high NT-contract, where a -misguess is possible after -lead.

I would go for a weighed score (of course I don't know, what the general level of a ‘Common game’ is, so no suggestion for the specific score).
Jan. 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can't speak for ACBL, but in EBL or WBF there will be no adjustment as there has been no break of rules. Strength of NT is not alertable, there are convention cards (I think even in advance) and you have to protect yourself by reading/asking.
Dec. 31, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
They would score 108 VP out of 9 matches in the German League, as nobody is going to play against them at the table, giving them a score of 12:0. So at the end, every team that can score an average of 13,51 out of 8 Matches is in front of their team. Of course they will appeal, as they were not given the chance to score 20:0. Would be a very strange competition.
More interesting is the question, who will be the teammates? Of course they did always find someone in the past (otherwise the problem wouldn't exist), but will they find now? I am sure, none of the pairs, which is playing in the league. Perhaps a weaker one, thirsting for success and fame, but why should the doctors play with a weak pair?
Still ridiculous, I stop thinking about those fantasies.
Dec. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
German players are disappointed about that anew delay. On the other hand, as long as the legal case is pending, the doctors can't appear at any tournament in Germany, EBL or WBF. The homepage of our federation has published them as ‘suspended’ (which also took some time after the conviction out of legal reasons).
Dec. 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What if …
… I don't understand, what the director tries to tell us?
Nov. 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is anything known about the outcome of this hearing? And could be published here?
Oct. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How about
- bidding
- leading (coughless of course)
- defending
- declaring
- designing bidding systems?
Oct. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Fred Gitelman for WBF President!
Thank You for Your statement.
Oct. 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I pass, but can't go to the bar yet, because I bid 4 next turn. That should be a distributional hand with few points and few defense and helps partner best to make a good decision over 5.
Oct. 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe France does Poland “the right thing” now …
Oct. 4, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top