Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Portwood
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 190 191 192 193
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am finding it hard to see the problem. East has minimal unauthorised information - and the legal auction is authorised to everyone.

1) East fails to alert 2

At this point South and North hsve misinformation(i.e. that East has apparantly shown a hand with clubs - although why your system does this is beyond me) and West has unauthorised information (that partner believes his hand has spades, when he actually has spades)

Going back to the auction at this point i.e. finding out whether South would have changed his call would presumably have resulted in South either passing 2 Spades (in the belief that EW are having a bidding misunderstanding) - which presumably results in 2 making something, or he bids 3 and the auction continues. Equally I think it unlikely that North would be taking any action.

2) East realises he has failed to alert.

East calls the director (he could do it before or after he makes the final pass). The directors seem correct in agreeing that North can have his last pass back if his decision to pass is based on the misinformation.

At this point there is no MI - and the only unusual information that East has that North would pass a natural 2 call and South would bid 3 over it. These are legal calls and are unaffected by unauthorised information from another source (the fact that they are affected by misleading information seems irrelevant) - and so are AI under 16A

3) North now makes an insufficient 2 call and attention is drawn to it. Law 27 now applies.

East rejects the 2 call - so 27B now applies. However the call has been replaced before the Director has ruled on rectification and now the 3 call must be made (Law 27C)

4) South now makes comment that North should have passed the 3 call - well this is UI to North (but AI to East West) and nothing seems to have come of it.

East now committs suicide - well that is his right - but he had no obligation to do so.

Board de-messed.
4 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is more than just cover cards based on strength! A doubleton heart means that you can ruff the hearts good, a doubleton club means you can ruf clubs good - or they can break. Even the Jack of Hearts can become a cover card.

And then there are situations where finesses work (yes they do sometimes)

So I think that in this case the OP is being a little pessimistic.
July 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You can allow the hand to be played being ready to award an adjusted score - in fact I had a case on Saturday where a pair had entered the score into the Bridgemate for the wrong hand - and thus knew that 6NT could make on the second hand. (I was kind - I didn't penalise them for not checking the score and they did own up to the fact that they had seen the results.)

Auction on second hand:

1NT (12-14): partner with 18 points bid 3NT - making 12 tricks. It turned out that opener had bid 1NT on 14 points and 3 tens.

Result stood (well done them!) - I would have rolled 6NT back on the basis that there wasn't 33 points or a decent 5-card suit in responders hand.

If Larry Loudmouth had made his comment then I basically have two options. (Other than issuing a pp)

1) Redeal the hand from that point and score it as fouled boards. (if the form of scoring permits it)

2) Follow the hand everytime it is played and adjust if the King of Clubs is led. - This is unfair on the players who would have found that lead.
July 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well some players haven't learnt law 16C.

My bridge partner has alluded to the time he played in Switzerland against one of their top pairs (a co-incidence, this was not a top-class tournament) and, having made a somewhat fortuitious 6NT contract, heard one of the pair announce in a very loud voice “6NT making - how mauch is that” - the director overheard that and decided there was no other option but to redeal the hand.

Some people are soo worked up about bad boards.
July 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes
July 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In my opinion too many people raise partner's 5-card major pre-emptively to game on 5-card support based on LOTT.

For LOTT to work you (or your partner) basically need two ruffing tricks in one hand, and so do opponents if they have a 10 card suit - in the hand discussed both sides only have one ruff.

So don't bid 4/4 as a sacrifice unless you have a void in opponent's suit or a singleton in a third suit.
July 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Comes under 45C4b

(b) Declarer may correct an unintended designation of a card from dummy until he next plays a card from either his own hand or from dummy. A change of designation may be allowed after a slip of the tongue, but not after a loss of concentration or a
reconsideration of action. If an opponent has, in turn, played a card that was legal before the change in designation, that opponent may withdraw the card so played, return it to
his hand, and substitute another (see Laws 47D and 16C1).

So IF declarer has called for the Ace by mistake then since he has played the Queen he cannot change his mind.
July 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Zero-max imps!
July 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Also from the introduction

“Finally, unless the context clearly dictates otherwise, the singular includes the plural, the masculine includes the feminine, and vice versa.”

From Law 49, the cards aren't penalty cards since the exposure derives from breach of the law that players may not touch their opponent's cards.

I would rule under law 84B & D

B. Law Provides Rectification

If the case is clearly covered by a Law that prescribes the rectification for the irregularity, he
determines that rectification and ensures that it is implemented.

D. Director’s Option

The Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non‐offending side. He seeks to restore equity. If in his judgement it is probable that a non‐offending side has been damaged by an irregularity for which these laws provide no rectification he adjusts the score (see Law 12).


I would designate that the cards are NOT penalty cards - under law 50, that the defender's hand is returned to them, such information is AI to the defenders (NOS) but UI to declarer (OS) - under 7B3.
July 16
John Portwood edited this comment July 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well there is a mathematical justification for arrow-switches as I assume you know.it is based on there being twice the number of competitors as tables, that two sets of boards are switched on each round when you are comparing two pairs and that there is a factor of two (going from competing for MPs, to going to co-operate for matchpoints) - multiply these together and you get the : switch 1/8 of the rounds.

The danger for getting the par wrong is that Some players will lose different numbers of IMPS e.g. instead of two pairs losing 10 imps, one might lose 9 and the other 10.
July 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well it is in pre-dealt hands, but not every club uses them.

The number of imps NS make in a normal IMP event also depends on the EW distribution - so this element of luck is constant.

Not sure whether tactics would change
July 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As I understand it - those NS who bid a game that should not have been bid i.e. bad bridge, lose 0 imps. Those EW who mis-defended the game that they should have got down (maybe on double dummy defence) lose 9 imps.

What it means is that you aren't penalised if opponents reach the par score - that is what they are supposed to do. If the par score is NOT reached then one pair has made a bad theoretical bridge call and are penalised.

The one problem I forsee is that whoever does the scoring (scorer or software) is going to have to know the par score. That would involve some additional software for the hand-creator (if a program) and there is always the chance that the scorer would get the par score wrong - for one thing they would need to look at the hands if they were not pre-dealt and work out the par score, which may not be easy unless the scorer is also an expert player, unless they enter every hand into Deep Finesse or the equivalent manually - and that would take a lot of time.
July 15
John Portwood edited this comment July 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Does the fact that there will be fewer Imps scored affect the calculation to VPs and also NGS?

As you know, the NGS system use a multiplier to convert average imps/ hand into percentages. If the EBU accepted this scoring method then no doubt a different multiplyer would be required. This is pretty obvious from the fact that in one scoring system NS get 28.9/24 imps/ hand and in the other they get -103/24 imps per hand. That is quite a swing on a NGS score.
July 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
OK - I was concerned that if no one beat par then one side would get no imps at all - and from that you canimagine a scenario where the par score on every hand is unobtainable for one side through the entire session - and all NS would end up on 0 (or 50%) even though there would be some variation on a standard IMP scale.
July 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So if the datum is NS + 430 and NS actually get +400

NS: -1 imp, EW 0 (EW get nothing since result was NS error.)

But if NS get +460

NS: 0 imp, EW -1 imp (NS get nothing since result was EW error)

Correct?
July 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I see no reason why you can't score in this method - in effect it is seeing how well you do compared to perfect bridge - and removes pretty well all luck from the event. The best players will still win as they will lose fewer imps.

To accept this method of scoring, though, you have to change your mentality.

And one more thing - it goes somewhat to ameliorate the complaints about ‘protecting the field’ and getting ‘unjustified tops’ because opponents have a bidding misunderstanding or one of those ridiculous 3H* -7 on a UI situation. (You still get 0 - opponents get -20, but you don't gain vast numbers of X-IMPS becuase everyone else was playing in the par score of +620 and had no opportunity to do anything better)
July 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The ruling does not state that the pause demonstrably suggests doubling: what it does state is that partner has extra values so that ‘not-passing’ might be succesful. By ‘not-passing’ the bidder has not ‘carefully avoided’ taking advantage of the UI - law 73C IIRC (which refers to 16B)
July 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Because the opponents might not be able to just go one-off at a higher level.

If the best that they can make is 1S then the optimum score for N/S is always +140.
July 14
$20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In precision I have limited my hand - so I show suit. In 2/1 I have done neither - and I prefer to limit my hand. If I miss a 4-4 major fit (only happen when partner is 4-4 or more in the majors and a weakish hand) then so be it.
July 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If the EBU algorithm was applied worldwide then each country would be able to rank its players on a similar scale - BUT the scales would not be really equivalent as there would not be much diffusion of ranking between countries. A 60 player in the USA might not be equivalent to a 60 player in England or China (but they would be close due to the mathematics involved, central limit theorem etc)

Of course if BBO implemented the algorithm then that would be a different matter - everyone on BBO would have a grade. It would of course require results to be transferred over to the appropriate regulating authorities - unless the WBF kept the official database (and of course everyone was honest about their logins etc and required to provide a WBF number)
July 13
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 190 191 192 193
.

Bottom Home Top