You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Norman,
There's no reason a weighted score couldn't have been given - that it was not suggests that the TDs felt that, with the correct explanation of “no agreement”, the contract would almost always have gone two off. I've not looked at the hand carefully enough to comment, but it would certainly have been reasonable to appeal on this basis (with the caveat that ACs don't normally make small adjustments to percentages).
By the way, I assume it was an *adjustment* to the score, not a VP *penalty* (although they aren't mutually exclusive).
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dealing boards at the table is a security risk too.
The Spingold/Vanderbilt use a different pre-duplicated set for each match. Maybe this could be used here for at least the last few matches of the Swiss. Or, alternatively, have five lots of 10 identical sets in play, for example, so any wire could be from a board you're not playing. Doesn't solve the randomness of flat vs swingy boards but has plenty of other upsides.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Where in Professional Slam Bidding is this discussed? Thanks.
I like the principle of opening a natural diamond rather than a short club on 4D5C below reversing strength, but I can't see that it's sound to rebid 2♣ on both a 4-5 11-count and a 5-4 17-count.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partnerships where one player is much better than the other work best when the stronger player gets to take most of the decisions, so IMO the problem in Clive's case is the nature (“erratic bidder”) of his 50-rated partner, not their absolute level.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
a) As said previously, 1♦:1♥, 1♠ can be passed much more frequently playing Precision, as opener is already limited.
b) Even if you decided to rebid 1NT on balanced hands, responder still wouldn't know of genuine diamonds opposite a 1♠ rebid - 4135 would bid this way too.
Mike Bell
A split ruling is something else - e.g. 3♣-2 for one side and 3♣-1 for the other.
Mike Bell
There's no reason a weighted score couldn't have been given - that it was not suggests that the TDs felt that, with the correct explanation of “no agreement”, the contract would almost always have gone two off. I've not looked at the hand carefully enough to comment, but it would certainly have been reasonable to appeal on this basis (with the caveat that ACs don't normally make small adjustments to percentages).
By the way, I assume it was an *adjustment* to the score, not a VP *penalty* (although they aren't mutually exclusive).
Mike Bell
Even if it didn't, 3♦ is still available as a cuebid, so there's no need for 3♣ to do the same job.
Mike Bell
Mike Bell
Mike Bell
The Spingold/Vanderbilt use a different pre-duplicated set for each match. Maybe this could be used here for at least the last few matches of the Swiss. Or, alternatively, have five lots of 10 identical sets in play, for example, so any wire could be from a board you're not playing. Doesn't solve the randomness of flat vs swingy boards but has plenty of other upsides.
Mike Bell
Mike Bell
Mike Bell
Mike Bell
Mike Bell
I like the principle of opening a natural diamond rather than a short club on 4D5C below reversing strength, but I can't see that it's sound to rebid 2♣ on both a 4-5 11-count and a 5-4 17-count.
Mike Bell
Mike Bell
Mike Bell
Mike Bell
Mike Bell
Mike Bell
Mike Bell
b) Even if you decided to rebid 1NT on balanced hands, responder still wouldn't know of genuine diamonds opposite a 1♠ rebid - 4135 would bid this way too.
Mike Bell
Mike Bell
https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bidding-problem-2-ky5eitd4ia/