Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Rui Marques
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 13 14 15 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry to correct you, Greg (and Neal). NS are entitled to know the EW agreements. That does not mean that East will “know” the correct agreement, in order to “tell” North. When determining the outcome of the board, the TD will assume that North and South would know EW's agreements, and that West will think what he thought, and East will think what he thought (about their mutual agreements). Who will “tell North”? Doesn't matter.
June 15
Rui Marques edited this comment June 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No Paul, pollees should not see other pollees comments and answers. We sometimes poll partners on a case (not frequently), but when we do, we always do it separately (otherwise one tends to politely agree with the other, skewing the poll). And to poll 10 people, you have to first find 10 peers, then have them ready and available, which is far from certain at any moment in time.
Dec. 8, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
BTW, the paradox of polling and sample size has been discussed before. Unless you're able to move to very large samples, increasing the size of the sample doesn't necessarily improve the conclusions. See for example https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/about-polling-players-ii/
Sample size was not the main subject of this article, but it is discussed there too.
Dec. 8, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Off-site polling is performed al eadyc(some directors do it more often than others). Mentioned above the USBF example, but there are others. When directing a small event, if there's nobody available and suitable for being polled, it's a good idea to have a group of people than are willing to serve as pollees. I regularly constrict some fellow BW members to be pollees (thank you guys). Doing it on a large scale (20, 30 or more) is complicated, because often the conclusions of the poll do not boil down simply to how many people do this or that. The reasoning behind the actions is also important. What was said (and not said) counts. And you have to be able to answer pollees questions about the hand, the players, the auction, etc. Not to mention the time constraints. At many top level events, it's even more difficult because most of the suitable players will be in the event. However, I do agree that it's something worth exploring (for example, through closed online groups with access only to potential pollees, and configured for each event, so that players in the event will not have access to the group). While polling the group, the TD would have to be available to answer questions and interact with the pollees. Also, to avoid group behavior, members of the group could not have access to other members dialogue with the TD.
Dec. 8, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
15.3 refers to “a call”, and gives the TD an option. He “may” allow the (second) board to be played normally, or not. Let's say that on the first board the opponents bid 1S Pass 4S All Pass, and on the second one (miracle) the auction is the same. IMHO, the TD can allow the second board to be played, even if the offender made more than one call. In John's case, the player exposed his cards as dummy. The TD still has the same option, theoretically, but it's hard to imagine that the board can be played “normally” now.

What are the TD's options?

In a pairs event, the TD awards an adjusted score even if it's the first board of the event. Note that 15.3 does not specify an artificial adjusted score…

In a teams event, the TD can order a redeal if the board has not been played at the other table (and probably assign a procedural penalty). If the board has been played at the other table, the TD uses 86B1. The AS can be +3/-3, or other, depending on the result at the other table.
Dec. 6, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David Caprera: The first question is “did you intend to claim”, unless the TD decides that he did intend to claim. The second question is not “what is your stated line of play” but rather “did you state a line of play the moment you claimed”. That's a common error. One of the “Director's Manuals” circulating around had this mistake. It says something like “if the player didn't state a line of play he should do it when the director asks about it”. Not this wording, but similar idea, and it is totally wrong.
Nov. 24, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I checked the write-up, no additional indications there. But I'm pretty sure that he didn't discard the minor that West kept.
Nov. 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
True. The question was if Pass was a logical alternative to bidding 4H.
Oct. 31, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for the comments, it was an old case (reality check). The methods were as stated (agreed, not the best). Significant, the number of abstentions! Thanks again.
Oct. 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Great job, Gordon! And congrats to EBU WBF and EBL also.
June 2, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good bet :) I wanted to confirm what the initial poll indicated, for my own peace of mind. Thanks all
March 26, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My experiments with Jeanie, it doesn't seem to convert files to MOV very well (the tries that I made, the movement was not converted).
Feb. 18, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Quite standard, maybe just a bit incomplete, certainly not “crazy”…

Let's assume for simplicity that you are West and East is on lead.

H7 is a major penalty card, so Declarer can demand or forbid a heart. If he demands or forbids the heart lead, H7 is picked up and is no longer a penalty card. If he forbids, the prohibition will remain in force while E retains the lead. If he says “lead anything” then the H7 remains a penalty card and declarer will have the same options every time E has the lead and the H7 is still a penalty card.

Note that as per 2017 Laws the rules about penalty cards and information derived from them changed, and declarer should be informed about it. Information derived from a penalty card and the requirements for playing that penalty card are authorized for ALL the players while the penalty card is exposed, but is unauthorized for East the moment the penalty card returns to hand.

So, TD to declarer: “You can prohibit a H lead. If you prohibit a heart lead, the H7 returns to hand and the prohibition remains while East has the lead. Information from the H7 is authorized for you and unauthorized for West.
You can also request a heart lead. H7 returns to hand and same provisions about information. You can leave the lead free. H7 remains a PC, must be played at the first legal opportunity, and if East is on lead again while the H7 is on the table you will have the same options. Information derived from the H7 is authorized to all while the H7 is exposed on the table. ”

Also, 50E4 may apply…
Dec. 19, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
ACBLScore is flexible enough to allow you to define your own movements, that is already nice. And with the communities of TDs that are around, I don't think that it is that much of an issue. I would very much prefer to be able to produce better supporting materials for the movements (table mats and personal scorecards with the movement, for example)
Dec. 18, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I understand the relevance of standardizing, but with the shortage of movements in ACBLScore it is hard to imagine using the naming there as a standard. We need to call a name to the movements that are not there… And, reading Ian McKinnon's book you can notice that there are some movements with three or four names.
About webs, ACBLscore only lists web movements for odd numbers of tables. Check the article mentioned in the original post for a standardized and generalized definition of web movements. There you can find web movements for 14 tables with 8, 9, 12 and 13 rounds, and for 15 with 9 or 13 rounds. For 16, you'll find also webs for 8, 9, 12 and 13 rounds, which is useful for the clubs (much more than one with 30 boards in play).
As to the Hesitation, I've seen it called Extended, Expanded and Hesitation… my usual approach is to think of the basic technique to run it, more than the naming, and explain what is meant by the name, so that different cultures can make the parallel with their common names. I always call it Hesitation, by the way, but as I was getting the basic worksheet for it from Jeanie (an Australian application), they referred it as Extended so I just let it go like that.
More importantly, we can start thinking of standardizing. And for that I would propose to start with generic techniques, and referring to any of the modern major works on Movements (Hanner, McKinnon might be good starting points) to set the standard.
For example, as Hill properly notes in his article on Webs, Bowman, Ewing and 1 1/2 appendixes are just special cases of the generalized web movements. And even a Mitchell is a generalized Web movement…
Shall we start? Is there interest in trying to standardize movement names?
Dec. 18, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm aware of it, and if done correctly it will be a major breakthrough. Other scoring programs are light years of ACBLScore, when you consider only the “run and score a tournament”. Interfacing with the ACBL for reporting is the crux.

Imagine Swiss Pairs coming to town… Imagine 12C being handled correctly… Imagine… there are so many other goodies for the TDs…
Dec. 18, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Do you change your lead if 1S is explained as “Walsh”?
Nov. 21, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Also for completeness there is a Laws Committee minute about that. See for example http://www.qldbridge.com/director/laws/LCMin2011Veldhoven1.pdf
Oct. 30, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
They’re both comparable bids
Oct. 20, 2017
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 13 14 15 16
.

Bottom Home Top