Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Steve Willner
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
EBL is the Zonal organization. It has member NCBOs, not individuals. The ACBL is an anomaly, being both a ZO and acting as, if not technically being, and NCBO.
March 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Coming in a little late here, but do you play strong jump shifts? If so, some of the hands people have suggested would have started with 3C. I think the heart bid is natural, not a splinter, but what strength is in question. (Playing SJS, I'd play it as a minimal GF with 3-4c support and at least one control in a pointed suit.)
Jan. 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks, Ed. I see the problem with 2D, but then I don't understand why the Romex in the line just below is GCC.

In Romex Forcing Club, I'd have thought you could put all the strong balanced hands into 1C. Is that a problem? Regardless, it doesn't help in usual Romex.
Jan. 26, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why isn't the R/RFC combo GCC-legal?

You must get dealt a lot more strong hands than I do if you devote so many bids to them.
Jan. 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If the purpose is to improve GIB, and you are required to evaluate “points,” why not use either straight Goren count or COBRA?
Dec. 29, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As usual, I'm coming late to the discussion. The official minutes are at
http://www.acbl.org/acbl-content/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Spring-2014.pdf

Odd that the complete botch of the natural two-card 1C opening in the GCC never came up.

Dec. 28, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Interesting cases that raise a lot of issues. I'll comment on them in order.

1. Dale J. is right that prior to 1975, the Laws on UI were nothing like now. “Using UI” was a _conduct_ offense, and “I was always going to bid slam” was a sufficient defense. Of course “old black magic” flourished, as one might expect. We've come a long way.

2. The issue of how to treat psyching is still a mess, probably because most authorities hate psychs but can't ban them without punishing LOLs (and the rest of us!) every time they (we) accidentally misbid. There are two separate issues to deal with: ensuring adequate disclosure, and deciding when a so-called psychic is really systemic and subject to the normal system rules. It doesn't help that the legal definition of “psychic” differs from the meaning most players understand. I have no hope the situation will improve in my lifetime.

3. The artificial scores (avg+/-) were arguably illegal and certainly wrong-headed; the TD should have assigned a score for 4H down whatever. Giving artificial scores was automatic back then, though, and is still too common today. As for the AC, it's hard to know why they went wrong, but one possibility is that the TD failed to explain the Laws. As mentioned in 1, the UI rules were fairly new at the time and still poorly understood, and there was little effort (so far as I can tell) to make sure ACs understood what the Laws actually said. That problem still exists but is much less. (I think Rich Colker had a lot to do with improving things, for which effort he was ousted from his position.)

4. Ruling whether 2NT was legal strikes me as very hard, and I wouldn't consider myself competent to rule on a player at Kit's level. Nowadays TDs would try to poll players of similar skill to see how they would approach the problem. If the 2NT bid was ruled illegal, then Kit is again right that the TD needs to determine what the result in 2Sx would be. In most of the world, that can be a weighted score (perhaps 20% 2Sx=, 50% 2Sx+1, 30% 2Sx+2, or whatever). The ACBL doesn't allow that, but there can be a split result. (With the above weights, it would be 2Sx+2 for the OS, 2Sx+1 for the NOS, but I've completely made up the percentages to give an example.) Anyway, as Kit wrote, the TD (or in this case AC) should do their best to work out what would have happened without the infraction, perhaps with a small (10%-ish) dose of favor to the NOS.
Nov. 19, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There are lots of opinions about what is better, but has anyone besides Mike Ma answered the question about what is standard? As he wrote, I'd expect NMF unless something else has been agreed. That doesn't deal with club stoppers, but it does find the spade fit if one exists.
Oct. 30, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Henry

Your question would be easy to answer with a simulation, but I don't know of anyone who has run one. My naive expectation would be that there should be lg2(M)+lg2(N)+1 rounds, but I don't have much confidence in this. (lg2 means base 2 logarithm.) My second guess is one more round than the above, but as I say, a simulation would settle the question.

If you are talking about a serious event, there should also be a “strength of schedule” correction. This correction compensates teams who have played against tougher opponents. Roughly speaking, you add to each team's score some fraction of the VPs scored by all that team's opponents other than in the head-to-head match. This has been simulated (contact me offline if you want details), and unfortunately the fraction depends on the exact format of the event. I believe some Australian events implement the SoS correction. One could also devise an entirely different scoring method (mathematically equivalent to some form of rating system but only applied to the specific event) that would have the same effect.
Oct. 30, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To John Adams: who is the “you” who is not consistent? And about what? My position “the regulations apply alike to all artificial opening bids” was stated just above your message. I don't understand why some people disagree.

To Ed: you seem to be fishing for reasons not to implement the regulations as written. OK, I guess, if that's what your club management wants. In fact, clubs are free to ignore ACBL regulations about play, and if that's what your club has decided, great! I took the OP question (with “ACBL” in the title) to imply that all ACBL regulations were in effect.
Oct. 30, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Are we going around in circles here? Nobody claims any _law_ has been broken. The infraction is of ACBL regulations: either the one against psyching an artificial opening bid or the one requiring players to know their system. If the non-offending side is damaged, they are entitled to redress. As I wrote earlier, the regulations apply alike to all artificial opening bids.

FWIW, I don't like either regulation, but nobody asked my opinion.

One advantage of having _both_ regulations (or neither) is that there's no need for mind reading.
Oct. 29, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
??? I thought the whole discussion was about whether redress should be given or not.
Oct. 27, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ed: I admire your touching faith that ACBL regulations are written with attention to such details. However, even if the regulation does nothing but establish correct procedure, a violation of correct procedure that damages an opponent still merits redress. Compare such Laws as 41D or 46A. No one would think of penalizing a violation _per se_, but opponents are still protected from damage.
Oct. 26, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For those who think the original ruling was terrible, do you really think it likely that “usually denies a four card major” was a correct explanation?

I agree the Daily Bulletin article failed to make clear a legal basis for the ruling, but that doesn't mean no such basis existed. We're all – at least all of us not in the hearing room – guessing as to the facts, but it's not hard to imagine facts and bridge judgments that would make the AC ruling correct.

That the further appeal is being heard by the A&CC and not the LC, combined with the regulation Kit quoted, suggests that the basis of the appeal is bias not known at the time. That seems surprising, but the appellants are entitled to make their case, at least if the appeal was timely filed.
Oct. 24, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In fact, the ACBL has a regulation saying that players must know their agreements in “to be expected” auctions (ACBL's quotes, not mine). It seems to me the effect of that is to make the ruling for misbid the same as the ruling for psych.

Whatever the ruling is, it applies equally to psyching or misbidding Flannery or any other artificial opening.

By the way, the EBU has a specific regulation that in case of an illegal bid, the board is cancelled, and the sides get artificial scores (avg+/avg-). The ACBL has no such regulation, so over here we'd try to give an assigned adjusted score as the OP suggested. If that's impossible, we fall back to Law 12C1d and give artificial scores after all. (A bad habit of some ACBL Directors is to give artificial scores when there's no reason to do so.)
Oct. 24, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't personally care who gets the medals (except that it shouldn't be cheaters or their teammates), but the legal basis for changing the final match outcome and not others would be that only for that match was a valid complaint made within the appeals period.

As others have written, nobody knows what the brackets or results would have been without the doctors.
April 9, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The official WBF report of the disciplinary hearing is at
http://www.bridge.nl/documenten/Hearing21-22March2014.pdf
April 3, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Before the spring NABC” won't help some of us who would like to play the new methods before then, specifically in the GNT qualifier. The changes were announced months ago, and I don't see why new documents weren't in place on Jan 1.
Jan. 20, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm surprised by Henry's second paragraph, Or rather, surprised to see him writing it, though I've seen the argument before.

For me, preacceptance shows an honor in partner's suit and fast tricks outside, _not_ necessarily length. For example, I'd preaccept clubs but not diamonds with AKJx Axx xxxx Kx and refuse both with AQx Kx Kxxx Kxxx. Henry must do something else, but I can't see what it is.

Notice that in my version of preacceptance, there's no lead value, and it will be fine if partner plays 3m when he has a weak hand.
Jan. 11, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you are going to play Henry's suggestion, it looks better to me to play 3M-1 as the “2.5 raise” and 3M as the full-value raise. That lets you put some GF hands into 3M-1, passing 3M with the 2.5 raise but bidding on with the game-force type(s). Responder may need to be a bit careful about how to show a game-acceptance and shouldn't automatically jump to 4M.
Jan. 11, 2014
.

Bottom Home Top