Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Wayne Burrows
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am often troubled by those feel aspects of play. The trouble I have is when your feel is so good how do you know you are not also, perhaps subconsciously, using that feel to read your partner.

I am not just troubled by top players who talk about table feel but also at lesser levels. One partnership I know a player often says that a play was based on “intuition”. At times the partnership have considerable, I believe, non-deliberate mannerisms. It troubles me that “intuition” might, at least subconsciously, take account of those partnership mannerisms.
Sept. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Or established it as a fact from discussion with the players at the table.
Sept. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Amy the laws provide for no rectification if the non-offending side takes any action. In my view this should probably have applied here.

“The right to rectification of an irregularity may be forfeited if either member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the Director. The Director does so rule, for example, when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law. ”

It also occurs to me that if EW are passing the tray then there are two sides at fault. EW are improperly passing the tray and NS are improperly not passing the tray. Both should be responsible and therefore if there is a problem both should be liable for a penalty.
Sept. 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Its like being held in custody only there is no custody so more like out on bail but with a constraint that they not play until the substantive matter is properly heard.
Sept. 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Haig: My experience is that players playing more standard systems are more likely to be the ones who will not disclose their methods. Perhaps my experience is limited but even very experienced players and partnerships sometimes just fob you off with its “just bridge” or similar. This is not just my perspective, friends who have played against some of the top players in the world complain how some frequently have hands not within the disclosed parameters. This is just the same as the nuances you are complaining about.

Moreover even in standard systems there are highly artificial conventions. Conventions that are played subtly differently by different pairs. From some ‘natural’ pairs, rarely do you get those subtleties disclosed.

The argument is put forward as “natural” versus “artificial” to make it sound like the “naturalists” have the moral high ground but it really is “the amount of artificial we like” versus “the amount of artificial you like”.

Some people like bridge because of the inferences that you mention. Other people, perhaps like Richard, like bridge because of the communication aspect that occurs in the bidding. This aspect has at least two facets - constructively exchanging information so as to get to our sides best contract and disrupting the opponents communication. In some regards this is no different than a cunning false card. Why shouldn't all of these players be accommodated?
Sept. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Bob, Chip - I couldn't agree less!

It is totally unreasonable that system regulations should favour one method or particular style of bidding when the game has evolved with many different styles. Especially when your definitions fall so close to what you would consider standard methods. For example a 1C opening in Standard is artificial in the sense that it does not show clubs but might have long clubs. Why should this bid be exempt from your restrictions but other's bids have to satisfy those restrictions. The boundary seems arbitrary to me.

I cannot see or think of any compelling argument that a pair should be restricted from playing a method that they think, for whatever reason, gives them an advantage over another pair.

You may as well have the World Series of Bridge like baseball restricted to teams from some geographic area. If you want a real world championships then the diverse styles played around the world should all be allowed. I think we should be moving towards more permissive regulations not more restrictive regulations.
Sept. 18, 2015
Wayne Burrows edited this comment Sept. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Screens also reduced AI from your opponent's tempo. That is, the reduction in UI comes at a cost.
Sept. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
…but smaller tables.
Sept. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael Rosenberg: Screens currently only reduce the amount of UI transmitted by partner's tempo. Often you can tell who was slow, although that is not always the case. For example, I once had an auction where the tray remained on the other side a long time three rounds in a row. I assumed it was my partner who was slow however after the match she told me she bid quickly each time and the opponent who passed throughout was slow at each turn to bid.

Whilst this UI would be available and perhaps some would count that as a negative some of that negative affect would be clawed back in that if the play was recorded (by the table) electronically then there would be indisputable facts as to the extent of any hesitation. In addition there would be other benefits of determining average tempo and a profile of a players tempo.

Also we already can see partner's tempo in the play.
Sept. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I haven't seen anyone make that suggestion.”

Neither did I say that anyone had.
Sept. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There are also tactile people for whom the feel of cards in their hand is an important part of the game.

If the game transformed to an electronic environment then it is naive to think that it would appeal to precisely the same subset of people.

I think there is a real sense for some of those people that not have pasteboards in their hand does make the game not bridge even though for others it would still retain the essence of bridge.
Sept. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A better solution to record the cards played would be to have the cards recognised as they are played on the table. Bidding cards could also be recognised.

With a screen (like now or modified) the information could be electronically transmitted to partner (the other side of the screen).

I feel there should be a possibility of designing a screen where you can see both opponents but not partner as well.
Sept. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There should be a way for a screen designed so you can see both opponents but not partner. For players to play their cards and make their bids in front of them. The bidding and playing cards could be recognised by the table and the information conveyed around the table.
Sept. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think we should openly encourage analysis of all pairs as a means of prevention not accusation.
Sept. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Any such action would potentially imply a public accusation of a pair…”

I do not think that a public accusation that someone “coughs” or “scratches” is problematic.

A full and complete description of what actually happened at a table publicly available and coded would allow anyone to look for patterns.

What I am saying is that given the videos are publicly available a transcript of the actions shown on the videos should not be considered tantamount to an accusation of cheating. However it would be a warning to any potential cheaters that their actions may be recorded and made available for public scrutiny. That public scrutiny would be a good thing in my view.
Sept. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Now if a pair suddenly and unexpectedly have a very bad tournament there will be suspicions.

Otherwise, perhaps they will quickly need to read “Card Play Technique”, Watson's “Play of the Hand” and “The Rodwell Files”.
Sept. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Debbie I have seen videoed interviews that when replayed because of cuts and edits bore no resemblance to what I witnessed when it was recorded live.
Sept. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Winners are routinely tested every time they compete at least in major events. That is there win is verified by a clean drug test. This seems analogous to verifying a bridge win by analysis of their results.
Sept. 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This seems to be the WADA policy

“According to WADA and other international standards, an athlete can be selected for testing any time and at any location.”
Sept. 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Every pair should be analysed. With drug testing they do not just test suspect pairs. You need to be tested in order to compete. I do not see why it should be different here.
Sept. 14, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top