Join Bridge Winners

Bridge Winners Profile for Gordon Rainsford

Gordon Rainsford
Gordon Rainsford
  • 3
  • 23
  • 14
  • 0

Basic Information

Member Since
Oct. 30, 2013
Last Seen
7 hours ago
Member Type
Bridge Director
about me

I'm the Chief TD and Chief Executive of the EBU as well as an EBL & WBF Tournament Director, but my social media posts are usually my own opinions and don't necessarily reflect the official policy of either the EBU, the EBL or the WBF.

United Kingdom

Bridge Information

ACBL Ranking
Sorry, this user has no cards yet.
You call the Director. You get a ruling
No, I'm afraid I don't.
You call the Director. You get a ruling
Shawn, that used to be an option in these situations, to allow a substitute to play, and it was a helpful option for club play but it was removed in the 2007 laws. The final two remaining parts of that law are those that your TD seems to have applied ...
You call the Director. You get a ruling
Michael R, what do you mean "absent any new information"? You have asked the question absent *any* meaningful information.
procedural penalty
I had no idea this was not universal - I even used it in my reply above!
procedural penalty
It's a quarter of the maximum number of matchpoints available on a board. Using American methods, the top for an 21-table game would be 20 matchpoints so a 1/4 top PP would be 5 matchpoints. In other parts of the world these numbers would be doubled, but with ...
Ethics applied to a playing director
Your post, to which I was replying, referred to "assigned adjusted scores".
Time to simplify the laws?
"Designating the precise card is no harder than saying “small”". Perhaps not, but it does provide a lot more extraneous information to nearby tables.
Ethics applied to a playing director
I know we've had this discussion before, Aviv, but your approach is simply contrary to law. But in the past we were talking of artificial scores; here you see to be extending it to assigned scores.
Does it matter how many points the opponents show?
Ask the players you poll whether they would be more likely to bid 2S with one explanation than with the other. Assess how strongly you think the player believes their own claim - was it "I might have" or "I would always"? And weight generously towards the non-offending side.
Does it matter how many points the opponents show?
Putting a space between each card is a fairly good solution, as noted by the other Gordon above.

Bottom Home Top