Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Larkin
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yep. If you read my comment you will see I employ these points…thus the 5c bid only becoming an irregularity once you have decided it is indeed an infraction.
Oct. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
wrong time…
Oct. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
DC: I am not sure the 5c bid is the “irregularity” per se. The irregularity is the misbid/misinformation event… then I suppose it comes to a judgement call on the 5c (… though, if that becomes an infraction, maybe then it's an irregularity… pah)
Oct. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not if he just happens to be there, I would have thought.
Oct. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
ND: I am surprised you wish to throw away the information given by an assessment of ability from 0-100% on any one board by converting to a simple 0-0.5-1 result. The apparent analogy to chess falls through, surely, as you are actually comparing yourself with all opponents sitting your way. Are you wishing to reduce your comparison with them to 74% being equal to 26%? Seems unhelpful.
When I ran an Elo-type system 20 years ago at the local club, I used overall % score in tournaments, taking into account the grading of the others playing the same direction. It quite quickly gave some workable information, and a grading “league table”. A board by board comparison might do so extremely quickly.
MC: Two points re chess enthusiasts.
CHess is a less “sociable” game than bridge - though chess players are paradoxically often more sociable than bridge players.
To some extent, gradings do indeed make chess less enjoyable. Players become obsessed by them. A hard-fought draw against someone graded lower than you could be an enjoyable experience. But the knowledge that your grading has suffered takes away from that. Indeed, the spectre of playing someone graded much lower, giving you a “no-win” situation, can spoil the anticipation of playing a game you are supposed to enjoy.

As I mention above, it might not take that many tournaments to give reasonable grading estimates. It could be done such that only some tournaments are graded. E.g. Clubs could just send one tournament per week to the Grading organisers. Meantime all major tournaments would be graded, and the overlapping presence of club players at those, and high-fliers at clubs would soon give an overall league-table of those interested in having a grading.
Oct. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Can't deny “new book” is an unusual description of a 2007 publication.
Oct. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
…and for pointing out this was 12 years ago…
Oct. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What the commentators might learn here is that if someone asks you to detest something, then do not try to make any attempt at a thoughtful approach.
Oct. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
DB: “He has been known to false-card, but not here as I've got the - DAMMIT!”

(With apologies for screaming)
Oct. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
GC: I hope you get the chance to see your comment again, starting with almost apologetic “as an aside” placed under the subthread above.
Oct. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Certainly should have kept it from all of the sharks here…
Oct. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mind you… usually purveyors of the SST would normally pride themselves on using other syntactical devices to achieve their preferred emphasis, rather than relying on capitals or italics.
Oct. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
JN: you didn't have to mention….
Oct. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What marks this comment from the rest, for me, is that I never see any of that behaviour.
Or maybe I don't notice.
Oct. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
DL: It's in the page “2017 Laws of Duplicate Bridge” re the shall-must stuff.
However, this distinction is very often quoted here, and is, I believe, something that needs fixing more than many of the “comparable calls” etc. problems that are lamented here.
It is a generalisation that simply does not work - and I agree with DL's analogy of court workings. THere are many things to be taken into consideration before a penalty ‘more often’ than “more often than not” is given for a failure to must-do something.

As an example, Law 10 C 2:
“If a player has an option after an irregularity, he must make his selection without consulting partner”.
This “must” is just emphasising that if partner does speak, then the decision is illegal, and other manoeuvres will be required.
It does not suggest that any ingenue who proffers an opinion should be given a procedural penalty, or indeed that his partner should, now that it has made impossible for him to carry out the instruction. I am sure the rulemakers made major efforts to go through
the laws and make this generalisation work, but every now and then the properuse of normal English to best describe what they mean foils their own efforts.

The same is true of shoulds and shalls and doeses.
IMO The “serious matter indeed” phrase is kinda ridiculous.
Oct. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Has anyone suggested that you ask declarer what he has, to help you narrow it down?
Oct. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Oddly, this may reflect a subtle difference between the question asked at the end, and the question in the title.
Oct. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But if you keep watching the tally, waiting for an instance… what are chances it will NEVER be the same if results are close? OTherwise early leader will win.
Oct. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Your third paragraph, I believe, comes close to a great reply.
Just keep it at “.. but now you've asked that question…?…”
You have no agreement to adapt your style, you are simply pointing out a possibility.
Oct. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
FH: In possible answer to your question above, I believe the part of the Law that that MAY not apply is “special information” as I feel half of this thread may be taking a slightly extrapolated view of its meaning.
Oct. 21
.

Bottom Home Top