Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Paul Gibbons
1 2 3 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I assume 3 spades was slow. Yes West should have bid 4 straight away and given up on a slam but only TDs will think pass is an LA here.
March 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John, I think you will find there is an ocean of difference between the way you use ‘insure’ and the way most of the posters on this site do.
March 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In England teams in the past have often been selected by committee and recent trials formats have not been without controversy but it seems we are now committed to trials. From the latest draft minutes of the EBU Selection Committee here is the current position.

EBU TRIALS 2019-2020
The EBU Selection Committee has undertaken to hold trials for all international events, and we have agreed dates and the provisional format for trials to select the England teams for the European Championships and the Olympiad in 2020. More information will be supplied once applications for these trials are open.
Proposed Formats
These formats are provisional and may be amended should entries be more or less than anticipated.
For series that are played at the same time (Open, Women and Senior Europeans; and all events in the Olympiad) players who qualify for an event will not be accepted into trials for later events. We will be flexible with closing dates and with changes to pairs/teams as a result of this. Full conditions of contest will be published as soon as is practicable.
European Championship Open Team – Pairs Trial
Stage 1: 3 day qualifier, open to all.
Stage 2: 3 day 16 pair semi-final (with a number of pairs exempted directly to this stage).
Stage 3: 4 day 8 pair final (with a number of pairs exempted directly to this stage).
European Championship Women’s Team – Pairs Trial
Stage 1: 3 day qualifier, open to all.
Stage 2: 4 day 8 pair final (with a number of pairs exempted directly to this stage).
European Championship Mixed and Senior Teams & Olympiad Open / Women / Senior / Mixed Teams – Team Trials
(Please note that the EBU does not fund teams in these events, other than to pay entry fees and provide uniform)
Single events, open to all.
If 2 teams enter then 2 day KO only.
If 3 teams enter then 2 day round robin followed by 2 day 2 team KO.
If 4 to 8 teams enter then 3 day round robin followed by 2 day 2 team KO.
If 9 or more teams enter then 3 day round robin followed by 2 day 4 team KO.
Dec. 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Phillips appears to have written in the ‘News Chronicle’ on bridge as ‘Ninespot’ and on other subjects as ‘Dogberry’ as well as writing the anonymous leading articles. So he was no stranger to the use of pseudonyms but I have no evidence about ‘Petronius’
Sept. 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My earliest copy of ‘Contract Bridge in 20 minutes’ gives the following dates for the early editions:
1st Dec 1930
2nd Jan 1931
3rd Feb 1931
4th Apr 1931
5th Aug 1931
6th Nov 1931
7th Nov 1931
8th Feb 1932
9th Feb 1932

It also carries an advertisement for ‘Advanced Contract Bridge Simplified’ saying it is ‘Now Ready’ presumably in Feb 1932.

I also have the 1954 Edition where some 15 pages have been added to the 1949 edition.

Thorne also wrote ‘The Contract Bridge Omnibus’ published in 1933.

Subsequent revised editions were published in 1935, 1936 and 1939.
This 4th Edition was entitled ‘Thorne’s Complete Contract Bridge' and was revised by ‘Petronius’. Perhaps Ken can enlighten us as to his/her real name. I am not sure if he/she was also responsible for the earlier revisions.

There was apparently a 5th Edition after the war ‘revised and rewritten’ by Hubert Phillips.

It is interesting that Reese apparently described it as ‘An all-round book and a good one’. His opinion of Phillips was that ‘Cards were something of a blind spot for him’ and if as Richard says he thought Thorne never played bridge it was a surprising generous review although he did collaborate quite extensively with Phillips.
Sept. 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
DB your complete sentence was ‘I don’t need no stinking regulation, Andy.' Andy Bowles referred to White Book 1.4.5.2.

Minute 5.2 of the Laws and Ethics Committee meeting of 27/05/15 suggests that you were to write this paragraph of the White Book. Perhaps you could confirm whether you did write it? Or was it someone else based on your report to the meeting of the Committee on 21/01/15 as chunks of it are direct quotes from that report?

As I have said above your report and that paragraph were written under the 2007 Laws. Your argument that the 2017 Laws are more in support of the approach you suggest here has some justification. However if you are interested in winning the argument rather than scoring points you need to address the arguments of:

1. Those who are concerned about the effect of putting off inexperienced players, who are more likely to misbid, by adjusting for unfielded misbids.

2. My argument that if we do not adjust for psyches which are not fielded you will make life very difficult for the TD if you want to adjust for misbids which are not fielded.

Finally, as we have elected you to be one of the publishers of the White Book, are you going to propose changes to 1.4.5?
Aug. 13, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is of course interesting that the ‘stinking regulation’ to which DB refers was, according to the minutes of the EBU Laws and Ethics Committee in 2015, drafted by one David Burn.

It is fair to note as DB does that the Laws have changed since the regulation was written. However the minutes of the Laws and Ethics Committee (of which DB is still a member) reveal no suggestion either last year or this of amending this regulation.

There is a sound reason why a ruling in the manner DB suggests should, as that regulation suggests, only be given where the player who has given explanation X caters for partner actually having Y. Consider what would happen if afterwards the original bidder said, ‘I didn’t misbid I psyched'. Now in accordance with the laws if his partner has not fielded it, it has not by repetition become an agreement and there is evidence that the agreement is X then we would not adjust.

I feel that we should, as far as possible, avoid creating situations where the TD has to delve into the mind of a player. If player explains a bid as X and acts as if it is X, there is evidence that the agreement is X and it has never been Y before and his partner does not act on UI then I do not think there are grounds for adjustment. However the Laws and Ethics Committee will next be meeting on 24th October when if they wished they could clarify the matter.
Aug. 13, 2018
Paul Gibbons edited this comment Aug. 13, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On the version of Funbridge on my phone and on my PC there are icons at the bottom of the screen. The rightmost of these is like an old TV set and this takes you to Vugraph.
Aug. 9, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Firstly we need to determine what the North/South agreements are. If the correct explanation is ‘no agreement’ then there has been misinformation and the TD may award an adjusted score if the non-offending side has been damaged. However there is also unauthorised information as North knows how South has interpreted his bid and we need to consider whether bidding 5 was suggested by the unauthorised information and if it was whether there was a logical alternative. This can require investigation and polling by the TD so I have voted ‘other’.
July 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ed. Of course according to George Orwell ‘Airstrip One’ is part of Oceania not Eurasia
June 26, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If the event is using pre-dealt boards the hand records can be loaded into the bridgemate control program and the bridgemates set to check that the opening lead card is actually in the hand making the opening lead. If it is not the bridgemate does not accept the score and so the scores at other tables are not revealed. This stops 75% of such problems. Of course it does mean that the TD gets calls saying. ‘The bridgemate is wrong the 2 is in my hand’ before the TD points out they played the boards out of order. If he/she mentions that both pairs would have got 40% if the bridgemate hadn't stopped them they may be so relieved that when they play the next board they don't notice that they know that one of the hands does not hold the 2 and thereby save the director making a ruling under Law 16D.
June 26, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is not a surprise.

There is also a BW thread after the appeal.

https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/phil-ivey-loses-his-appeal/

If you read my post there (repeated below for convenience) you will see that Phil Ivey was unlucky. It appears that he was allowed to waste his money on an appeal to the Supreme Court not because the judges thought his appeal had any merit (they pretty much just repeated the reasoning of the lower court in rejecting it) but because they wanted a case which they could use to overturn R v Ghosh.


“Whilst the discussions above are what is probably of most interest to bridge players there is also a fascinating insight into the UK legal system. This is a civil case which is governed by the law of England and Wales but the Supreme Court has used it to change the criminal law in the UK. What the justices needed to do find against Phil Ivey is contained in the early pages of the judgement and is certainly virtually complete by Page 17. If you watch the video of the judgement being delivered this is where the speech ends. The remaining 11 pages are about overturning the test for criminal dishonesty established in R v Ghosh. It is obvious from the text that the Supreme Court Justices think that the subjective element of the test is very undesirable and is allowing defendants who ought to be convicted to be let off. It is also clear that they have been looking for several years for a criminal case to come before them where they could overturn this test but none has. They have therefore used the opportunity of this civil case to change the test for what constitutes dishonesty in criminal cases in the UK. Contrary to David B above, I don't think this part of the judgement is well written. The R v Ghosh test may not have been a good one but at least could be explained fairly easily to a jury. I would hate to be the first judge who has to try to explain the new test set out here to a jury. However perhaps the last 11 pages are so tangential to the case that they might be regarded as obiter dicta and not set a precedent but I suspect the wishes of the justices are not to be denied”
June 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
An even more positive person might mention that they lost in the semi-final by 1 IMP, that the England Women's team regularly make the final of the Venice Cup and that England is one of only 3 countries to win the d'Orsi World Seniors
June 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As I think you now realise Geoff It is illegal because Law 12C1 says inter alia

(b) The Director in awarding an assigned adjusted
score should seek to recover as nearly as possible
the probable outcome of the board had the
infraction not occurred.
© An assigned adjusted score may be weighted to
reflect the probabilities of a number of potential
results, but only outcomes that could have been
achieved in a legal manner may be included.

So awarding the NOS the maximum score they might have got is contrary to the Laws of Bridge
June 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Swiss Teams Scorer or EBUScore Swiss Teams have this as one of the options you can select. Only an odd number of teams causes a problem requiring extra bridgemates.
June 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bud et all. Please take look at the ‘Australian’ style swiss teams mentioned by Robin Barker above which is now almost universal in England where swiss teams is played using pre-duplicated boards. It really does make the board movement simple.
June 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve in both of your last posts you have got the laws wrong. In most of the world the 2007 and 2017 laws were virtually identical in this area mandating the awarding of a fair score which rectified damage and which might be weighted.

However the 2007 Laws had an option which allowed the ACBL (I am not aware that any other NBO used this option) to apply a formula rather than work out a fair result.

By 2017 the WBF, presumably with the agreement of the ACBL, decided that the ACBL would do what the rest of the world had been doing successfully for 10 years and award a fair result which undid the damage done to the non-offending side.

In regard to your post regarding Boye and NotBoye. If the the UI suggests bidding on over passing and bidding on is more successful then we poll to see if pass was a logical alternative. If without the UI 50% pass and 50% bid then pass was a logical alternative and we award the score which would have been obtained if the player had passed. It is in determining this score that a weighted score might be used. For example if the number of tricks made in the obvious contract which resulted from passing depended of the opening lead which was not obvious or if the auction might then have continued in different ways we may award a weighted score. Clearly this cannot be an exact science and I think most directors might err on the side of the non-offending side in the weightings awarded.
June 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is a much more recent example than those Richard has mentioned. A pair in the England team which came 4th in the Europeans in Ireland in 2012 was not selected for the Bermuda Bowl in 2013. It is true that there was a late substitution of a pair in the team for the Europeans but the pair not selected was one of the original selections for that event not the substitutes.

I do not know the circumstances or reasons for this decision so I have no idea whether it was good or bad, just that there is recent precedent for changing a team between the two events.

I do know that the selectors have a thankless task and that failure will be their fault and success down to the players.
June 17, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If your partner had alerted 3 and when asked explained it as a mixed raise and is game invitational for spades and then bid 3 would you pass if yes why would you not pass without the alert. If no why are you inviting instead of just bidding game?
June 12, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I rarely agree with Ian but the statement “some of us believe the east hand should never be passed in 3rd seat” implies that the partnership has an agreement to open that hand in 3rd seat. As Ian says in most parts of the world such an agreement is not allowed and an adjusted score should be awarded.
June 12, 2018
1 2 3 4
.

Bottom Home Top