Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Rui Marques
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Accuracy is obviously lower than (error bigger than) 0.01 inches. I measured the gaps through measuring length in pixels and comparing to length in pixels of reference features on the image, as close as possible to the measured bids as to minimize the distorting effect of different distances from the measured items to the camera lens. I didn't complete a statistical evaluation of the measurement error. My educated guess is that it is around 10% as I initially pointed to Kit. And as far as I know the measures were used exclusively as a confirmation of the visual diagnosis, they were not the basis for any evaluation. In other words, the “wide” or “narrow” diagnosis was not done on the basis of the measurements, and I did the measurements without knowing anything involving any of the bids.
As the measurements were not going to be used as primary source of information but only as confirmation, I didn't see any additional value on estimating the measurement error.
Additionally, on one of the commentaries the “1.39” measurement of a “wide” bid, was made under difficult conditions. It was a very fuzzy picture, there was the need to estimate a hidden surface, and that video, for that bid, had a very limited time frame where the bids and the reference points were in sight, so it is probably the measurement with the widest margin of error.
Kit pointed the anomaly to me, but I didn't want to measure again with a bias of knowing that the bid was classified as wide, so I left it at that.
If we could measure distances to a 0.01 inch accuracy from 720p videos, filmed at an unknown angle from the camera to the table, it would be a wonderful world indeed…
Nov. 4, 2015
Rui Marques edited this comment Nov. 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And avg- gives 40% or session average, whatever is worse. No play makes the result of the pair be calculated with one board less, or assigns the average of the other boards of the pair to this board, which is equivalent in terms of final result. On the board in question, the MPs of the other results get modified by the Neuberg formula, because there is one score less on the scoring sheet.
Nov. 2, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Avg+ is the best of 60% or the average of the session, so if you have a good session it wont cause any damage.
Nov. 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Diego is absolutely right.
Nov. 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Portugal had until the 90´s a system more or less like the USA. In the early nineties I converted and adapted the French system at the time, which is close to the current one. We have three levels (1st, 2nd, 3rd category) and 4 sublevels in each ( ). Players that stay for a certain number of years on 1st categories get “honor” rankings, which are for life. PP and PE like in France suffer a cut in the end of the calendar year.
Nov. 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Great post Roland. I would add that frequently there are more than two sides…
One thing that you wrote started me thinking about a book that I read. “People in general love to be right in something”. It is true. Being right/wrong is a favorite theme on sociology and psychology books.
The book I was referring to is "Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error “. There is a TED conference by the author, also. ”Most of us will do anything to avoid being wrong.“ It is so true!
Being Wrong was one of several books completely unrelated to bridge in a technical sense, that taught me a lot about directing, organizing, playing, ”living“ bridge. It created in me an enhanced sense of understanding of why people argue about things, the way they argue, and he reason why many can´t even envision the ”other side" of the argument… That would mean they would have to realize that they´re wrong… and realizing that we are wrong, for many people, is extremely painful.
Thank you, Richard, for making me remember about this book. I´m going to read it again.
Oct. 31, 2015
Rui Marques edited this comment Oct. 31, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And regulations are also usually different with and without screens, in different jurisdictions.
Oct. 31, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
After the call is considered as made, Law 25 takes over.
If the player mis-sees the previous call, usually his own call is intended as such and therefore, through 25B, can´t be changed, supposing the TD is called to rule on that. In the rare cases where, after mis-seeing the previous call, the player himself makes an unintended call (like trying to bid 1NT and pulling out 1♠ by slip of fingers, then 25A, until his partner makes a call, he may substitute but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought.
Oct. 31, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
(deleted, wrong thread)
Oct. 31, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In competitive taror each hand has 18 cards and man, it is hard to get used to…
Oct. 30, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I guess this is the point where it becomes blatantly evident that we can´t explain in a way as to convince you, so I deliberately give up…
Oct. 30, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
(deleted)
Oct. 30, 2015
Rui Marques edited this comment Oct. 30, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I´ll try again with two examples.
A) Declarer by accident is playing with his body turned sideways towards the next defender, in a way that the defender can see all declarer-s cards. Declarer pulls a card with the intention to play it…
B) Declarer holds the cards under the table, so that nobody can see them except him, or two feet away from the table, with the same effect. Declarer pulls a card with the intention to play it…
Same actions by declarer (only difference is the possibility of defender seeing the cards). You say, by your opinion, that the card is played in the two examples (three cases)?
Oct. 30, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is most often caused by the defender playing too fast to the trick. Let´s say that declarer has a lisp and calls for a card from dummy. Defender misunderstands and before seeing the card played, plays his card. Is it caused by declarer´s lisp or by defender´s own hasty action? When I have trouble understanding declarer I wait for the card in dummy to be played. When I see an active declarer, pulling one card after another, I wait for the card to be played, I don't go “Hey, I like this card. TD! I saw that card! He must play it…” (somebody would fire me if I did that, too…)
In your example he “felt” the card was played but he was wrong.
Oct. 30, 2015
Rui Marques edited this comment Oct. 30, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I´ll have another go at this.

Nick: Your opinion is that if defender sees the card it is played. It is not the opinion of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. When cards are “maintained in a position”, they are “maintained in a position”. If a declarer chooses for a given card a position that indicates that it is played, it is played. Other positions, well, are other positions. Showing a card to the defender (or to both defenders) doesn't make a card played.
Oct. 30, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't see what is wrong in the scenario you lay down. Defender played a card prematurely based on his own misunderstanding. We had a case (I posted it on the first humorous happenings thread) where defender (De Falco) heard declarer call a card from dummy, and played a (let´s say not very successful) card, based on his misunderstanding of what was called for, and when dummy played another card he was on “oops mode”.
Also classic is when declarer calls for “la pequeña” (the small, in spanish) and defender hears “the queen”.
Or, suppose declarer drops a card accidentally and Opponent thinks that he played it and plays.
Defender must wait for the card to be played, and must know what makes a card played. He can´t presume that declarer is going to play what he thinks declarer is going to play.
Oct. 30, 2015
Rui Marques edited this comment Oct. 30, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The other point is not to bind declarer to the same strict rules as defender´s. For a defender, if his partner could have seen the card, it is played. For a declarer, the card is played if “it looks like it has been played”. Gordon explained it perfectly. Bottom line, there is a line that, if crossed, makes the card played. It might be “if declarer releases it on the table”, but it is slightly before that, it is when “declarer puts it in a position as to indicate that it has been played”, even if he didn't release his fingers.
It is always a judgment call from the TD. Without video replay, on the doubtful cases we have to ask declarer how did he do it, ask defenders if they corroborate, come to an assessment of what we think happened and then decide. We don't always get it right, I'm sure, but in this case it is clear that the card was not played according to the current Law.
Oct. 30, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David, you can deem it a psychic call and cancel anyway, if the call and the hand don't “match” (footnote of law 17)
Oct. 29, 2015
Rui Marques edited this comment Oct. 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We had an interesting case about this law 17 in Tromso. Lets say that board 1 was played normally, then for some reason one of the players didn't put his cards back, kept them in his hand, nobody noticed and everybody started bidding board 2. After the end of the bidding, finally someone noticed. The player had passed all the time. IF we could restart the bidding again, by coincidence he would again repeat all his calls, so it seems like there would be no damage and the board could be salvaged. However, Law 17 is explicit, if the partner of the player with the wrong card has bid over a canceled call, the board must be cancelled, so we had to cancel board 2 and assign a 60/40.
Oct. 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Lets see:
“17D - A call is canceled if it is made by a player on cards that he has picked up from a wrong board.”
A little bit down on the same law,
“if offender’s LHO has called over the canceled call, the director shall award an artificial adjusted score when (…)the offender’s partner has subsequently called over the canceled call.”

This means basically that when a player calls with the wrong cards, the board is canceled with an AAS if his partner has called. So, 60 for the opponents and 40 for the pair.

17D3 - If the offender subsequently repeats his call on the board from which he mistakenly drew his cards, the director may allow that board to be played normally, but the director shall award an artificial adjusted score when offender’s call differs* from his original canceled call.

This law only refers to a call, not several calls, but in my opinion should be applied in latu sensu to try to save the board. Depending on the consequences of the unauthorized information that is flying around, the TD will frequently have to assign another 60/40.

Oct. 29, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top