Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Rui Marques
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Other organizations that have videos available should try to make them public. And also, whenever there´s VuG, plans should be made to follow the same procedure, VuG and video published whenever possible. The costs are marginal, namely for the “cheaper setup” of just having the two feeds separate on BBO and on YouTube. And it will also be a big deterrent for wannabes.
Sept. 26, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just imagine, Hanan and Uri, being on those teams and seeing a post like this.
Sept. 26, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
* i have no idea if it's true or not. *… So what´s the point? What does it accomplish?
Sept. 26, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can make a video recording on how to use Firefox/Download Helper, VLC, or other parts of the setup, if requested
Sept. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On a Windows computer, my setup for downloading videos is:

1 - Use Mozilla Firefox
2 - Install the Video Download Helper add-on (free)

After this, whenever you see a video on your screen, a little button on the top right of the screen enables you to download it to your computer (if the video is available in more than one resolution, you can choose).

After that,
3 - Use VLC media player to review the video file stored now on your computer.

I use this app because its free and with it you can slow down (usually not needed with Bridge) or speed up a video (two hours 20% faster saves you almost half an hour)

I also use a screen capture app to capture small areas (Snagit), but there are scores of others, and GIMP 2 (free) to manipulate images (like for example if you want to discover what is the card played on video, and the image is not clear, often by manipulating color levels or other effects you can pop the information out of the blurred image and back to life). I bit like CSI…
Sept. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bridge Base had a software (I think they still distribute it) that enabled the creation of bridge movies, with alternative lines, commentary, etc. http://bbi.bridgebase.com/cgi-bin/store/commerce.cgi. I´m not sure what´s the current status, check with Sheri or Uday?
Sept. 11, 2015
Rui Marques edited this comment Sept. 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dan: A valid point. That's why the TD should be careful.
Ed: First approach fine (also in light of Dan´s comment), second approach I think not. Don't shove the law on the table, dry and opaque. That just confuses players and gives a big advantage to the players that already know the law(s).
Sept. 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Arline: When I run a game requiring a skip and I announce it, there is always a few pairs who don't get the message.

Try to go to each table and tell each ew pair that the next move is a skip move. You will notice that the number of misses is dramatically lower (none, most often)
Sept. 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is not easy to apply, I agree. But to say that it is almost impossible…

It is almost impossible to apply correctly if the TD doesn't take the player away from the table to filter out the appropriate part of 27 to use, and if he doesn't understand the 27 as a whole.
Sept. 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The modifications on law 27 (insufficient bid), back in 2007, were made with the intent of enabling as much as possible normal bridge after the insufficient bid. Before 2007 you could not change an insufficient bid to a double. Now, as some above (and correctly) pointed out, you CAN. The second call has to have the same or a more precise meaning. This means that the TD has to take the player out of the table (in order to not create additional information himself) and ask the player what did (s)he intend with 5D, and what would be her system choices after opponent bids 5D. From then on, player returns to the table, TD makes a decision on what part(s) of 27 apply, and states the ruling.

Important points here:
a) Law 27 is frequently misapplied on this specific point
b) Take the player out of the table to understand the possible choices (s)he would have
c) Decide on the ruling and the wording, no need to go through irrelevant points of the law
d) Don't read the law as a whole, it may be very confusing.
e) Be SURE player understood before letting s(he) proceed

So: Come with me please. Why did u bid 5D? Because I was showing 1 ace and didn't see the opponent´s bid. Now, when partner bids 4NT and opponent bid 5D, do you have any way to show aces?
1. No 2. Yes, Pass is 1 ace
1. You can change to any bid but partner must pass until the end of the auction
2. You can change to Pass and bidding continues, you can change to something else except DBL and partner is barred from the auction

I don't think TDs should give the ruling as “now, if you have available a call that has the same or a more specific meaning than the 5D bid, you can do it, and bidding proceeds naturally, otherwise because 5D was conventional you can not double, but you can choose any other call and partner will have to pass for the remainder of the auction”. THIS gets confusing to players.

Sept. 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A TD should ALWAYS make sure the players understand the relevant laws and what is expected of them, making sure that the players comply with requirements, limitations, prohibitions, etc. I often see extremely incomplete approaches, like “Do you accept the lead?”, or “It´s a major penalty card”, or similar stuff. Maybe the TD is running around like a busy bee. Maybe because it´s just his (wrong) way. Maybe he thinks that the player knows the unsaid stuff. Anyway, it is the wrong way to proceed.

I give a different example: A player has a major penalty card. TD explains the options, play continues and player will have to play the penalty card at the first legal opportunity. The TD should make sure that the player understands “at the first legal opportunity”. And, also, should make sure that the player doesn't slip, creating another penalty card. That´s what I call “proactive customer service” to the players.
Sept. 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The failure to alert is UI for partner and MI for the opponents. Like Peg Kaplan and others say, it should be corrected at the first legal opportunity (end of auction) - after calling the TD as per ACBL regulations, I believe. The odd mannerism of the opponent is UI for his partner. TD should be called at the end of play, but calling before is not an infraction (law 16). So if the declaring side calls the TD to correct the explanation they could probably bundle all the issues in one call.
Sept. 9, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As a mathematician also, I would say that for the “equation” to be true the units of measurement on both sides must be the same, you can´t equal miles and pounds, just like you can´t say that (bid) = (number of cards).
Aug. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The trend with the Laws has been (even before 2007) more and more to restore equity and less and less, like Jacobs expressed, to get them hung drawn and quartered. Which is a good principle.
Aug. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But to start with, was the TD satisfied that 1NT is incontrovertibly not artificial? Or, for example, did the 1NT bidder say oops, I didn't notice the 2H bid? I don't think that the 1NT bid is incontrovertibly not artificial (but it might have been the case).
Aug. 8, 2015
Rui Marques edited this comment Aug. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is a great point John. But even prior to that, getting the facts right is the watermark of a (potentially) great TD. The problem with less experienced TDs is often that they “know” the laws back and forth, they can quote accurately each paragraph, but they just don't get the facts right, for several different reasons.

In the case that started this thread, it is not completely clear that the TD got the facts right. My guess is that 1NT is not incontrovertibly natural.
Aug. 8, 2015
Rui Marques edited this comment Aug. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Early morning “slip of tongue”… Where I wrote conventional I meant artificial, of course
Aug. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You got it right and wrong, Ed. Yes, on high level events the EBL, the WBF and some European countries ditched the AC. On EBL and WBF events, it is a review process and not an appeal process. Every decision is made after consulting with fellow TDs, and if the case involves bridge judgment matters, polling players. The review process ascertains that the correct procedures were followed and that the decision is a reasonable one given the facts and the opinion of the polled players. This procedure has been received very favorably by the vast majority of players, and is in place for some years now.
Aug. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe there are missing facts in the original post, but I would have some trouble getting convinced that 1NT was *incontrovertibly* not artificial. Often the player bids 1NT because he didn't see the overcall. On this auction: 1 Pass 1NT, playing forcing NT, for example, it is conventional. So, unless the director determined that 1NT is *incontrovertibly* not artificial…
Aug. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was surprised with the number of duplication accidents on this event. Goldberg and Moss had to play 8 extra boards in the semi finals because of a duplication error that affected the second half of the second 16-board segment - hands were all different - then on Goldberg-Narasimhan one of the boards came with EW reversed in one of the supplicates (!) and then hand records for one segment were out too soon…

I was quite involved in preparing operacional procedures and security standards for duplicators, somewhere else, and I recognize the typical accidents and why they happen. These accidents, which are typical, point to a need to upgrade the procedures used.

April 19, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top