Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Rui Marques
1 2 3 4 ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
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
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
From a beautiful lecture by Ton Kooijman, THIS is a major major major penalty card…
Quoting:
“Some fifteen years ago in India the following happened:
South was declarer in 6NT and when dummy opened he saw something like:
♠KJ108 ♥AJ10 ♦KQJ5 ♣104 with ♠AQ9 ♥KQ83 ♦A872 ♣QJ in his own hand. The lead had been ♣A. A fast count showed that he would be at least 4 off. And then he saw RHO playing a small spade and had to rectify the count to 8 off. He couldn’t believe it and out of disgust asked RHO: ‘no clubs?’ RHO had four clubs…”
What a time for a penalty card hein?
Feb. 26, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is very difficult to comment on any of the actions at the table, because facts are incomplete. What was NS system over multi? What was the level of the players? Was the TD called? What did North say? What did South say? Were the break in tempos established? What did the TD decide?

You are just giving the facts like you perceived them, and your interpretation… Should we agree with your interpretation? I think that´s irrelevant, without the complete facts
Feb. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I´ll miss him too, a lot. I learned a lot from him. And we had some good and fun moments together. Like many of us. He was one of those persons that impacted positively everybody around him.
Jan. 9, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The movement limitations of ACBLScore always struck me as odd. But concerning the main question, I used to manage clubs where we kept running into those problems. But when we started running Howells with only one stationary pair, answering “impossible, we have only one stationary pair” solved 95% of the issues. When we really really really had someone in dire needs of an extra stat in the Howell, we would set up an extra table and “move” in place of the extra stat pair a “personal guide card” with instructions to the “other” pair that included taking the bridgemate with them. Not ideal, but players got used to it. The main point was that once players knew there were no extra stationaries, they would not bother asking for them.
And a little nicety on the way of denying the requests, for example pointing to the benefits of moving instead of sitting for four hours, usually helped keeping everybody happy.
Dec. 25, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I meant perfect my solution (double weave Mitchell). In one of my clubs I used to have eight tables frequently and used it all the time for 24 boards, players liked it a lot also.
Aug. 22, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For 8 tables the moment above is perfect, no need for extra sets
Aug. 22, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Can you produce more sets or imitation is a total of two sets?
Aug. 22, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
8 tables, double weave Mitchell. 2 boards per table. NS Stays. EW odd numbered pairs go up, and move boards down. EW even numbered pairs go down, and boards go up. After four rounds, boards go up or down four tables. Complete movement (8 rounds).
Aug. 22, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think however that the most important aspect of duplicated boards for swiss 7-board rounds is the very much enhanced “sociability” of the event. You can discuss the boards with other guys from other teams, you can have hand records, you have a much higher perception of fairness because “everybody had the same cards”, even in terms of outside media reporting. The game appears to be much more skill based than luck based with duplicated boards (not saying that it is, just that it appears to be for an outsider)
Aug. 8, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Using your own methods, Henry, but refining them to the point of analysing each BOARD instead of each SET or MATCH, you will come easily to the conclusion that different boards produce wildly different number of IMPS on average. After a quick inspection of some of the scoresheets per board from the Last BBowl makes me think the extreme average number of IMPs on a given board will be roughly something between 0.2 and 5.0. Didnt do an extensive calculation. Now… If a given board can produce 0.2 imps on average, get a set of boards like that for a match, and a set of 5-IMP-on-average boards, and you will get wildly different (on average) matches, in terms of the potential for swings. So, I think calculating the average imps not per random match but per board proves that there can be swingy or flatty matches, IMHO.
Aug. 8, 2014
Rui Marques edited this comment Aug. 8, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My initial scenario was meant to prompt the discussion about a rule for conceding, just that. I didn't have collusion issues in mind, sorry. I agree, the extreme setup proposed goes into that, but the main issue is a rule (that will also prevent collusion in the way described)
Aug. 1, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That´s exactly what I wanted to show, that there should be a clear rule, based on difference after X boards, and barred medical and other force majeure reasons, to allow / disallow a team to withdraw from a KO.
Aug. 1, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is an extreme example, of course, but used to illustrate a grey area on the COCs. It is acceptable that a team can withdraw after three segments, down 80 ok. 70 ok. 60 ok. 50? 40? 30? Where do we draw the line? Or how to draw the line in the best interest of bridge and of the players?
Aug. 1, 2014
1 2 3 4 ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
.

Bottom Home Top