Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Rui Marques
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
64C indeed leads to “assigned adjusted score”, which leads in turn to 12C1, including 12C1c (meaning that we can assign weighted scores when adjusting a revoke for equity under 64C)

“… Law 12C1c is applicable only where an assigned adjusted score is awarded under the laws”
March 9, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
WBF Laws Committee minutes,

http://worldbridge.org/Data/Sites/1/media/documents/minutes/lcmin2011veldhoven1.pdf Item 9

“In no circumstances can the application of Law 69, 70 or 71, lead to a weighted score. The law requires that “such trick” shall be transferred or not transferred as determined by the Director’s ascertainment of facts. In determining the number of tricks in a claim or concession the Director does not assign an adjusted score. A restriction applies generally that weighting under Law 12C1c is applicable only where an assigned adjusted score is awarded under the laws."

This also applies to ACs…
March 9, 2016
Rui Marques edited this comment March 9, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Also, 12C1c can NOT be used in adjudicating claims. A score must be assigned when a claim is contested, applying weights to possible outcomes is unlawful in this situation.
March 9, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
12C1c is simple to think about and apply, and players like it. I guess that because it´s a radical new approach for TDs, some get this epidermic reaction of “Yikes…” For sure, more training, publicity and examples of it are needed in ACBL-land.
One important point is to not do Riveley rulings (when assigning weights, the outcomes stemming from the irregularity must not be included). For example, a hesitation demonstrably suggests X, then (without the hesitation) X will not be included in the weights.
March 9, 2016
Rui Marques edited this comment March 9, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I am not concerned about winning local games, but rather about enjoying the experience whenever I do play.”
This is what all clubs and TDs should try to achieve: That ALL players enjoy their experience.
March 9, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Chris. I meant this poll as directed at whoever felt that in their case it was applicable. Of course, players that still play in clubs, or that migrated from online to clubs, will not have a reason to vote here (and I guess that´s also why so many “abstains” are already in)
March 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Randy, the answer is yes on all three counts. And I will bite the “make things fun for all” bullet… 12C1c actually helps to keep players happy, because when you give then x% of the time something they get the impression that they are at least partially right. One of the problems in Europe when the principle of 12C1c was introduced was that TDs would use it too much “to keep players happy”…
March 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One of the things that puzzles me from this thread is that it seems like some club directors almost take pride in directing “like they always did in their own way”, a bit like: “This is my club, I do it like this”. A club should get pride from providing players with the highest quality service possible (also in terms of directing). A high quality TD service is not “I don´t do adjustments”, or a “I do them the way I always did them”. And why can´t club TD´s learn and improve, I don´t understand. I think I am mostly struck by this attitude of “my way is my way”… Strange realities! And it is troublesome also because it points, IMO, to an active approach that leads to a disconnect between club play and the rest (regional, national, etc.)
“This is club play, my way…” Should club members settle for “club play, my way”?
March 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I always believe in “adding value to it”, much more than in “taking it at value”
March 5, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
(deleted, wrong subthread)
March 5, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peter reports the “trick” as stolen “from the british” (sic), but I would really love to trace who thought about it first.
Reminds me of the algorithm for quickly calculating matchpoints by hand on a frequency sheet, where you just add the MPs of the previous score, the frequency of that score and the frequency of the current score to get the MPs of the current score. I learned that many years ago as “originating in Sweden”, but always wondered who thought about it first…
March 4, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
12C1c is simple, and IMHO intuitive. Practical application by TDs requires understanding the implied consequences on scoring. In Europe, where it has been applied for a number of years, TDs and calculating software deal with it on a routine basis, in most cases. In ACBL-land, the rule went into effect before the necessary update of ACBLScore, meaning that for a time at least TDs need a firm understanding of how to do it for the various forms of the game.
And… any type of score is artificial, even total points. And converting to IMPs and then to VPs… Doesn´t get more artificial than that. However, within a set of rules, the TDs have to assure that the game remains enjoyable and fair for all. And they need to make sure that players trust what they do, by doing it right.
March 4, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jean-Pierre´s remark is correct, for matchpoints there is a shortcut in the calculations. It is aesthetically beautiful, and effective.
During the recent EBL Tournament Director´s Course in Prague, Peter Eidt gave a lecture about scoring where the algorithm is detailed. Lecture notes on http://www.eurobridge.org/Data/Sites/1/media/documents/courses/workshops/Prague16/Calculating%20Scores.pdf

March 4, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is part of a really old appeal write up, from the early nineties. At the table, there was a hesitation by north before the third pass. Reality check, basically
Feb. 27, 2016
Rui Marques edited this comment Feb. 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think that Ryan means that the player was playing right handed up to then and switched to left handed for the lead on board 7… Is he ambidextrous? Was he changing hands for resting the muscles after six hands? There´s not enough data.
Feb. 22, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would like to know what is for the partnership 2 2 3. And I might ask some multi players what do they think that this sequence means. And I would like to know if East showed surprise, or twitched, or oopsed, or if there was something at the table that might have made West aware of East´s mistake, before deciding…
Feb. 22, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
James, if 1 and 2 are both natural (more precisely, not artificial), then the player can substitute the 1 bid with 2, even if ranges are different.

27D might have to be applied:

“… if the Director judges at the end of the play that without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different and in consequence the non-offending side is damaged (…) he shall award an adjusted score. In his adjustment he should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid not occurred”.
Feb. 18, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Under law 27. OP didnt seem to be dealing with an unintended bid. If the Unintended bid can be substituted under the conditions of 25A1, there is no acceptance option. I assumed we were talking about 27
Feb. 17, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, you can always accept the ib. Like with many other infractions.
Feb. 17, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Debbie, i understood. But after seeing many times tds misapplying the lead out of turn law, the call out of rotation, the penalty card, the revoke law, etc., etc., i dont think the solution is to say that the laws are too complicated. The solution is better training of tds. Not just on the code itself, but on proper technique. Law 27 might be simpler, or more complicated. It is what it is. Some laws will always be harder than others, and the options and philosophy that they embrace are often a matter of opinion. I just meant that law 27 is not as hard as it seems, at least after one converts it into a simpler mental construction. Straight from the book, yes, it is difficult to apply. Reading it directly to players is a nightmare…
Feb. 17, 2016
Rui Marques edited this comment Feb. 17, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top