Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Rui Marques
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
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David, if the player intended one heart as an opening, the transfer is not more precise because it has a far wider range. From a length-perspective only, four+ includes five+
Feb. 17, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Debbie, the core of 27 is easy. If the insufficient bid was intended as nat and the lowest available bid on the same suit is nat, player can choose it and bidding continues. If player has an available bid with the same or more precise meaning, player can choose it. All others, partner is barred. It just needs that the td talks with the player away from the table, he doesnt need to explain all the intricacies at the table, just whatever applies after talking with the player. But i agree that it looks like a difficult law, and it was one of the major changes from the previous edition.

The more worrying problem is that tds “forget” to apply law 26 or 23 too often, unfortunately
Feb. 17, 2016
Rui Marques edited this comment Feb. 17, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Proper technique from the td for dealing with 27 is different from what it was with the previous edition of the Laws. The problem is that many tds didnt adapt to it and dont think it through and just label law 27 as very difficult. It is not difficult, but it requires that the td understands the proper technique to use while ruling on it.
Feb. 17, 2016
Rui Marques edited this comment Feb. 17, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Rolf, the OP original text doesnt seem to point to an unintended call. But if RHO (not LHO) intended to bid 2h and there was no pause for thought from him, law 25 could be on. And i am aware of the strange “pause for thought” expression. We will have to live with it for another year or so.
Feb. 17, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Do a) with the player away from the table, of course.
Feb. 17, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Many Directors give the Options without explaining the consequences and that Is terribly wrong. Players need to know the ifs and if nots before any choices are given. So, TD should have said what would happen in each possible case, filtering the information according to what he learned from he 1h bidder (see my post below). Then, and only then, “do you accept the bid?”
Feb. 17, 2016
Rui Marques edited this comment Feb. 17, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A) Establish with the player what he meant with 1h, and what is the meaning of the available bids.
B) if 1h and 2h are both nat, if he bids 2h, bidding continues.
C) If there is a call available that shows the same or something more precise as 1h, the player can choose that call and bidding continues, or he can bid something else and partner is barred from the auction. Lead restrictions of law 23 may apply in this case, and law 23 (enforced pass damaging opponents) also.
TD must explain these possibilities before the “do you accept the bid” offer to the next player
Feb. 17, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Was there a BIT? Yes
What logical alternative(s) does the BIT suggest?…
Does the BIT convey any (additional, useful) information?
It does not look like the BIT conveys any additional information or suggest any of the alternatives.
Feb. 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am not commentating on the merits of each of the examples presented, just addressing the generic problem. Sometimes a “clear and evident” case is not that clear, and the solution may be different from the “obvious” one.
Feb. 8, 2016
Rui Marques edited this comment Feb. 8, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I never directed in an american club, but I can share a bit of my experience in Europe. The club I used to manage had tournaments twice a week, like another neighboring club (other dates were usually reserved for national and regional tournaments). On those two days each week, the tournaments were held at exactly the same time (I know, not the best of ideas). So, rivalry was intense. I was directing “with the full book” (as I always did and do) and, at the time, doing a number of other things that were “new in town”, like barometers, swiss pairs, XIMPs, and others, and people kept coming to my club to the point that sometimes the other club would not be able to start the tournament and players would just hop into ours! Part of the attendance surge was due to all the new things, but part was also due to the directing. Every single player would say that I always ruled against him. But every single player would come back, because he knew that I was impartial and, as best as I could, fair. Directing to “keep players happy” doesn´t work. I wrote a little text on BW some time ago about it, and it is the worst way to handle players in a club. For the “protegees”, lets put it this way, it creates bad habits, making it very difficult to stop, and for the others it creates the kind of feelings that John so well expressed. It does not work. Unfortunately TDs and club managers think that it does. TDs must treat players fairly. All players. Directing fairly and in a technically correct manner keeps players happier in the long term. What can be done to improve the situation? One of the things that I´m sure would lead to improvements in this area, would be training and coaching on the human side of directing, the handling of people, the emotional and social intelligence component of TDing. A good TD has developed a number of critical competences, some related to the Laws, others related to movements and to scoring, others related to organizational skills, but probably the most important are these two: Social and Emotional Intelligence. And I think that it is time for organizations that want to improve the standards of TDing to invest in these areas. The job specification for a “TD” is nothing special. But to be a good TD, it´s an entirely different ball game, and my impression is that organizations sometimes concentrate on having TDs, and forget that they need them to be good…
Feb. 8, 2016
Rui Marques edited this comment Feb. 8, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is an argument for a split score.

a) If a pair is sophisticated enough to have specific NT defenses to specific NT ranges, they should ask before the match starts about the ranges, falling into the “should protect themselves”. No redress in that case.
b) If by regulation the NT ranges should be alerted behind screens, in evidence on the System Summary, etc., and they are not, NS should get penalized.

If the argument is valid, being a KO,

c) Calculate the score of each team with the decision applied, and average both scores.
Dec. 31, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My apologies too for taking it so seriously, but it was a good help for making an important point about TD´s performance improvement
Dec. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just a thought provoking point: Are we thinking about “possible alternatives” or “logical alternatives”? Between possible alternatives that I can value at 70% and 30% chance of being successful, will I ever choose a 30% one? Will it be logical? Is this one, that I seriously consider but *never* choose, a logical alternative? 60/40? 55/45?

Of course, one of the limitations of the polling procedure is the finite and small size of the sample polled, but that is another question
Dec. 12, 2015
Rui Marques edited this comment Dec. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In other words: I want a TD that can come forward (be it personally or through email, BW, Skype, BBO, whatever) and says: “I am not sure it I got this one right”. I don't want a TD that is afraid of doing that.
Dec. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I find it a really, really bad idea. It goes against all the concepts of learning. Instead of shaming a mistake, one should try to *learn* from the mistake. I´ve made many mistakes myself, but the first thing I do after realizing I made one is to identify the why (why I made the mistake) and the how (how it came to happen). Then I change whatever I need to change to assure that it won´t happen again, or to minimize the probability of it happening again. “Shaming” directors for their mistakes only increases the tendency to hide them, not to learn from them.
You see this process in other areas, related to performance management and evaluation. When the focus is set on “mistakes are bad, punish the culprits”, the number of reported errors is dramatically lower than when the focus is “mistakes happen, lets learn from them and not repeat them”.
Let´s create an environment where TDs, players, organizers, are happy to come forward and ask questions. May them be about mistakes made or not, about cases derived from other cases, about anything, and let´s all learn with the mistakes, the questions, the answers, the collective mind. Let´s not make a wall of shame…
Dec. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Two sections, different boards, one ranking….
Dec. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I used it extensively in one of my clubs, for 8 tables (3 boards per round) and 12 tables (2 boards per round). Players get used to it quickly and the number of movement errors is minimum or non-existant. It´s the “perfect” Mitchell …
Dec. 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
12 tables check out the double weave Mitchell, you get to play 12 rds of 2 bds, no shares, 12 sets in play.
Dec. 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“The director was called and stated that North's intent was to pass, even though she said she did not notice my Double”.

She did not notice the Double, she had a bid available even without the double, she removed her cards from the table, for me it is the equivalent of a pass.

I would ask East. If East says “I saw the Double, but North made me think the bidding was over somehow”, I would allow East to bid, judging that East´s “pass” was induced by the irregular procedure by North.

If East says “I didn't see the Double”, also. North intended to pass because he didn't see the double. East didn't intend to pass because she didn't see the double.
Dec. 8, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top