Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Zhuo Wang
1 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Congratulations Greg!
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is a divide-and-conquer version of this. The #1 seed first pick #2, which is the last team they want to face. Then they start selecting teams for their opponent until the whole filed is divided into two halves. E.g. #1 pick #3 for the other half and #2 pick #4-5 and they alternate.

Within each half, you can repeat the above process.
March 23, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
seems scientific and reasonable!
Oct. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I guess you withdraw from the 4th quarter
Sept. 30, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ross - I agree with what you have observed. This may (or may not) be a pattern for passing illegal information. But it's not part of Magnus's initial comment in the link below, which is consistent with many boards for the EBTC matches
http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/videos-added-to-bridgecheaters-website/?cj=219517#c219517

To validate the casuality between the pattern you observed and a lead you will need more than one board.
Sept. 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree with all the facts stated here.

Just for those who wants to check the video themselves, F-S were declaring board 1-9,11 in this set. So just follow the time stamp posted above if you are only interested in the lead.
Sept. 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think this set (first youtube link) is less convincing than the ETBC ones.

Board 1,2,3,6,8,10,11 F-S declaring so I didn't carefully look at them.

Board 4(29.00) against 1-1-1NT by LHO (polish club so essentially a blind 1NT), Fisher took the tray off and place the board in the middle with 73 AQT54 T543 93. Schwartz had A982 K2 Q72 AT62 and lead the 2.

Board 5(37.00) as Magnus described. But according to the bidding, small diamond is not something way out of line.

Board 7(50.30) Gawrys(East) pushed the tray towards Fisher and placed the board by himself.

Board 9(1.04.00) After the bidding F-S let the tray stay for 10 seconds before Klukowski took it off and placed the board. Schwartz had 842 A9843 J8 K54. The bidding was 1-1-2NT-3-3-3-3NT but I'm not sure what version of puppet this is. Fisher lead the J from QJ63 JT2 532 Q62.

Board 12(1.26.30) Gawrys took the tray off and placed the board somewhere between the middle halfway towards Schwartz. Fisher lead a small as partner has bid 1.

For me it is unclear whether the method suggested by Magnus was at working in this set. Their leads could be explained by legal information they had and/or the leaders were aware that the board placement method was disrupted by their opponents.

For future protection of non-cheating players, I think we should let the declarer to remove the tray and place the board.
Sept. 1, 2015
Zhuo Wang edited this comment Sept. 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Can we vote for two options? I think option 1+2 are a pair and 3+4 are a pair.
Aug. 31, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/2014-spingold-champs-offer-to-vacate-titles/?cj=215393#c215393

This is the link for Boye's comment you are looking for.
Aug. 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
KZ: we don't have an objective definition of “normal” for actions by F-S. You would rely on the poll results first to determine which actions by F-S are normal, which are not. You cannot later use this criterion to determine which boards are control, which are not.
Aug. 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael has a valid point. To scientifically justify the unbiasedness of the poll result, It is a good idea to have control boards (not at all relevant to this spingold) mixed with the experimental boards where you gauge the convict/exonerate index of each expert.
Aug. 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I want to like this comment 100x times.
Aug. 26, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There should, but there was no alert on the N-E side of the screen.
Aug. 26, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Seems that one pair can be in a FP situation, then they find out that the opposing pair are in a FP situation, so the original FP is now cancelled, is that right?”

No it's not correct. You can't flip the meaning of a bid based on its subsequent development.

Here I think the appeal decision is based on the fact that NS were given inconsistent explanation about East's pass over 4, which leads to another inconsistent explanation about North's pass over 5. With screen this is not something very unusual. Two sides of the screen can have complete different understanding about what is going on.

Of course there are other unpleasant issues involved in the whole story. But those are separate issues that worth being discussed about, IMHO.
Aug. 17, 2015
Zhuo Wang edited this comment Aug. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the main issue is whether north's pass over 5 is indeed FP given that everyone has the correct information on East's non-forcing pass. This drama may never exist if NS can provide written evidence about this.
Aug. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For 5)-6) “So one side is penalized for not alerting a FP while the other side is not? Not very fair.”

I think this argument does not hold but please correct me if I'm wrong about the following facts.

I assume South (Fisher) and West (Graves) were screen mates. South's FP alert was based on the fact that West did not alert East's FP (whether South should make further inquiries to confirm this non-FP before the 5 call is another matter – personally I think he should, to avoid the suspicion of double-shooting). OTOH, North did not alert his own pass of 5 as FP because E alerted the pass of 4 as FP. North's failure to alert was based on E's alert.
Aug. 17, 2015
Zhuo Wang edited this comment Aug. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks Jan for pointing this out!

Here is something irrelevant to this thread – In fact I noticed that the official score (on BW) after 3rd quarter is 83-78. But the BBO record says it's 84-77. The carryover from first half is consistent. It seems like there should be another 1 IMP discrepancy in this quarter?
Aug. 16, 2015
Zhuo Wang edited this comment Aug. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm sorry – again I found zero undeserved overtrick claimed by Fisher, in ANY CONTRACT, according to the hand records above.

Aug. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Among all the boards Fisher declared on that day, there was zero board he was in 4M with overtrick – at least according to BBO vugraph record.

Either what you have heard doesn't exist at all, or it had been fixed right away at the table.

http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?linurl=http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/vugraph_linfetch.php?id=40388

http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?linurl=http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/vugraph_linfetch.php?id=40395

http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?linurl=http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/vugraph_linfetch.php?id=40400
Aug. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
wouldn't it let the contract make if East had
Kx 8x Kxxx(x) Axxx(x)?
Aug. 15, 2015
1 2
.

Bottom Home Top