JeremyChild
Comments
-
Or > @gordonrainsford said:
(Quote)So if I have an even number of pairs for day one, I have to find a subsitute pair and an extra pair to balance the num…
-
@Robin_BarkerTD said:
(Quote)So if we have an even number of pairs for the first day, what VP score do the second-day-only pair start on?
-
Consider a similar situation where it is defender that trumps and then leads the suit that they trumped. If we undo, declarer has not been disadvantaged (indeed there is an advantage as defender now has a major penalty card).
In fact the…
-
(Quote)
Ditto.
-
I haven't found it yet, but:
It's not in 16A or C, so it's not AI.
It's not from partner, so it's not UI (16B)
I think it is covered by 16D "overhearing ... remarks"
Correct response in this case is to call the director, … -
(Quote)
That's where I'd got to.
Thanks, Gordon
-
Thanks - I did. Apparently BBOtoXML doesn't work with triples (triangles). Ah well!
-
This (or something similar) has come up before and there is some guidance, but I can't remember where I saw it.
From what I remember it is neither UI nor AI but EI, so there is no logical alternative test but S has to be careful not to ta…
-
(Quote)
The complainant has not said what regulations they were referring to, but I suspct something like WB 3.6.2.2:
While Swiss teams are advertised as avoiding re-matches it is considered acceptable for a team to play each other on… -
Thanks, Robin.
-
(Quote)
Are you saying it's a condition of contest, or that it exists in the sky blue / blue / white book somewhere?
-
(Quote)
I wasn't aware of this - where does it come from?
-
(Quote)
A 0% (or any score) from a sub field of just two tables is going to have a much smaller effect on the final result than would (say) a 0% score from 10 tables.
-
I see no reason why 26B doesn't apply - the call was withdrawn.
Of course, South's replacement call may have been comparable, leading to no lead restrictions. The definitons clarify that "withdrawn" includes actions that are ‘cancelled’.…
-
A hesitation Mitchell (M47-7) will give one winner in 8 x 3 round boards.
What is it about the score sheet that makes you think it is an unusual movement?
-
(Quote)
I can't find this law. The closest I can see is 81C1: "...to ensure the orderly progress of the game."
The point I'm making is, of course, that the White Book does not contain laws, it contains interpretations and conditions o…
-
What I find interesting here is that Law 16B1 does not apply. There is clearly UI, but the accptance or not of the 1NT is not a "call or play".
I think Law 16B2 does apply, but does Law 16B3 - the one that gives the right to recompense? …
-
(Quote)
Yes (as well as this forum).
-
As prompted by Gordon in another thread.
Law 12
Assigned adjusted scores make perfect sense to me, and by logical extension artificial adjusted scores where the possibilities are numerous or not obvious. The hand has been played …
-
(Quote)
No it isn't as good as having a top over ten tables, but nor is it a top over ten tables.
I appreciate the desire to compensate them for missing out, but what about the 2nd place people? What if they would win if the …
-
Fascinating...but
I realise this isn't going anywhere, but I don't agree with the principle that all boards should be equally significant.
Let's look at Max's argument to this effect.
He says: Pair ‘Y’ have beaten pair…
-
(Quote)
No, it isn't.
Actually they get 3.5 / 4, or 87.5%. If you were running a 2-winner Mitchell, the scores for each direction would not average out to 50%.
Moreover I think I've just seem something I don't like in the way …
-
(Quote)
Oooh a challenge!
Watch this space...
-
(Quote)
Because I feel the procedural penalties (which have director discretion) are better suited for this than an automatic penalty. After all this isn't a test of bridge skill.
I suspect a lot of these cases happen at club level, w…
-
(Quote)
That depends on whether you interpret not having enough time to play a board as "no result can be obtained". Clearly a result can be obtained, but we choose not to do so for practical reasons.
Don't get me wrong - I know custom…
-
(Quote)
No. As Paul said, EW get AV+ for board 3 but NS get no score.
What is interesting is what happens to board 2. If you do not allow them to play it, then both NS and EW (at table 1) have been deprived of the opportunity to earn…
-
(Quote)
I think the intention is reasonably clear but I don't think it is well worded.
For example, it would be clearer if 50B started with "A penalty card below the rank of an honour and exposed unintentionally (as in playing two card…
-
Thanks, Gordon - as I suspected.
-
(Quote)
No, there are 1997 laws, which were updated (tweaked) in 2000 (released 2001) to cope with online bridge.
-
(Quote)
I suspect there have been many versions of the course books, some under the 2007 laws (and no doubt earlier), some under the 2017 laws.
I went to try to find out the date of my course and it appears to have been in 2003, thus o…