headers
Nigel Guthrie | 1 Oct 2002 02:14

Re: Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited)

Richard Hills:
Many SOs deprecate a professional asking a
question to which the professional already
knows the answer, so that the pro's sponsor
partner is therefore enlightened.
Nigel:
I vaguely remember the author of an editorial
in Bridge World, who knew Italian methods,
confessing unashamedly to asking questions of
the Blue Team for his partner's benefit,
in World Championships.
If this is against the law, should it be? 
At the end of the auction, I see little harm
in this -- to facilitate full disclosure.
Of course, one would never sanction specific
questions that focus on a particular defence.

_______________________________________________
blml mailing list
blml <at> rtflb.org
http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply | 29 comments |
headers
Nigel Guthrie | 1 Oct 2002 02:39

Re: Framed thy fearful symmetry?

Alain Gottcheiner
 Astigmatic or long-sighted persons ... 
 will not have the same problems with 
 symmetrical cards, because they are color-
 coded; colorblind people will have more 
 problems with the new, ambiguous, designs. 

Nigel: Why not go further and simplify card
       design in the obvious way:
 (1) Use 4 shades and colours that most 
     colour blind people can discriminate.
 (2) Increase the size of number and symbol
     and place them at all four corners. 
     to cater for the myopic and left-handed.
 (3) Remove symbols from the middle of the card
     to avoid any ambiguity with odd-numbers.
     This inconveniences only people who would
     rather count symbols than read numerals.

_______________________________________________
blml mailing list
blml <at> rtflb.org
http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply | 9 comments |
headers
Marvin L. French | 1 Oct 2002 03:19
Picon

Re: not shuffled


From: "Sven Pran"

> This post from Marvin apparently just confirms that ACBL
> for some unknown and surprising reason issued a different
> "Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge" than what was agreed
> upon within WBF?
>
Not surprising, since the ACBL By-laws state in regard to the ACBLLC
that:

"The Commission will prepare the Laws under which both duplicate and
rubber bridge games will be governed. These Laws may be reviewed and
revised periodically by the Commission."

Marv wrote:

> > Evidently the baby has been thrown out with the bath somewhere along
the
> > line, as dummy should certainly have the right to call the TD for a
violation
> > of the Properties by anyone.
> >
And also the Proprieties.

Marv
Marvin L. French
San Diego, California

_______________________________________________
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Marvin L. French | 1 Oct 2002 03:33
Picon

Re: Stop Card (was WBF CoC comments solicited)


From: "Nigel Guthrie" <

> I vaguely remember the author of an editorial
> in Bridge World, who knew Italian methods,
> confessing unashamedly to asking questions of
> the Blue Team for his partner's benefit,
> in World Championships.

That was Edgar Kaplan, in a special situation that others can describe
for you..

> If this is against the law, should it be?
> At the end of the auction, I see little harm
> in this -- to facilitate full disclosure.
> Of course, one would never sanction specific
> questions that focus on a particular defence.

The WBFLC at Lille 1998 declared that "It is held illegal to ask a
question in order that partner may be aware of the information in the
reply."

Marv
Marvin L. French
San Diego, California

_______________________________________________
blml mailing list
blml <at> rtflb.org
http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 19 comments |
headers
richard.hills | 1 Oct 2002 08:25
Picon

Re: Illegal convention


Brian Meadows wrote:

[snip]

>If bunnies are going to step up into tournaments,
>then they must expect to run into unfamiliar
>systems. Clubs can take a similar approach - the
>last UK club I played at designated two nights a
>week as "anything goes", two nights a week as
>"beginner nights" (simple Acol only) and the
>remaining two were general licence.
>
>Equal opportunities for all, and everyone was
>happy (plus all the nights were well attended!)

[snip]

A similar sensible policy is followed by a bridge
club in Canberra, whose playing population is mostly
bunnies (but with expert proprietors).

On Tuesday nights the field self-selects into a
walk-in pairs or a walk-in teams.  Expert players,
using the dreaded Red conventions, play in the
walk-in teams.  But some bunnies wish to learn from
the experts, and also opt for the walk-in teams.

Playing in the walk-in pairs is a bunny pair whom
are willing to devise their own incomprehensible
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Herman De Wael | 1 Oct 2002 09:18
Picon

Re: Framed thy fearful symmetry?

Nigel, why do you want to write on something you have absolutely no 
knowledge on ?

Nigel Guthrie wrote:

> Alain Gottcheiner
>  Astigmatic or long-sighted persons ... 
>  will not have the same problems with 
>  symmetrical cards, because they are color-
>  coded; colorblind people will have more 
>  problems with the new, ambiguous, designs. 
> 
> Nigel: Why not go further and simplify card
>        design in the obvious way:
>  (1) Use 4 shades and colours that most 
>      colour blind people can discriminate.

they do

>  (2) Increase the size of number and symbol
>      and place them at all four corners. 
>      to cater for the myopic and left-handed.

they do

>  (3) Remove symbols from the middle of the card
>      to avoid any ambiguity with odd-numbers.
>      This inconveniences only people who would
>      rather count symbols than read numerals.
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |
headers
Kooijman, A. | 1 Oct 2002 09:28
Picon

RE: Arrow switching in Montreal (was WBF comments)


Adam Wildavsky wrote:

>>>The finals of the Open and Women's pairs,
>>>though, used a different movement which
>>>seems as though it should lead to balanced
>>>comparisons.
>>>
>>>Each pair plays every other over the
>>>course of five sessions, and pairs switch
>>>directions every few rounds. I know this
>>>movement well because I investigated the
>>>foul-up that occurred in Lille.

Ton replied:

>>**** these movements are aimed to get as
>>much balance as possible. And there too we
>>try to find the best combination between
>>complexity and fairness of the movement. It
>>also depends on the number of pairs playing.

Marv asked:

>Is it possible to describe how this is done?
>I'd like to recommend the same sort of thing
>to the ACBL Competition and Conventions
>committee, but don't have the know-how to do
>so.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Tim West-meads | 1 Oct 2002 09:50
Picon

Re: Pausitis

In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020930123134.00ab4ab0 <at> pop.ulb.ac.be>
Alain wrote:
> >
> > > 2D : explained as classical Multi, weak 2H/S or strong NT or strong 
> > > 4441
> > > 2H : explained as to play facing hearts (would you expect anything 
> > > else
> > > ?)
> >
> >Yes.  I expect you tell those who are unfamiliar with the Multi that it
> >denies 4 (or 5) hearts.  This is an inference available to you from the
> >failure to bid 2S.
> >
> 
> I know he might hold 4/5 hearts, and you expect me to lie by telling he 
> might not ?

Of course I don't expect you to lie.  When I was taught "Classical Multi" 
this *was* an inference.  If the correct inference is "normally denies 4+ 
hearts" say that (or denies 4+ H unless weak and 44+ in the majors and 
opponents look bored).  If there is genuinely no inference about H length 
your explanation is fine.

Tim

_______________________________________________
blml mailing list
blml <at> rtflb.org
http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Alain Gottcheiner | 1 Oct 2002 13:37
Picon
Picon
Favicon

MI / awakening case

Dear blmlists,

We had some recent threads about the right to be awakened by partner's bid. 
Here is a case, submitted to me by West in the following deal :

	QJxxx		Ax
	Kx		Axx
	Kxxx		Ax
	xx		KQ109xx

			1C
	1Ha		3Ca
	4Sa		4NT

1H is a transfer to spades, and West intended it as such.
East doesn't realize it. He alerts (but for some other reason, presumably 
Walsh inferences), and bids 3C, showing 7-7½ tricks, long clubs and 3-card 
raise of partner's suit (he thinks West has H).
West alerts 3C, and isn't asked to explain. He then bids 4S (sign-off), on 
the assumption that partner showed 3 *spades* (which he did, in EW's system).
East, still asleep, thinks 4S is a splinterbid, and blackwoods.

Now put yourself in West's seat. Over a signoff, and holding a well-defined 
hand, East should pass, so West knows something happens. He is a convinced 
exponent of the principles "when you don't understand, pass" and "when a 
wheel gets loose and you don't know what the truimp suit can be, play in 
NT". Thus he passes.

The question : is West allowed to realize that the bidding sequence is 
impossible :
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Sven Pran | 1 Oct 2002 14:12
Picon
Picon

Re: MI / awakening case

From: "Alain Gottcheiner"
We had some recent threads about the right to be awakened by partner's bid.
Here is a case, submitted to me by West in the following deal :

QJxxx Ax
Kx Axx
Kxxx Ax
xx KQ109xx

1C
1Ha 3Ca
4Sa 4NT

1H is a transfer to spades, and West intended it as such.
East doesn't realize it. He alerts (but for some other reason, presumably
Walsh inferences), and bids 3C, showing 7-7½ tricks, long clubs and 3-card
raise of partner's suit (he thinks West has H).
West alerts 3C, and isn't asked to explain. He then bids 4S (sign-off), on
the assumption that partner showed 3 *spades* (which he did, in EW's
system).
East, still asleep, thinks 4S is a splinterbid, and blackwoods.

Now put yourself in West's seat. Over a signoff, and holding a well-defined
hand, East should pass, so West knows something happens. He is a convinced
exponent of the principles "when you don't understand, pass" and "when a
wheel gets loose and you don't know what the truimp suit can be, play in
NT". Thus he passes.

The question : is West allowed to realize that the bidding sequence is
impossible :
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane