headers
Marvin French | 1 Oct 2003 02:11
Picon

Re: Pre-duplication procedures for Swiss Team Events


Someone mentioned having byes with an odd number of tables in a Swiss, to
avoid three-ways. How does that work scorewise? Who gets the bye each round?

Marv
Marvin L. French
San Diego, California

_______________________________________________
blml mailing list
blml <at> rtflb.org
http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
richard.hills | 1 Oct 2003 03:53
Picon

Re: Byes


In the thread, "Pre-duplication procedures for Swiss
Team Events, Marvin L. French asked:

>Someone mentioned having byes with an odd number of
>tables in a Swiss, to avoid three-ways. How does that
>work scorewise? Who gets the bye each round?

Richard James Hills replies:

Sven mentioned that three-way Swiss matches are
unpopular in Norway, so that byes are usually selected
instead.

Three-way Swiss matches are also unpopular in Australia,
but in Oz sitting out for 8 boards is even more
unpopular.

However, sometimes an Aussie team will inadvertently sit
out for 8 boards, due to a late arrival or forfeit of
their designated opponents.  The ABF reg is that the
team winning by forfeit gets either:

* 18 vps (the ABF uses the WBF 25 vp scale), or
* the winning team's average vps in other matches, or
* the reciprocal of the losing team's average vps in
  other matches,

whichever is the greater of the three amounts.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
richard.hills | 1 Oct 2003 04:47
Picon

Re: ABF casebook, appeal 3


http://www.abf.com.au/directors/appeals.html

Appeal No.3
Date: 17/01/02
Event: Seniors teams round 3

Dlr: S
N/S vul

South     West      North     East
1NT(1)    Pass      Pass      2NT(2)
Pass      3C        Pass      3D(3)
Pass      3NT       Pass      Pass
Pass

(1) 12-14
(2) Alerted as a good 2-suiter
(3) Now promises diamonds & a major

                    North (you)
                    Q2
                    T9532
                    872
                    QJ2
West (dummy)
A75
KJ74
1063
K63
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC | 1 Oct 2003 08:02
Picon
Favicon

Re: Pre-duplication procedures for Swiss Team Events

On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, Marvin French wrote:

>
> Someone mentioned having byes with an odd number of tables in a Swiss,
> to avoid three-ways. How does that work scorewise? Who gets the bye each
> round?

Here one simply adds a team "bye" to the field.  This team loses every
match, scoring 0 VP's themselves and average+ VP's for their opponents.

The "bye" team will play against the last team in the field.

Henk

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                             Email: henk.uijterwaal <at> ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre            WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk
P.O.Box 10096          Singel 258           Phone: +31.20.5354414
1001 EB Amsterdam      1016 AB Amsterdam    Fax: +31.20.5354445
The Netherlands        The Netherlands      Mobile: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC)

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

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Sven Pran | 1 Oct 2003 08:27
Picon
Picon

RE: Pre-duplication procedures for Swiss Team Events

Henk Uijterwaal 
> > Someone mentioned having byes with an odd number of tables in a Swiss,
> > to avoid three-ways. How does that work scorewise? Who gets the bye each
> > round?
> 
> Here one simply adds a team "bye" to the field.  This team loses every
> match, scoring 0 VP's themselves and average+ VP's for their opponents.
> 
> The "bye" team will play against the last team in the field.
> 

The "bye" team will play against the last team in the field which they have
not already met. (The "bye" team is treated like any other team).

Maybe surprising, but in Norway Swiss is more common with events for pairs
than with events for teams, and in pairs we have no alternative to sit outs
when there is an odd number of pairs participating in an event.

For scoring purposes we always apply Law 88 for a pair who due to a sit out
(not because of their own "fault") cannot play one or more boards. This
enables us to keep a running score where all pairs can easily be compared
all the time, and it also solves whatever problem we otherwise might run
into when a sit out is eliminated half way through the event in the case an
extra pair books in on the event after it has started.

We have some time ago been through a lengthy discussion on this; I have no
intention on reopening that discussion but simply states: That is how we do
it. 

Sven
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Nigel Guthrie | 1 Oct 2003 15:38

Re: Natural and Conventional

[Herman DE WAEL]
The notion about conventionality or not crops
up in just two places in the FLB:
-L40D (and L40E, but that's not important) which
can easily be changed to allow SO's to regulate
everything (and why not?)
-L27B, which can easily be changed into something
like: "if the changed call conveys the same meaning
as the insufficient one" or even to allow all changes
plus UI rules.

[Nigel]

As Todd Zimoch and Herman point out, the current TFLB
seems to need such definitions only in a couple of
contexts.

And, IMO, Herman's recommendations are excellent.

My interest in such definitions is mainly in the
context of *disclosure* ("Alert"  or better "Explain"
rules), currently a gaping hole in TFLB, that is
be remedied by SOs in many different ways.

Admittedly, even for disclosure such definitions are
unnecessary, if you define a standard system.

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Nigel Guthrie | 1 Oct 2003 17:12

Re: Standard

[Todd Zimnoch]
It seems beside the point.  The Law defines
conventional. It doesn't care a whit about
natural or artificial. So if you were going to
open a Muiderberg 2H and didn't see the 2S
opened on your right, your partner will be
barred for the rest of the auction, not
because 2H is artificial, but because it's
conventional.

[Nigel]
Herman De Wael has a simple remedy to completely
avoid defining  "conventional" for law L27B -- 
to allow the change of call but regulate the UI -- 
and that seems a reasonable solution.

My concern is with Disclosure, which I think is
mainly covered by L40(a-e). Currently the TFLB
relinquishes most of its jurisdiction over this
area to the whims and caprices of ZOs who may
delegate that responsibility even further.

This dereliction of duty is understandable,
given that regulation involves work and requires
international diplomacy.  Nevertheless, IMO, the
WBFLC should pull back most of the responsibility
for regulating disclosure. To do this, the WBFLC
must...

(1) Sanction standard system(s)
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Tim West-Meads | 1 Oct 2003 17:56
Picon

Re: Standard

Nigel wrote:

> My concern is with Disclosure, which I think is
> mainly covered by L40(a-e).

Whether a call is "conventional" or not has nothing to do with disclosure. 
Calls have meanings (including inferential ones) which must be fully 
disclosed.  Conventional calls need not be alertable, natural calls can be 
alertable (this would be a feature of standard system based alerting or 
everybody adopting current WBF alerting rules).

Tim 

_______________________________________________
blml mailing list
blml <at> rtflb.org
http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Richard Willey | 1 Oct 2003 20:19
Favicon

Purpose of the LAws (was Standard)

So long as we have padded completely into the realm of the Hypothetical, I 
would like to ask a very basic question about the purpose of the Laws.

One interpretation of the legal system is that it empowers the authority 
to take actions as it sees fit.
The primary purpose of the Laws to to provide different authorities with 
the tools necessary to work its will on the populace.

This interpretation can be contrasted with a very different assumption. 
Here, the assumption is made that the primary purpose of the Laws is to 
limit the power of the authorities to excercise its will.

Personally, I am most comfortable with the second interpretation.  My 
primary concern is that the Zonal authorities exercise their power in a 
manner that I consider inappropriate.
As a result, I look for ways to limit the scope of their actions.

Case in point:

One member of this list made the following suggestion:

Zonal authorities should lose the authority to regulate conventions while 
retaining authority to control the disclosure of methods.

I'd be willing to bet significant amounts of money that the ACBL would 
immediately respond with something similar to the following:

        1. Any method that is not documented on a convention card may not 
be used.
        2. Only the following set of methods may be documented on a
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
grandeval | 2 Oct 2003 01:39
Picon

Re: Deja vu (was Standard)


Grattan Endicott<grandeval <at> vejez.fsnet.co.uk
[alternatively cyaxares <at> lineone.net]
===============================
" those (women) you fear may be rebellious 
  admonish,
  banish them to their couches, and beat them."
                                                             [sura 4]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eric Landau" <ehaa <at> starpower.net>
To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" <blml <at> rtflb.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] Deja vu (was Standard)

> 
> If I may speak for Wayne, I think it is his 
> contention that what is  (patently and obviously) 
> ridiculous cannot have been the intention of 
> the authors of the law.  Personally, I'd have used 
> a stronger word than  "ridiculous" to describe an 
> interpretation of law that gives the WBF's  blessing 
> to SO regulations like "Jews may not use transfers."
> 
+=+ Responding as though you had spoken in
your own behalf, I would merely observe that the
interpretation of the law has not given a blessing
to such a regulation. It gives its blessing to placing
in the domain of the regulator the determination
whether such a regulation is of a kind beneficial
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 37 comments |

Gmane