Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Jan Martel
1 2 3 4 ... 46 47 48 49
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Correction: The Wolfson team did not select Cappelli. In this event pairings are based on bracket position, not selection by High finishers in the round Robin.
May 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks, Michael - I usually do link to the results from an article under the Tournaments menu - will do that now :-).
May 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There are too many security risks involved with showing Round Robins on Vugraph, so no, it will not.
May 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes. Unfortunately, we only have 6 operators for Thursday, so will cover the two USA1 Semifinal matches and 1 USA2 match. For Friday I'm hoping we'll be back to 8 operators.
May 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Vugraph records aren't up yet. Hand records are there (link at the bottom of the page; 1st quarter is boards 1-30 yesterday morning; 2nd quarter is yesterday afternoon, etc. we may change that naming convention, as it seems to confuse people.
And as I was writing this, I see that Al was doing something useful and 2of the 3 final sets are up.
May 1
Jan Martel edited this comment May 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We are not able to live stream the video because the internet isn't fast enough. We will try to get them posted as soon as we can.
April 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Additional seeding points from the Round Robin are 1st 8 (plus the reshuffle option); 2nd 8; 3rd 4; 4th 2. Sometimes the additional seeding points mattered. I was doing so much last night I don't remember for certain, but I think they did not matter this year.
The reshuffle means the coin is flipped again and they might stay as they were or change depending on result.
April 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mahaffey's sit out match vs bye was the last match, so the 10 for the sit out didn't post until the rest of the last round scores were posted.
April 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Although we do have the programming in place to show scorecards, we aren't getting board by board results, so there aren't any scorecards to be shown. I will try to remove that sentence so it isn't confusing.
April 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One little mistake :-). The Women's finishes on May 10th, the Open finishes on May 11th and I get a few days off before the Seniors starts on May 17th
April 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I always beg Lary to come to my table when I'm an operator!
April 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This sort of formula with a cap is what is used by WBF in (as far as I know) all events that have a complete Round Robin followed by a KO. It is always interpreted as first you figure out the carryover (5/8*47 in this case) and then if it's more than the cap (here the lower of 12 or the number of boards played against each other in the Round Robin), the carryover is the cap.
USBF also uses carryover sometimes (in the Senior USBC for example) and the only difference between what we do and what WBF does is that we set the cap at something other than an even number of IMPs in matches before the final, in order to avoid ties.
I've never heard of an interpretation where the percentage is applied to the cap instead of the IMP score.
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@David: The primary difficulty with defending against multi is that there is no anchor suit, therefore no cue bid. You need to define when a bid of a Major is a cue bid, or stopper asker or something like that and when it shows the suit, and that is often not at all obvious from “meta agreements.”
It isn't that DBL of 2 isn't penalty that's the problem, it's that there is no defined suit of which it is takeout. The “Option 1” people deal with that issue by defining it as takeout of spades. The “Option 2” people deal with it by defining it as a balanced or semi-balanced hand in a specific point count range - essentially a weak NT. That's easier for people like me who are familiar with playing weak NT so have a feeling for how auctions develop after one hand has shown a weak NT, but nothing else.
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good question - in fact we used to have some sections of the defense that said “this doesn't apply when the defense has to be memorized” or something like that. We were able to remove them when WBF started allowing written defenses to multi.
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Once upon a time, I was the Vugraph operator at a table where the question of whether the opponents could use their own written defense to a bid (maybe Multi, maybe something else) came up. The director was summoned and didn't know the answer. He went away to consult. Many long minutes later, the players turned to me and asked if they could use their own written defenses. I said yes and play proceeded. Later the director returned to confirm that I had been correct :-). Nowadays I think (hope) directors are better informed.
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The first time I encountered multi, in a very long-ago Reisinger when we played against Steve Weinstein & Fred Stewart, they said something like “if it comes up, you can just look at your hands and say what your bids mean” :-).
That probably isn't the way to play high-level bridge, but it did solve the unfamiliarity problem and also was the start of long-term and very positive friendships with both of them.
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We often get laughs at the fact that our written defense to multi is 11 pages long and we keep finding holes that need to be filled. One reason the defense is so long is that we have tried very hard (whether successfully or not I cannot say) to make it easy to find the meaning of different bids. So, for instance, instead of having rules that apply to (2)-DBL-(P)-2M, we have one section for 2 and one section for 2 - they are almost identical and “waste” some pages, but we hope it makes it easier to figure out what you're doing in the middle of an auction. We also include a Table of Contents.
Having said that, and despite the effort we make a major effort to have a user-friendly defense, we always tell people who ask for it that they should use it only if they go over it and practice with it in advance, because they're going to have problems using it if they aren't familiar with it. That is also a problem with the ACBL defense, no matter how clearly it is presented.
Once when I was playing multi and handed the old Yellow booklet to the opponents and thought they had clearly agreed on which defense they were using, it turned out one of them was using Option 1 and one was using Option 2. After that, I printed each of the defenses on a separate piece of paper and hand them only the one they tell me they are going to use.
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Tim: Written defenses are allowed by WBF against multi, as well as against any Brown Sticker bids being played. The proponents must furnish a viable defense to Brown Sticker bids and that defense becomes part of their convention card (which means it can be referred to by the opponents). Opponents may use their own written defense, which also becomes part of the proponents (whom WBF refers to as opponents in the regulation) convention card:
“A pair may prepare written defences against the ‘Brown Sticker’ elements of any system. Such defences will have to be given to the opponents (two clearly legible copies) at an appropriate time and place prior to the start of that segment, to be specified in the Conditions of Contest. Written defences against Brown Sticker conventions are deemed to be part of the opponents’ system card.” http://www.worldbridge.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/WBFSystemsPolicy.pdf bottom of page 6.
@Jim & Ed: The WBF rules are clear that the written defense has to be provided to the proponents. I couldn't find a similar requirement in the ACBL Conditions of Contest, but might have missed it. I don't see anything that would bar the use of a defense that is not written though (except perhaps that general agreements are supposed to be described on the convention card).
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The wonderful people at BBO tell me that they did in fact record last month's match and the video is available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gwy_2iu2FB4
They hope to be able to record this month's match as well, but this type of Vugraph is still being developed, so an actual person has to set things up and also set up the recording.
April 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'll see if there's any way we can record and post the audio, if it isn't included on the BBO archive.
April 19
1 2 3 4 ... 46 47 48 49
.

Bottom Home Top