Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Sabine Auken
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nick Hardy regarding the tennis mixed doubles comparison: “There is no rule as to which side they can play, but the fact remains women almost always play in the deuce court, unless she is a left hander.”

Exactly! There may be certain advantages for mixed couples in tennis to play one way or another. But it is left up to the individual couple to decide. There is no rule imposed by the authorities. Thank you for confirming that, Nick.
Aug. 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Regarding the who-is-sitting-where issue I cannot see any justifiable non-discriminatory reasons to impose any rules at all. In team competition, unless the conditions of contest prescribe blind seating, there will always be one side that has the seeding rights, meaning the other team has to sit down first giving certain advantages to the team with seeding rights. There can be strategic and tactical or sometimes even personal reasons why a player prefers to sit or not to sit on one side of the screen with a certain opposing player. Imposing rules for in which seats men and women have to sit in deprives the competition of important strategical possibilities. Admittedly these possibilities are more important to some than others.

There are no such strategical considerations in pairs events, because every player has to stay in the same seat for the duration of a session. But let’s for the sake of argument assume for a while that we are playing a mixed double in tennis instead of sitting at the bridge table. Can you imagine rules that stipulate the women may only play in the front half of the court, because they don’t hit that far anyway? And the men must stay in the second half of the court to remain in better control of the match? If those were the rules for mixed doubles in tennis, I feel certain by now somebody would have tried to change them.
Aug. 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Al and @Lior thank you for finding the relevant section in the Wroclaw Supplemental COC, I totally missed it. Wow, what happened? It used to be a man and a woman had to sit on the same side of the screen. Now same gender has to sit on the same side of the screen. A mistake or intentional change?
Aug. 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you very much for the suggestion, Nicolas. My team just had the fortune to win the Spingold meaning that I am almost maxed out on “traditional” Spingold and Vanderbilt seeding points. I would find it difficult to claim “humiliation, mental anguish, insult to dignity and emotional distress” without feeling hypocritical. I really just want to advocate gender equality and hope our organizations will realize they need to cater more to the interests of their customers, if we all together protest loudly enough.
Aug. 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The Supplemental Conditions of Contest for the World Bridge Series 2014 in Sanya, China http://www.worldbridge.org/Data/Sites/1/media/documents/tourn/14Sanya/2014SupplementalConditionsofContest.pdf contained the following provision:

“For both the Mixed events, in order to ensure that there shall be a man and woman on each side of the screen, the men shall sit North and West, the women East and South.”

I have been unable to find a similar provision in the Supplemental Conditions of Contest for the World Bridge Games in Wroclaw, Poland in September this year http://www.worldbridge.org/Data/Sites/1/media/documents/tourn/16Wroclaw/2016WBGSupplementalCofC.pdf .

Did somebody forget to include it or has the provision indeed been abolished?
Aug. 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I very much agree with everything you have said here, Frances. Thank you very much for pointing it out.
Aug. 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nicolas, I believe your link may be outdated and the current rules for seeding points can be found here instead http://cdn.acbl.org/coc/AppendixB2016.pdf They describe an alternative method of calculating seeding points Alternative SP Method (see appendix B VI):
The alternative SP method is: WBF Masterpoint total* divided by 100 plus WBF Placing Point total* multiplied by 1.75.

Following that rule a woman with the exact same open and mixed achievements as a man would have fewer Spingold and Vanderbilt seeding points than her male counterpart.
Aug. 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you, Donald. I feel very strongly things need to change and I thought it was about time to bring them out in the open. Maybe, just maybe the pressure of public opinion can achieve something. I don't know what else we can do as players. Do you have any suggestions?
Aug. 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are right @Alan, I apologize. It's just difficult when reading a comment one wholeheartedly agrees with, not to exclaim: Yes, me too! :) (At the risk of being OT again has anyone figured out how to make those beautiful smileys on a mac?)

As to the thread's topic I can hardly imagine a better site for these championships than Salsomaggiore. It is home to all the Italian championships and has also been the site of various other european and world championships. The people of Salsomaggiore know all about bridge players and nobody wonders about that strange bridge talk in all the restaurants.

I found it interesting to see which countries have sent participants to all four categories. They are exactly the countries I would have expected. Good luck to all the participants, enjoy your adrenaline rushes!
Aug. 8, 2016
Sabine Auken edited this comment Aug. 8, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is there any way to multiple like this comment? Thank you for spelling this out so eloquently, Steve! I love the American Nationals. But imagine being able to go out for dinner after the game and still have time to socialize with your friends without being robbed of the best and healthiest hours of sleep. That would just be awesome!
Aug. 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Great fun, Eugene, thank you. I enjoyed it especially, because 4) was what made me try to learn bridge. :)
July 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Having always considered myself a natural player I was shocked to learn that I played this hand like a computer. :) I do not know much about GIB and normally only use it when my teammates are playing an ambitious contract on BBO checking whether there is any chance at all they will end up making it.

I was wondering why GIB wouldn't follow Dennis' line which seems superior to me. Does GIB assume that a defender with Qxx would always defend perfectly and cover dummy's 8?Can someone with insight into GIB's brain elaborate a bit on this, please?
July 4, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes and no in my opinion. What if identical actions were taken at one or more other tables? Should TDs make an effort to take that into consideration? Rui, do you have an opinion on that?
June 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is a truly excellent article. Thank you so much for posting it, Rui! I wish it were a sticky on all tournament bridge related websites.
June 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kirsten, please allow me to answer your questions in Roy's stead, since he is not available right now.

Ad 1) “However, I believe the tournaments you play are of such high standard, that WBF CC are presented”

You have every right to expect such a standard, but unfortunately the reality looks quite different and it is not a rare event that a pair arrives at the table without a cc or one that is filled out incompletely or one that is filled out in a language not everyone understands.

Ad 2)“I am baffled by your paragraph, I qoute: “…His partner (N) showed a strong hand, he had 9 points, his LHO overcalled vulnerable and XX'ed to show a maximum, and his RHO showed a strong spade raise…. ” TD has no XX in the bidding.

Either TD has cited wrongly (is 2.200 2♠ XX or 2♠ X), the score sheet doesn't tell”

If you reread your own post on the TD's report a little further up, you will find the whole bidding sequence correctly explained in item 4. The final contract was 2S xx as stated.

“Is there a mix of bidding from the other incident (see link), where board 29 (4♥ X - made in both rooms)were nullified in last round versus Rimstedt brothers? There you XX 2 ♦ to show stong hand after SA opened 2♣ GF), Ola Rimstedt entered with 2♦ (Majors ?or Clubs)”

In Board 29 of the final sitting East I held AQ10, 10x, AQ863, AK5 and decided to show the hand as 20/21 balanced which in our system means opening 2C. South doubled 2C explaining it to Roy as showing both majors and Roy redoubled to show some points. On my side of the screen the double was explained as showing clubs. So when North passed I rebid 2N to show 20-21 balanced with clubs stopped. The bidding proceeded 3H by South 4H by North pass pass double all pass.

There seems to have been some confusion because the NS pair play a different treatment of the double of 2C when it shows 18/19 from when it is stronger (majors in one case and clubs in the other case). Possibly the pair didn't quite agree on which treatment should apply in this case, I am not sure.

I was not present when the TD announced his ruling, so I don't know his explanations. But he awarded our side 3 imps. There was no appeal.
Feb. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I just happened to read Kit's post and admit to not having read every single comment, so I apologize in advance for trying to make a point that may have been made before. I feel very strongly that we MUST have a rule requiring declarer to pause for x amount of seconds before calling a card from dummy. If declarer does not comply with that rule, 3rd hand should be free to think before playing a card without any implications. I believe a rule like that exists in Norway. Maybe somebody more knowledgeable can elaborate on that.

Without such a rule what is 3rd hand to do? 1) Play quickly to avoid any suspicions? 2) Say: “I don't have a problem, I am just thinking about the whole hand.” That may not even be truthful and in addition convey UI. 3) Take whatever time it takes and then take the heat afterwards?

With the Norway rule implemented and an ensuing hesitation there would have been clear grounds for complaints about what happened. Without it we can mostly only discuss players' integrity. Not necessarily a good topic for public discussion.
Dec. 15, 2015
Sabine Auken edited this comment Dec. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I politely asked people to be civil and please refrain from making public accusations without any evidence. We actively searched and asked for evidence, but none came forward.

If someone here is implying that I should have known that our teammates were guilty of wrongdoing or that I attacked anyone, please clarify. Otherwise I really don't understand why or to whom I owe an apology.

Sept. 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
James,
1. I do not play on BBO daily
2. I love the BBO vugraph. BBO is also excellent for practice. I consider it totally unsuitable for serious competition.
Sept. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“And to those who indulge in insinuating posts: Please show us the evidence. If you don’t have any, please keep quiet. Nobody has the right to destroy another person’s reputation without any valid proof.”

Can you please respect that. If you can't, please go and open your own thread. Don't hijack the one I opened.
Sept. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Alliance I am afraid with a shadow priest main. But that was several years ago. Maybe she'll get a revival, if they take away the cards from me. :)
Sept. 18, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top