Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Shireen Mohandes
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
on page 9 Mrs McDougall has a good suggestion about trials.

There is a trial, with anonymity for the players, and markers (eg Reese and Harrison-Gray suggested).

I like the series of 100 board final matches which tests for: “…failing in manners, ethics ur physical endurance. ”

BTW Reese and Gray did not get on … so I wonder how that would have played out.
April 30, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tomasz: I have a mild dyslexia problem and sometimes (in the heat of the moment) get muddled. I can see myself confusing the J with J … Only when told of the contested claim, one can be prompted of a misremembering.
April 13, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Roland: if declarer thinks she has 6 clubs, then 6 + 4 + 1 + 1 means no need to duck second spade.
April 13, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Most *club* players know that AK952 opposite QT7 does not automatically make 5 tricks (and we all know normal play on this hand).

So maybe one of these has taken place:
1. declarer thinks that suit is running regardless
2. declarer thinks that they have more clubs than they do (ie 7-3)… this is unlikely because of the earlier spade play
3. Declarer thinks somebody has discarded clubs or lack of attention/recollection mid game (eg something like know they have 5-3 fit but thought the J was the J and was played already…).

I don't think that the director can determine which of the above (or indeed anything else) has taken place, so it would be overly generous to allow them to notice that the clubs aren't coming in. In other words, even when south shows out in second round of the suit, declarer may still think they have 5 tricks in the suit.
April 13, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How would Monty Python have deal with the problem? This is how:
Having recognised (after the first set) that Kay “uplifted” the Brock team's score … they should have mandated her to do the same for the other three teams.
Thus, each captain in turn, would nominate a player to bench, and Kay would play for that team, for just one round robin.
You have a wonderfully balanced movement (each team being “Kay-d” once).
End of story.
And probably result in a more amusing thread than this one.

(of course, it would be humiliating for the benched player … but they would have taken the long view and recognised that their team's chances of success had been elevated).
March 29, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Norman: each and every one of them volunteered (Gordon aside). They know what is involved. I've heard one of the people who attend the SC meetings moan. I suggested to them that they stand down from the committee if they found they could not spend the necessary amount of time. They were not an elected member, so there is no reason for them to get involved.
But I think it is just far too much fun…
March 23, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sally, in connection with your point: “we could have easily found someone else”. That is a very fair point.
It is not as though the EBU have no other experience of subs (and relative skill set). Had this been the first, or a hurried situation, then one might take another view. But from what you have said, that's not the case.
March 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But to be clear: do all 16 players have the right to know the same information? do all players have the right to know that “the score is not as it seem”?

Say you are playing BAM, you have a reasonable lead … you may choose to play for a safe score to retain your lead. You are entitled to know the score from the last session, and so are all the other players. Any of use could disagree with the personal strategy of the players … but it only seems fair that all the players have the same information.
March 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
in relation to: the trials may alter their view comment.
May I refer you to the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place in the Open Trials. How many of the SC expected that result? And, did you find it altered your view at all? Of course it did.
March 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am not sure which players were reminded of the CoC (etc) at what stage. It seems fair that all 16+1 players should have been provided with the identical information, ideally before the event started.
After all, almost all players “play to the score”, and if there was any possibility that the scores were not as per the scoreboard, then all 16+1 players should have that information.
March 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
hi - I did a bing and google search, but it did not reveal much. My understanding is that subsequent search results can be more fruitful if others have taken a path that involves clicking on some links. Am I wrong?

Also, I was interested in other stories like this, perhaps in other parts of the world.

Finally - I thought that readers may like to hear this extreme story.
March 20, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peter: why not just avoid reading this thread? I happen to disagree with what you say, but I believe in your right (and everyone else's) to air your opinion.

And, just for the record, since a constant theme is bias, I think it only appropriate to you declare your extreme bias.
March 20, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
and their personal scorecard here: http://live.acbl.org/event/NABC181/OPEN/2/scores/O/N/5
also has %s
March 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
bulletin here: http://cdn.acbl.org/nabc/2018/01/bulletins/db8.pdf and they tell you what the % is. Well done ACBL getting results out so fast. (see Paul's post)
March 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John, you make like to read Joe Fawcett's post above. It seems that members of the committee were excluded from deliberations if close friends/relatives were affected.

It would be good to have a committee member state this (it should not be necessary, but hey, what harm can be done?)
March 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
the bridge museum in The Netherlands is a good resource
http://www.bridgemuseum.nl/apex/f?p=104:1:0::NO::AI_LANGUAGE:en
this is the link for the boards
http://www.bridgemuseum.nl/apex/f?p=BM:20:29630731427049::::P20_CATEGORIE_ID:6

they appear to have 66 different types in their catalogue
Jan. 12, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ian Grant - it is not the “US that gets to pick 2 teams”.
As many readers here know, each zone chooses a method.
Jan. 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I played at a club in Milan, each round consist of just one board. I understood that a typical dupe was about 16-18 boards, in about 3 hours.
Dec. 30, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve: I agree that selective use creates UI sometimes. But we are all surely in agreement that it is much easier to determine how long a player waits when the card is being used, as opposed to not being used. So why not have the facility?
Dec. 19, 2017
.

Bottom Home Top