mrdct

Whilst not founded in the laws of bridge, the recipient of a hand with a boxed card should bear some responsibility to count their cards out of sight of partner and opponents. I play in a club duplicate at the local senior citizens centre once a week with my son (who incidentally is their youngest card-carrying member at 13 and is able to claim his seniors discount in some places) and it's quite rare to go through a session without receiving a hand with a boxed card, so I'm now well and truly in the habit of counting my cards under the table and checking that there are no boxed cards before I sort my hand.

Yes. Unless the regulating authority has put in place a condition of contest permitting players to consult the scoring table during the bidding or play, this would clearly be an illegal aid to memory, calculation or technique.

Unfortunately we can never turn back the clock and tinkering with the state-of-the-match circumstances isn't really going to do the job in terms of disentangling the poll from one of the most highly publicised hands in history. We will never know how it might have panned-out, but it would've been interesting if Justin could've kept a lid on the hand and its circumstances for a couple of days and run a poll like this to see what sorts of things people really would've thought about faced with this bidding problem without being prejudiced from reading 40 pages of discussion about it.

Excellent point about right-siding the ♥ contract, but wouldn't 5♥ do the trick? With the hand you have visioned for partner he would certainly raise to 6♥ and if this is one of those unluckly days when partner isn't holding the marked ♥ suit, there is still scope to settle in a superior minor slam. 5♥ and 6♥ need to be added to the poll. In fact, while we are all dreaming up miracle hands for partner, perhaps 4♦ should get a mention.

I assume BBO track exactly how many hands are played each day with the windows version and the flash version. It would be interesting to see how closely they match the results from this poll. I do a bit of both, but tend to use the windows version as it seems a lot better suited to netbooks which is what I'm usually using.

I'm sure I've seen this hand before somewhere and vaguely recall that 6♦ worked out quite well as the ♣ suit was useful for discards. I've never jumped to slam before on a 4-card suit, but I can empathise with the arguments in favour of it on this sort of hand where you don't want to give the non-vul opps the room to diagnose a profitable save in 6♠, partner seems likely to have something in ♦ and this unusual move will pay-off big time if 6♦ is cold and 6♣ fails with a safety net that quite a lot of the hands where 6♣ makes 6♦ will also make. On the other hand, I'm going to look like a goose when 6♣ is cold and 6♦ fails and I also run the risk of raising suspicion that I'm wired if 6♦ works. I probably wouldn't try 6♦ if I was in a serious event with a serious chance of doing well, but if I was the underdog likely to lose the match anyway I might try this sort of thing. If it comes off, it would be a nice one to tell the grandkids about.

Nonsense. Table feel arises from tempo, mannerisms, body language, voice inflection, etc. If such table feel signals come from your opponents and you are not "looking intently" at them then these signals are AI, but any table feel signals from partner or table feel signals acquired from intently studying your opponents are UI and if knowingly and deliberately acted upon would be cheating. I am going to venture a guess that JB knew that. That's not how I read it. Indeed, jillybean's quote finishes with: Now I don't believe in ESP as a general concept, but if that skill did exist, a player using it would be cheating if they were picking up extraneous info from their partner. Generally, I think a lot of so called good "table feel" players are on shakey ethical ground as they are surely reading the full suite of extraneous info available at the table which will more often than not include a mix of UI and AI. Info acquired from your "Extrasensory Table Perception" will invariably include UI so if you use it you are a cheat.

On second read, yes they do seem to be cutting it a bit fine, but it is the general gist of the scenario that's important. The main thing that I'm after is the mathematical modelling that can been done on how accurate a swiss movement is to product a winner and the top n places. My understanding is that such models will have variables based on the volatility of the field and accuracy of seeding. The place I recall seeing Richard Willey's analysis was the now defunct OzOne forum where there was a discussion about the optimal format to reduce 200 teams down to 20. My gut feel is that a swiss movement will largely achieve the outcome of having the contending players mainly playing amongst themselves, but this may be compromised in a small field which could get "over-swissed". I note that the recent Australian Open Butler had a first stage with about 60 pairs playing 10 rounds of swiss to produce a top 20 to progress to a second stage played as a complete round robin. But the beginner/inexperienced portion of the field was probably less than 5%. Is that structure mathematically sound?

A few years ago I thought I saw some modelling by hrothgar on the merits of swiss movements which took account of the volatility of results in match-ups and produced a confidence level that the "correct" winner will be found under various scenariois. I'm keen to apply that sort of methodology to this problem. I'm looking at field of about 20 pairs with quite significant variation in standard, ranging from open national team representatives to fresh out of the beginners course (the latter comprising as much as 25% of the field). There would be 5 pairs with a realistic chance of winning, 7 pairs with a realistic chance of top 3 and 9 pairs with a realistic chance of top 5. The event objective is to obtain a winner and places 2nd to 5th who progress to a further stage. We have two and a bit days to get to the point where the winner and 2nd to 5th are decided and can play up to 70 boards per day so a movement comprised of around 140 to 160 boards is required (9 x 16 boards is my current thinking). Some of the issues: 1. The internally generated datum will likely be quite volatile due to the variation in standard so I imagine it would be optimal to exclude a couple of outliers at each end and do some arrow-switching. 2. Movements which involve contending pairs playing a lot of boards against non-contending pairs may be inferior as they can become a test of how well you beat-up the weak pairs rather than how well you perform against the good pairs. 3. It would be a poor outcome if a "flying bunny" emerged in the last couple of rounds of a swiss movement to grab 5th place without ever playing any of the contending pairs. 4. If a swiss movement is used, it would probably need to be 8 or 9 rounds which could become "over-swissed". 5. I am interested in the theory that if a field can be accurately seeded, you should play the first round as 1v2, 3v4, 5v6, etc. Potentially the first session or two could be used to do some seeding with a short-round mitchell followed by howell to get everyone to play 3 boards against everyone and then take some carry-over into a swiss.

Nonsense. Table feel arises from tempo, mannerisms, body language, voice inflection, etc. If such table feel signals come from your opponents and you are not "looking intently" at them then these signals are AI, but any table feel signals from partner or table feel signals acquired from intently studying your opponents are UI and if knowingly and deliberately acted upon would be cheating.

This is belongs in Fantasyland. If the paying club duplicate player wants to play in an online environment, they will do so from home on BBO. And how is the screens-up and screens-down thing going to work? The way you describe it you would need two diagonal screens across the table and then be opening and closing windows to see your opponents. It sounds like something from Get Smart.

$3000 per table would not make economic sense for a bridge club or a major tournament convenor when the alternative traditional equipment costs less than 10% of that.

Another useful quote out of the ACBL Code of Disciplinary Regulations: So one can heavily discount the nonsense that has been espoused about the appication of Rules of Evidence applicable to courts of law.

The ACBL test for conduct and ethics violations is "preponderance of evidence" which I guess is a little bit stronger than "balance of probabiities" but is certainly nowhere near "beyond reasonable doubt". Preponderance of evidence is defined in the ACBL Code of Disciplinary Regulations as "Evidence that is more convincing than the evidence opposed to it" which sounds fairly similar to "balance of probabilities" to me.

What seems to happen in practice, however, is that when the alleged use of UI crosses the line to be cheating directors tend to apply a higher standard of proof giving more benefit of the doubt to the alleged offender. I understand the practical reasons why this is this the case, but it doesn't really have any foundation in the Laws of Bridge.

Reference please? Is this in writing anywhere? TY. Law 85A1.

The burden of proof for a UI ruling is "balance of probabilities" so the level of proof required is far more similar to that required in a civil matter than a criminal matter.

You keep running this same silly arguement. These things are clearly "evidence" of UI, just not conclusive evidence to a burden of proof sufficient for the directing staff to have found there was an infraction. "Rules of evidence" will determine what evidence is admissable or not and what evidence will be given lower or higher weight, but will have no bearing on what constitutes evidence. The smoking gun does not prove that a person shot his wife, but it will certainly be introduced at his murder trial. One does not need to be legally trained to understand this concept.

Prepare the tar and feathers for Player A.

There was no attempt to change the 1♦ bid. The director asked east if they were playing transfers after a 1NT opening to which he responded "we are trying too". The director did not ask any questions of west and did not look at west's hand (as he was yet to play this board). He actually asked us to start the next board and then come back to this one after he'd had a quick read of the laws. When the director came back after we'd finished board 2, he said that because 1♦ was a natural ♦ suit (having not actually looked at the hand) west could replace the insufficient bid with a "natural" 2♦ bid that east would not be obliged to treat as a transfer and the auction would proceed normally but if west chose any other call east would be barred. I was a bit skeptical about this ruling but knew I would be protected if the insufficient bid result in us getting a bad score. As it turned out, the auction continued 2♦:2♠:2NT:3NT so plus 150 for NS was a top board anyway.

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sqha6dq10753cj8653&w=s1095hj10853d84cq42&e=sak632hkqdk96ck97&s=sj874h9742daj2ca10]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] East opens 1NT (presumedly 16-18) and west responds insufficiently with 1♦. The playing director arrives and ascertains that EW play transfers after a 1NT opening. North declines the option to accept the 1♦ bid. How do you rule?

It's your lead partner.

The OP said she thinks he was. I don't know what she bases this on, or how sure she is. Instead of asking what 2♥ means (since the asker thinks he already knows, but wants to be sure partner does), would it be appropriate to ask if there was a failure to alert 2♥? If they say "yes", you call the director and let him straighten things out. If they say "no", you presume that you were mistaken about the conventional meaning. I like this approach.

I think the safest approach for defenders when quized about the meaning of a discard is to outline their general carding agreements as they pertain to the situation but not make any direct reference to a particular card in play. I don't think there is any duty for a defender to draw declarers attention to earlier tricks but I also think it's unethical to be purposefully oblique in one's response to conceal important carding information from earlier tricks. That is to say if the meaning of a particular discard is informed by earlier tricks, the explanation of the carding agreements needs to encompass that possibility but not necessarily confirm or deny the existence of earlier relevant carding. If you are playing a complex carding method and haven't pre-alerted properly I think your obligations for comprehensible disclosure increase, but I don't think that ought to extend, in this case, to having to expressly advise declarer that the ♠5 has already been pitched. As has been said several times already, to intentionally misinform declarer about the meaning of the ♠2 is clear-cut cheating and should be harshly punished.

Evidence comes in many shapes and sizes and will include witness testimony, expert opinions, circumstantial factors and history of prior conduct by the accused. In the example that you cite from the hypothetical motor vehicle accident, the driver's poor driving history is most relevant evidence towards the issue of whether or not he is more likely than not to have caused this accident. All of the evidence would need to be examined and weighed-up and it is perfectly plausible that the person's poor driving record may be the factor that tips the scale towards a conclusion of guilt. In this case all three of the points I listed under the "for" case are clearly evidence supporting that postion. They don't prove anything of themselves, but they are still evidence.