mrdct

There was quite a nice DVD series made from the Istanbul Olympiad which had Zia & Sabine Auken (both in after-five gear) hosting and David Burn commentating. I think it was comprised of about six 30 minute episodes that did actually air in Europe somewhere. It was put together very professionally with really nice graphics but there was very very little actual bridge; which was probably intentional as it was more about the colour of the event and the drama of a women's final being decided on the last board. There were no bridge hands covered from start to finish with commentary usually coming in at an end position so it looks like each hand only takes a minute or so. I think it was quite watchable by a non-bridge player with a passing interest in card games, but a serious kibitzer you would be watching on BBO. My final thought is that with the high production values, it must have been very expensive to produce, so without a wide distribution deal or rich benefactor it's going to be very hard to make any money out of it.

I use a Dell Mini 9 and it's fine for the windows client but not that great in the flash version. I've also watched vugraph on my iPhone which is great, but again it's only feasible with the windows client and can only be done by VNCing to a windows machine which takes a fair bit of mucking around; but it's great to be able to pull your phone out of your pocket and do some kibitzing wherever you are.

Sure there probably aren't a lot of people amongst "club players" who would want to explore loopholes in system regulations or play 1♣=♠, but when it comes to being interested in experiencing playing against methods which are a bit different I would expect a significant majority would be ambivolent. Of the minority there may well be a few that are turned off the game by the stress of dealing with something different, but I think a greater number would be genuinely interested in playing against something different. The other comment I would make is that playing against 1♣=♠ sounds a lot easier to me than playing against, for example, a Polish 1♣ that includes several quite different sorts of hands that would take a fair bit of thought and preparation to work out the optimal defence; especially if you haven't had a chance to discuss anything with your partner.

I assume you are looking for a descriptor such as "strikingly handsome". Don't get me wrong here, I think Bridgemates and other handheld scoring units are great but through one or more of player apathy, recorder inexperience, counter-intuitive software and inadequate data validation, they were a failure at Beijing because at the end of the day bridge fans simply could not rely on the website scores. This may not be a big deal for many, but some of us were having a punt here and there, sometime in-play, and it makes it kind of hard when the live scores can't be trusted. I'm simply searching for a better mouse trap.

Perhaps the Bridgemates could be reprogrammed so that NS enter the result and click OK and then hand the unit to EW who enter the result and click OK. The score will only validate (and update itself on a live scores website where applicable) if NS & EW enter exactly the same contact, declarer and tricks. If EW enter something different, the result is cleared and the unit goes back to NS to try again.

There's no point blaming operator error if there aren't processes in place to ensure accuracy. I would've thought that when a World Championship is down to the final, there would be resources floating around to check and recheck each score as they go. If we are going to rely on these things for accurate live scoring, there must controls in place to ensure that when West presses "OK" the result on the screen is indeed the correct score. The obvious control is EW get penalised 3 IMP for any incorrect scores which should be a good incentive to not press "OK" unless it's right.

The reality is, however, that they were less than successful in Beijing. I've not used Bridgemates before, but with other electronic scoring units that I've used one of the NS players enters the score and then one of EW players has to check it and press OK. Under that method, I've hardly ever seen any errors. I think if recorders are being used they really should be cross-checking every board with what is on an actual player scoresheet. Moreover, when an event is down to the final there should be ample resources to cross-check player scorecards, BBO results and Bridgemate results in real time. It was really unfortunate that in the final 16 boards of the seniors final there were no less that three errors resulting in USA's score being represented about 17 imps too high.

Once the live scoring got going a few days into the WMSG, it was evident that quite a lot of Bridgemate errors were creeping into the live scorecards. I doubt this has anything to do with the Bridgemates themselves and was more an issue with the accuracy of the data entry on the units. In Beijing were players entering the results themselves or were there recorders at the tables doing it?

Having multiple commentary channels is clearly the best solution and from the sounds of it, this is on the software development agenda. Once thing that slightly peeved me from the WMSG final was that the open room was always running about 20 minutes behind as the feature match, thereby giving the superior viewing experience due to the availability of comparitives, and it was in Italian for all 6 segments. It would seem more fair to share that around a bit. It's perhaps a tad selfish being an English speaker, but I think the dual language protocol ought to be English in the open room and "other" in the closed room.

I think that is really the whole point. Nobody, or at least no contributers to this thread, has ever seen this happen before. That of itself makes it shocking. If we want players in knock-out matches to be able to call it quits mid-segment then I think the WBF General Conditions of Contest or the Laws of Bridge need to explicitly provide for it.

It obviously wouldn't be possible to confer with one's teammates about a mid-segment concession as you would be conveying unauthorised information that things have been going poorly at the other table. Bridge has an established process in place for knock-out matches to be conceded between segments. An established and accepted process for mid-segment concessions does not exist and I don't believe the sport needs one. What bridge does need, however, is unambiguous guidance in Conditions of Contest as to how these sort of situations are to be managed; and in my humble opinion a segment that has commenced should always be played out unless there is some sort of medical issue.

I'm not quite sure I understand this. To draw an analogy with another mind sport: you can resign in the middle of a chess game, can you not? No one would cast doubts on your sportsmanship for so doing, would they? Not that I've ever played chess, but I believe the situation in a chess game is quite different. In chess a concession takes place when a player realise that the game has reached a point where it is inevitable that checkmate will ensue within a few moves. It happens frequently and is a completely normal means by which a chess game ends. A concession in a chess game is more analagous to a defender of a bridge hand conceding the rest of the tricks when he realise that no matter what he or declarer does, declarer will win all the remaining tricks. It is quite a stretch to suggest that conceding a bridge match in the middle of a segment is the same thing. In bridge, the established protocol is that when you sit down to play a session of bridge you finish the session. As I said before, I'm not aware of this sort of thing ever having happened before in a major tournament.

unsporting ? more sporting to give-up after 80 boards than after 88 ? anybody blames norway ? The big difference is that there is an established precedent for knock-out matches with seemingly insurmountable leads to be conceded with a segment remaining. This is a normal part of major tournament bridge. If a match is going to be conceded the appropriate time to do it is during a scheduled break between segments where the team can confer with its captain, tournament officials can be advised and broadcasters can be advised. I am not aware of any examples where a match in a major championship has been conceded in the middle of a segment. It was for that reason that I found this incident so shocking. Obviously with new information emerging that the Tournament Director acquiesced to the concession and that one or both of Elinescu and Wladow may not have been in a fit physical or mental state to continue, the incident is less shocking and perhaps even understandable or reasonable. However, I would hate to see the situation where mid-segment concessions become a regular feature of our sport because I don't think that is what our sport is about. If you sit down to play a session of bridge, regardless of how poorly things are going you have an obligation to complete that session.

The fact that the Tournament Director agreed to the concession mid-session casts a completely different light on this incident and it would obviously be impossible for the WBF to take any action against Elinescu-Wladow in that circumstance. It may be a different story for the German Federation as it was reported (albeit unconfirmed) that the German npc, who apparently couldn't be located at the time of the concession, later sought to have the match restarted. There would appear to be some view amongst the German officialdom that it was inappropriate to "give-up" mid-session, so it will be interesting to see how that pans out. In fairness to posters to this thread who were calling for blood, it would not have occurred to them, and certainly didn't occur to me, that a Tournament Director would ever agree to a concession in the middle of a session. Perhaps the lynch mob can start targeting the TD! I remain of the view that it is unsporting to give-up in the middle of a segment. Swing from the trees if you like, but finish what you started. This is what we teach our children and elite sportsman like Elinescu-Wladow should lead by example.

Google translation: "After the lost segments 4 and 5, with a strong Germany was behind England in the last segment of the semifinals. With the permission of the main tournament director konzedierte the team then the match after a few boards of the last sixth. Some unfortunate comments by the BBO-commentators at the end of the game were probably due to the fact that they do not live what is happening on the ground witnessed, but by domestic screen moderated and misinterpreted."

Ban them for throwing IMPs away deliberately. Our posts crossed, but that is the first time it's been said in this thread that they threw imps deliberately. I agree it's probably unfair to say that Elinescu-Wladow were throwing imps deliberately. From what I saw they were both taking reckless anti-percentage actions in a desperate attempt to generate some miracle imps. The first 3 boards of the segment were pushes, albeit with quite different and some unusual actions being taken in both rooms, and then a run of 60 imps to England over 5 boards took place: Board 20: Wladow could've passed out 1NT at All Vul but unwisely chose to balance with a double holding a flat 12 count with AKJT in RHO,s suit. A scramble ensued and he would up in 2♠x going for 800 and 12 imps out. He won't find too many experts who agree with his double, but hardly a deliberate attempt to lose imps. Board 21: Wladow were active at unfavourable vul in a competive auction which ended with England playing in a cold 4♥ contract. 11 imps were lost due to the German pair in the other room reaching 6♥ going one off. Board 22: At favourable vul the German's were quiet as England bid to a cold 3NT and then Wladow decided to take a save in 4♣ holding x KTxx Jx Kxxxxx. This went for 1100 at cost 9 imps. Again, not everyone's choice of bid but he was at favourable vul in a fairly desperate situation in the match. Board 23: Wladow took an unusual action on this board, overcalling 2NT against RHO's 1♣ opening holding K xx K98x AKJ9xx (I'm assuming this showed minors but I'm not sure). Elinescu found an ill-advised 4♦ bid in a competitive auction and Wladow then decided to compete to 5♦ which went for 1400 and 14 imps. Elinescu was probably the main contributor to the disaster, but again it's hard to say they were deliberately try to lose imps - they were just playing anti-persentage bridge. Board 24: This one I have to say was pretty suspect in terms of the allegation of the Germans deliberately throwing imps. At Nil Vul after a first seat 3♠ opening, Wladow chose to double holding Kxx Axxx AQTx Jx which is neither here nor there, but after LHO bid 4♠ and it came back to him he doubled again! The opps then redoubled to play, Elinescu ran to 5♣ and Wladow sat that doubled which went for 1400 and 14 imps. Elinescu could have easily saved one trick and only gone for 1100. At this point the match was abandoned.

LAW 74C8 seems to cover this situation fairly well, "The following are examples of violations of procedure ... leaving the table needlessly before the round is called". There is also the issue of bringing the game into disrepute which, if I recall correctly, came in to play in relation to the infamous "we didn't vote for bush" incident.

Conceding in a knock-out match with a segment to play when down a suitable margin is completely normal and happens frequently in major tournaments. If anything it's the ethical thing to do by not wasting everyone's time playing on pointlessly. Conceding mid-segment is completely different and is without precedent as far as I'm aware. Walking out mid-session is not acceptable in a social home game, it's not acceptable in a club duplicate and it's certainly not acceptable in a world championship semi-final.

I think that there are more positive aspects to that delegation than negative Like what?

Quite incredibly, after going for 1100, 1400 and 1400 on consecutive boards, the Germans abandoned their semi-final versus England mid-segment. I have never seen such poor sportsmanship in bridge. What should the penalty be?

Interestingly, the WBF General Conditions of Contest do allow players to instruct their opponents to not alert: "16. Alerts and Explanations An alertable call is defined in the WBF Alerting Policy (see Appendix 3: WBF Alerting Policy) Subject to the provisions of the regulations to be published with regard to the use of screens (see Section 26), the partner of a player who has made an alertable call must immediately alert his opponents unless they have stated, before the auction started on the first board of the set, that they do not wish to be alerted." However, they can only ask for no alerts before the start of the match and in any case this seems to only apply when screens are not in use. When screens are in use the opponents do not have the right to ask you not to alert in WBF events: "26.2 Alerts and explanations a) A player who makes an alertable call as defined in Appendix 3 must alert his screen-mate, and partner must alert on the other side of the screen when the bidding tray arrives there. The alert must be made by placing the Alert Card over the last call of the screen-mate, in his segment of the bidding tray; the alerted player must acknowledge by returning the Alert Card to his opponent. A player may, by written question, ask for an explanation of an opponent’s call; the screen-mate then provides a written answer. :P At any time during the Auction a player may request of his screen mate, in writing, a full explanation of an opponent's call. The reply is also in writing. c) At all times from the commencement of the Auction to the completion of play each player receives information only from his screenmate about the meanings of calls and explanations given. Questions during the play period should be in writing with the aperture closed. The screen is raised after the response has been made." My local Regulating Authority quite clearly states in its regulations, "7.1 Alerts are compulsory - you may not ask the opponents not to alert. The requirement to alert applies even though the convention or other agreement may be listed on the system card". It's a shame that the Laws of Bridge have delegated to local Regulating Authorities the power to determine what needs to be alerted. Surely uniformity on this would be best for everyone. Self-alerting calls can give rise to some unusual situations such as when I open 1♦, LHO doubles and partner redoubles showing 4+ ♥. If my opponents don't ask and then my RHO bids 1♥ that is also a self-alerting call (being a cue bid of a suit that my side has shown) but chances are RHO may just be intending it as natural.

You could probably deal with this situation by giving your opps a "pre-alert" at the beginning of the round along the lines of "we don't play Michaels". Seems like a lot of pre-alerts for a method that won't come up that often and can be easily handled by an alert when it does (even if not technically alertable). Pre-alerts take hardly any time at all and I usually worked them into the introduction: "Hi, I'm Dave and this is Nick. We are playing 5 card majors with a 15-17 NT, but we don't play stayman, our non-vul weak twos can be 5 card suits and we use transfers in some competitive auctions." That takes about 6 seconds so say which is less time that it takes the average opponent to pull their cards out of the board and sort their hand.

You could probably deal with this situation by giving your opps a "pre-alert" at the beginning of the round along the lines of "we don't play Michaels". Until recently 2♣ stayman was an alertable call in Australia (although most never alerted it and even fewer asked if you did alert it). Accordingly, when using 2♣ as something other than stayman I alway used to "pre-alert" the opps at the beginning of the match. Now, however, the new Australian alerting regulations say that you don't alert normal stayman but you do alert if 2♣ is anything else so it's no longer an issue.

1. In Australia you most definately cannot ask your opponents not to alert. Alertable bids must be alerted irrespective of whether or not your opponents have asked you not to alert. I would be quite surprised if this was different in any other bridge jurisdiction and note that quite different opinions on the rules in ACBL-land have been expressed in this thread. 2. Dunno - but it probably emerged when partnership agreements began to enter the game. 3. In places like Australia where you don't alert cue bids, doubles, redoubles or bids above 3NT, technically those bids are still alerted but they are "self-alerting calls" which are automatically assumed to be artificial so the making of the calls itself automaticaloly alerts the call.

I'm using Mocha VNC Lite on my iPhone and TightVNC on my home PC. You need to configure your router to make your home PC a virtual server for port 5900 which will also involve having your router or other DHCP server always assign the same MAC address to your PC. Once you do that you can view anything on your home PC on your iPhone.