keeper2

Shouldn't that be "Did you share a top with 50% of the field?"?

I agree that appearance are important, including over location, but it seems the WBF's room for manoeuvre may have been limited in choosing the personnel of the Commission. The WBF Disciplinary Code states that: If the case arises, a Disciplinary Commission, the Commission appointed by the WBF President, rules on the cases of reprehensible conduct referred to the WBF. The Commission consists of three people selected by the President from a group of five approved by the Executive Council and including at least two members of the EC. The Commission includes at least one member of the Executive Council, who acts as Chairman of the Commission. The Disciplinary Committee listed on the WBF website consists of five names and it would seem that typically these five names would be those from whom the Commission is chosen. The five on the Disciplinary Committee are the three members that served on the Commission, the prosecutor,and……Ulrich Wenning, President of the DBV and teammate of the accused in the event in question.

It seems that all the robot players in the original tournaments had the same random "seed" for their simulations (and so take the same action under the same conditions), whereas the new instant player is playing against robots with a different "seed" (and as a result the robotsbbb often take different actions from those in the original tournament) which can lead to extreme variability in results. In addition there have been GIB improvements over the years. This randomness takes away from the fun of what is otherwise an interesting innovation. It is less of a good "test" than standard robot tournaments where all face the same conditions.

Yes, but in the case cited by OP, the person who made the call is presumed dummy (the question is asked by a player who "is on lead"), and so would be expected to volunteer their understanding of the partnership agreement, if there is one.

Judging by the proportion of latest posts in the section newly at the top of the forums that are by Barmar,the reorganization is clearly in Barmar's interest.....

Forgive me for returning to the original topic, but don't both psyches violate the ACBL GCC prohibition of "Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional responses thereto. Psyching conventional suit responses, which are less than 2NT, to natural openings" ? Since 1D promises only 2 diamonds it is not "natural" according to ACBL definitions. Moreover, since the 2H bid shows 5H +4spades it is also conventional according to the ACBL.

The attached link contains some advice on this from a number of people likely to be playing on the "better teams" - compiled by Steve Robinson http://www.districtsix.org/Articles/2005-08.html

It's pinned in the General BBO Discussion forum... http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/24793-a-new-game-the-whole-family-can-play/

I am writing as someone who frequently plays ACBL robot duplicates,and greatly enjoys them (even if they are a bit too addictive). One of the major attractions is that they are tolerant of the occasional interruptions that are an inevitable part of life with a young"ish" family, which also heavily limits how often I can play ftf. I think that they are in general a good test of bridge skill. And I don't really feel all that guilty that my masterpoint total is now much closer than it was to those who I think are my ftf peers, but who can play "proper bridge" more frequently. But the gains resulting from frequent deviations from the announced system, such as some of the offshape or out-of-range NT bids referred to above, do trouble me. As others have noted, these may gain because of better GIB systems over NT, because the robots generally don't defend well against the NT contracts that result, or because "you" declare more often after such an opening and are a better declarer than GIB. But they also gain because your robot opponents are operating with a description of your system which isn't really the system you are playing and think you can't have the type of hand you do have. Obviously the Laws clearly permit deviations from system. Equally obviously there can be no thought of your non-sentient partner robot "fielding" your deviations or psyches. But in a real-life ftf game, you wouldn't be able to repeat such bids without creating an implicit partnership understanding, which would have to be disclosed to your robot opponents. And in any event real life opponents would likely over time learn of any such tendencies. I guess the bottom-line here is that while you might be legally able to do those things, you wouldn't be able to repeat them thousands of times without your opponents being aware of them and taking them into consideration.

Wasn't there a case discussed on these forums some time ago where Chip Martel, a prominent member of the relevant ACBL committee, playing with his wife, opened a 3HCP weak two (outside their stated range, which was limited by the regulation), claiming it was simply a deviation from the agreement and the ruling went in his favor...

Thanks, everybody. I think Andy sums it up very nicely. In the game in question I don't think there is much risk of an opponent machine-gunning the next trick, particularly if you ask people to "leave their card out for a moment." The player in question is a platinum life master so I guess it's probably too late. I think as Gnasher suggested that it's well intentioned, but it is annoying.

Swiss Teams Match At trick three or four, at his turn to play on his partner's lead, a defender ponders for some time, detaches a card from his hand and places it face down in front of him and then proceeds to think for a further extended period (say a minute), before playing the card he has detached. He appears to think this is correct procedure. Any comments? If it matters the player in question has a reputation for slow play, as well as for trying to hurry others at their turn..

[hv=pc=n&s=saq32hdkqt87cak85&n=skjt94hkq9765dct6&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=pp1dp1hp2sp3sp4cppp]266|200[/hv] Sorry, did compose hand diagram but failed to insert it. The same thing appears to have happened to the other player who bid the same way. ACBL Robot Duplicate #7575 Board 1

4c was explained (moused over before bid) as cue bid, 5+D, 21-HCP, biddable S, 8+ (I presume 8421 points in clubs). Difficult to imagine why N passed with spades apparently agreed... If, as I suspect, cue bids are a recent innovation here for GIB robots (replacing help suit slam tries?)has the rest of the code been adjusted accordingly?

Owen is referring to Bridge Club St Honore, Avenue Raymond Poincare. I only visit Paris for meetings that do not finish predictably early enough to play, but one trip I stayed at a neighboring hotel and kibbed a couple of hands. Only about ten tables, but the standard seemed fairly high. I think one of the Bessis family is involved at least in a teaching capacity. Oddly a couple of weeks ago I was surprised to see among the chess players in the Luxemburg gardens a bridge table complete with bidding boxes, not only offline bridge, but outdoors bridge!