geller

The Laws of Bridge authorize regulation of conventions, but there is no provision for requiring that pairs must use the 4-3-2-1 point count rigorously to make their evaluations. Obviously it is a matter of convenience to use 4-3-2-1 point count in stating the definition of bids, but normal flexibility in making hand evaluation should be allowed. If petty-minded clerks insist that the 4-3-2-1 point count must be rigorously followed, with harsh punishment for even minor common sense deviations, bridge as we know it will have ended. Do we really want to say that it's OK to open 2S with xxxxxx QJ Qx xxx because that hand has 5HCP, but that it's a felony to open 2S with KT98xx x xxxx xx?

Everyone knows (or should know) that the 4-3-2-1 point count is just one general and approximate scheme for evaluating the strength of a hand. There are a myriad of other factors (texture, shape, aces are really worth more than 4 and queens/jacks less than 2 and 1 respectively, concentration of honors in long/short suits, etc) that all reasonably strong players take into account. It seems silly to treat minor deviations from the stated strength on the 4321 scale as violations of partnership agreements or psyches.

Pardon my ignorance, but what does the "S&G" in the title of this thread mean?

At present the WBF uses imp quotient (imps won/imps lost) as the tiebreaker when vp scores are the same. Here in Japan we currently follow the WBF regulation for purposes of awarding trophies and prizes, etc., although masterpoint awards treat the tie as a tie. Two teams in a Swiss Team event in Tokyo were tied for first place in VPs. Their scores were as follows Team 1: IMP +291 -174 Quotient= 1.67 Net Plus= 117 Team 2: IMP +340 -212 Quotient= 1.60 Net Plus= 128 Under the current rules Team 1 was awarded the trophy, as it had the better IMP quotient. (On the other hand, if IMP difference=net plus= rather than quotient had been used as the tiebreaker, Team 2 would have been awarded the trophy.) My question is, should imp quotient or imp difference (net plus) be used as the tiebreaker? It seems that a long time ago football (soccer) used goal ratio as the tiebreaker, and bridge followed this. Many years ago FIFA switched over from goal quotient to goal difference, but bridge continues to use imp quotient rather than difference. Either is somewhat arbitrary, but which do you think is better?

In the windows client you could do a mouseover to get the user profile. I understand there are reasons why you can't do this in general on the web client, but it would be nice if you could do it for VuGraph commentators in particular, and for people who chat to you in general. -Bob

The refusal to show hands in the OP involved a Swiss Team event with shuffled boards (reshuffled after each round) with no hand records. The case of a passout is a bit different perhaps, especially when there are hand records available after the match. But in the event of a claim or concession with onl y a few tricks left, it takes only a few seconds to look at the remaining cards, so I don't see this as a major objection. In any event, as Pran has pointed out, bridge is not poker. There is nothing in the Laws that says you can refuse to show your cards, and there is L74A2 to say that you should abide by a reasonable request to show them.

If two experienced and respected tournament directors can disagree about such a simple and fundamental point, this indicates the existence of a flaw in the Laws of Bridge. Perhaps the WBFLC could resolve this point at its next meeting (in Philadelphia) and could also clarify this point in the next (2017?) edition of the Laws.

Of course you can call the director and ask for a ruling under 74A2. (But you might not be very happy with the outcome. :-) ) -Bob

Because refusing the request to show one's hand would cause annoyance on the part of the requester and would interfere with the requester's enjoyment of the game.

Never overlook Law 74A2 - that law applies also in a passout situation! I agree, but might it not be even better for the next version of the Law Book to make this explicit.

West is declarer. With 5 tricks left to play in the hand, North turns to West and says "OK, you take the rest." West says to the opponents, "OK, thanks, but please show me your remaining cards." South says, "Sorry, since the play of the hand has ended I am not obligated to show you my remaining cards, and I refuse to do so." West summons the director, and asks him to ask North and South to show him (West) their remaining cards. How should the director rule, and which specific law(s) justify his ruling? -Bob

In the case of the ACBL the ZA is also the RA, so this is a special case. In the case of Zone 6 the situation is different. The JCBL (Japan Contract Bridge League) regulations allow players to reserve their rights to call the director at the end of the hand in the event of a hesitation. I wasn't aware that the PABF regulations stated that they were denying the various national assns the right to regulate this matter, which, as correctly noted above, they do not actually have the power to do. Hopefully the apparently inappropriate PABF regulation can be corrected. but as far as I know it hasn't had any practical effect on the national assns. -Bob

Here is a link to the official PABF elections. -Bob

This is a grey area. Before the WBF existed the ACBL was the promulgator of the Laws for the western hemisphere. My understanding is that (WBF Constitution and Bylaws notwithstanding) the ACBL position is that it is the Laws promulgator for ACBL-land and that the WBF laws are merely advisory. As I might be wrong, I'd appreciate any additions/corrections regarding this matter. -Bob

Amazing: Zone 6 does not allow reserving rights "to obtain a friendlier environment" when in fact this decision will do exaclty the reverse. In England: "You thought a bit before doubling, didn't you?" "Sure" In Zone 6: "Director!" The document cited above ( http://www.scba.org.sg/files/documents/Zon...f_2007_Laws.doc ) is from the web site of the Singapore CBA, and appears to be their instructions to their delegate (on how to vote at the meeting that decided the PABF elections) rather than the official and final PABF elections. Unfortunately the official PABF website ( http://www.pabf.org/home.asp ) doesn't show the final and official PABF elections. I will drop the webmaster a note. -Bob