goose

Hi May we assume that live scores will be available from all the matches? DG

This issue seems to have provoked a large number of responses and i havent read all of them so excuse me if i am repeating other's observations. There are two expenses at championships relating to conveying information to the world - the bulletin and the on site viewgraph. I am not sure how much these cost but flying 5 or 6 people half way round the world and providing their subsistence and accommodation does not seem particularly cheap. So this expense is dedicated to maybe a few dozen on site spectators and bulletin readers ( granted there are a large numbere who read the bulletin off the net). BBO viewgraph presentations for reasonably important events now regularly attract several thousand Bridge people so are the resources rally being directed in the right areas? Maybe the world has yet to catch up with on line presentations? If a small amount of their vast wealth is not available for BBO operators, could not some of the bulletin staff be delegated to this purpose, say? After all they report on the matches and presumably watch them so why not operate at the same time? Seems such a shame for juniors particularly to miss out on being presented. And such a loss to the Bridge community that we wont have the privilege of seeing our next generation of world champions:-(

Has anyone noticed that 'movie' during vg commentries now shows the previous hand instead of the current one? As a commentator i find this a problem since, if i am distracted (maybe by a spectator asking a question), it is difficult to reconstruct the play.

It is great to get feedback about commentating and i only wish there was more of it. We want to try and please the number of people for as much of the time as possible and are not on ego trips to show everyone how clever we are. Perhaps it might be an idea to be able to set up a system where people can remark of commentary and commentators anonymously so as not to offend? This could be used by Roland as a constructive way to improve commentaries. GIB is useful but more often as an intellectual pastime rather than relating to real situations at the Bridge Table. Do not many of us enjoy problems such as those in 'Adventures in Card Play'? I fully agree that more of us should try and analyse what is going through a player's head when they encounter a problem. For myself, i always try and do this but could never equal the best exponent, Zia Mahmood. As far as getting paid, sure it would be nice but i cant think that it would change many peoples' lifestyles and my time restrictions revolve around work; the earnings from which would never be compensated by a few dollars here and there. No, i commentate because i enjoy it and enjoy it all the more when there is a good meld of people which Roland does he utmost to achieve. The altruistic point of "giving something back to the game" is a nice one and i hope a by-product of my enjoyment.

Hi folks Although i enjoy commentating i often look in on broadcasts where i am not taking part as i enjoy watching. I am typing this whilst watching the Cavendish broadcast. There seems to be a sole commentator, Larry Cohen, and whilst one cannot deny his eminence as a player and analyst i dont find it at all entertaining. For someone that is usually capable of working things out myself, the added value is the 'craic' gernerated by the commentators and the interaction between them. It is obviously impossible to have any interaction between one person; excepting of course the plethora of Waldks that are around at times:-) Ok, it may not be the organiser's fault that a number of 'chosen' commentators showed loyalty to Roland ( as i would have done had i been one of the invitees) but a little more communication at an earlier stage might have redressed matters. I would have enjoyed watching more but i will go to bed soon as the broadcast seems to have a certain soporific value.

I am sure that the organisers will do their best now this has been brought to their attention. I seem to remember using a freephone number from hotels and just being charged a nominal amount for each call eg 10p. The same applies when we use telephone cards from overseas. if nothing else, lets hope this shows the interest for broadcasts and future organisers can take note.

it seems the committee's reasoning was that the opponents were playing unusual methods viz 1D may be one card And the hand should have been alert to the fact that 2D might be unusual. My point is that you should be allowed to assume things are normalish (obviously 2D facing a possible but unlikely singleton cant be completely normal) and the opponents have a duty to alert you otherwise. Strictly, should not LHO alert their partner's pass of a forcing bid? Thanks for all your comments

CC does not now contain methods after interference unless you add it as a note or in 'important notes....'. In this case that might be appropriate but no information was given.

No 3NT had 9 top tricks TD ruled as 2D+1 overturned in appeal's committee to 3NT=

I dont think any advantage was necessarily taken, but when your position is prejudiced by an innocent question by partner i think 'active ethics' should apply. No matter if you were 100% sure you would bid, you have to pass.

xxx,AQxxx,x,AKQx 1D as dealer on your right (precision 1+ diamonds) and you overcall 1H; 2D on your left passed back to you? You X and 10 seconds later the opponents are in 3NT. It transpires that 2D was forcing and RHO failed to alert. How would you rule?