jnichols

You can have Dealmaster generate a large number of hands and report the frequencies of the various suit distributions and of the high card points. It includes a table with the frequencies for all possible hands. Try this for about 100,000 hands and I think you will find that the match is quite close. Remember - most peoples hand shuffling does not give random results. There are a number of other dealing programs out there. One well liked program - BIg Deal - is now included in Dealmaster. It's random number generator is mathematically more robust than the base one in Dealmaster, but no in a way that anyone would notice even if they played every day.

Snooker and Golf are primarily phosical (mechanical) games. There is thought involved in choice of shot and what club to use, but the primary aspect of these games is the ability to execute the mechanics of the game. Bridge, on the other hand, is primary a mental game. The mechanics are Incedental. That is a reason to have special rules for mechanical mistakes at Bridge.

Aren't we required now to disclose our understandings, not just our agreements. I suspect that the change in the word used in the Laws was made just to emphasize what pran is pointing out here.

There are lots of ways to break ties. Some are certainly better than others. Apparently which are better is a matter of opinion. Most important, IMHO, is that the method(s) to be used are known, in advance, to the players (at least if they bother to read the Conditions of Contest) and that it is easy for the players to see that they are being applied properly. Simple methods like the result in a head to head match, or sum of scores of opponents, or swiss points are easy for a player to verify. Whatever you apply, and in whatever order, will be unpopular with the players who don't win, but that can't be avoided. Loosing a tie breaker by a methond they can't understand will have players grumbling not about loosing, but about the fairness of the tournament and that we need to avoid.

ACBL Score (download for free from ACBL.ORG) has a 13 table / 13 round interwoven howell. There are two groups of pairs who meet only other pairs from their group with one exception. At table one a pair from group A meets a pair from group B. First run a 13 round mitchel numbering the E/W pairs as 13+table number. Omit the first round (after pairs take their pair numbers). Those match-ups will meet at table 1 in the howell. Second session - run the interwoven howell. Everyone will have met everyone. I haven't looked in detail but I don't think you should scramble the mitchell. A better mathmetician than I should determine that. After the two sessions everyone will have met everyone. Take the top 10 pairs as your qualifiers and put them in the 5 table (howell) final. The rest go to the Plate.

First - as a director when I rule on a disputed claim I first have the claimer repeat their claim statement. Then I have all hands faced on the table. Then I make my ruling. On this hand, from your post I expected that the defender had just one trump. However, since declarer doesn't realize this there are several reasonable ways to play the hand. Starting with the ♠10 followed by the ♠4 is certainly one of them - 2 tricks to the defenders.

A competent declarer might do just that. But they might also start with the small card to the dummy. And then they might ruff the next trick high, or maybe low. Leaves a lot of ways for the opponents to score the outstanding trump. The only play that would surprise me would be to start by leading the 4 of trump.

Practical answer - People claim without stating a line of play all the time. And those claims are usually accepted. I would guess that well over 50% of claims are accepted without a line of play being accepted.

I suspect that there is a ruling involved that we will hear about soon.

If the IMPS for this match are converted to Victory Points then the total VPs awarded for the match will be a bit less than if the board was simply "not played" or "average" (zero imps each way). If IMPS are used later for tie-breaking then again the result is a bit less.

My 5 year old grandson plays better than this - Not Bridge (yet) but other card games

Initially the deuce of trump did not seem to be declarer's incontrovertible intention. But the statement "that's a deuce, too" certainly clarifies that it was declarer's intention.

Your idea of modest is a bit different from mine. Outfitting our club at $3000 per table would require and expenditure of about 65% of our annual income. That would be about 20 years of our proffit. An operating cost of $2 per person per session would require a 50% increase in our card fees. If someone is interested in building such a system you should be looking at an outlay of around $200 (USD) per table and an operating cost that is truly nill, or about $0.02 per person per session. Our players took quite well to electronic scoring. It would be much more difficult for many of them to adapt to playing electronically. Many of thiem would probably never make such a transition.

But claimer apparently doesn't "think" he has 3 high trumps. He thinks he has 4 high trumps. So why does he see a need to be carefull about which one he plays when?

I've dealt with this a few times as TD. First I verify that the player in fact did not show his last card and then mixed his cards to hide the revoke. Then I ask him to provide me with evidence that he did not revoke. If he can't do that he gets penalized for the revoke. And a PP. There were a few players that this happend with once. None twice.

There may be several people named John playing in my game, and I don't answer every time I hear my name. But I do every time I hear "director". Sometimes even when they weren't calling me. They appologize for bothering me, but I don't think it is a problem.

Of course it's a matter of money. The entire Pay to Play concept would never have come about if it wasn't a matter of money. That is clear even from this side of the Atlantic. :)

So, coming from the USA, If I want to visit a club in your jurisdiction and would like to aquaint myself with your regulations before I come I won't be able to? Instead I should just be surprised at what is and is not alertable? Seems a bit unfriendly to me.

My experience has been best with LinkSys, but that's just me. By the way, I think Cisco owns LinkSys.

Why would they care about living the way you say they should live? Does that make any sense? Of course "they" don't. And that difference of opinion is precisely the source of the problem of getting "beyound that sort of thing."

What was E/W's agreed meaning for 3♣?

I suppose you could try using a smaller font :lol:

The "Systems On" checkbox in the notrump overcall section on the ACBL system card is just too small of a space for a good description. SOME people check it to apply after any interference, SOME people check it meaning only without interference, SOME people check it meaning "look at the 1NT opening section to see when systems apply," and SOME people probably use a different approach. All this simply won't fit in a binary checkbox. So, if you need to know you must ask. And yes, if there is (any) problem at your table, call the director. No problem is too big or too small.

At the regional here this past week I was told by the directors that they are expecting to use 400 Bridgemates and 400 BridgePads at Reno. :(

The ACBL doesn't seem to have a problem with it. :) Helene is correct. And that's why the ACBL likes it. They know their rule can't be enforced, so they don't have to bother with it.