AlexOgan

They got a 7 IMP slowplay penalty. (Justin just blogged "We picked up 50 on the set. Our teammates also lost 7 for slowplay last set, so we are up 63 with 1 set to go.")

Is there a way to click from those pages to the results of the finals? Or, were there only 3 sessions? Links to the final session results are here: http://www.worldbridge.org/tourn/Philadelphia.10/Results.htm (Still no Rosenblum results there, oddly enough...)

Anybody know what happened to the Kranyaks, who led after qualifying session #2 but don't seem to have played in session 3? http://www.worldbridge.org/tourn/Philadelp...no=2&qroundno=2 http://www.worldbridge.org/tourn/Philadelp...no=2&qroundno=3

Seconding this recommendation.

Is this really an ACBL rule? I've never heard this.

I would like a private scoresheet app. A lot of features are pretty obvious -- quick entry of contract/result, automatic scoring based on vulnerability from the board number etc, ability to enter estimated matchpoint/imp score and track sum over the session, ability to enter hand / opening lead, storing/tracking results over time and providing stats about them. I'd pay for such an app done well.

It took me a long time to find the "show played cards" option in the web client, by right-clicking. I figured it would be under the main "Options" menu.

You should have appealed at least the first one -- that ruling is insanely bad.

Hmm, yes, that's helpful, I'll forward that . Looking for something even simpler if possible, though.

Hi -- can anyone recommend a decent, very short bidding reference document for a novice? Typical North American 5cM type methods would be preferred. Thanks for any suggestions!

We play 1D as either 14-16 bal OR 11-15, at least one 4-card major, no 5-card major, not 5+/5+ in the minors. Never had a hint of a problem.

Regarding your first question, you might try looking through the bulletins at http://www.eurobridge1.org/competitions/08pau/Bulletins.htm. The bulletins contain reports on appeals (e.g. page 19 of http://www.eurobridge1.org/bulletin/08_1%2...pdf/Bul_10.pdf. (URL CORRECTED TO REMOVE BRACKET -- INQUIRY)

I just logged on to BBO and opened the Allegaert/Meltzer match. Does anybody know what happened on board 18 in the open room? Justin/Kevin ended up in 4H-7 on a 2-2 fit. Maybe North thought 4H was a retransfer to S? Was wondering if I missed any commentary about alternate explanations...

If they withdraw, will you just win by default, or will the team that lost to them in the semis get a shot?

I've been playing the following structure for a while now: 1C: ART, F1, 17+ bal / 16+ unbal 1D: 14-16 bal OR 11-15 with 0+D, at least 1 4c major, not 5+/5+ minors 1H: 11-15, 5+H 1S: 11-15, 5+S 1NT: 11-13 bal (5cm OK, rarely 5cM) 2C: 11-15, 5+C, no 4c major, no 5cD 2D: 11-15, 5+D, no 4c major, no 5cC 2H: 4-10, 5+H, undisciplined 2S: 4-10, 5+S, undisciplined 2NT: 11-15, 5+C/5+D I think it's been working rather well.

Failing to wait after a skip bid.

Yeah I read this today and really couldn't understand why an AWMW wasn't at least discussed.

http://web2.acbl.org/as400/mpraces/mpAward...me/grandlms.htm (That's a list of all 278 ACBL Grand Life Masters)

2NT isn't a spade raise, even though several posters in this thread seem to have thought it was. It's natural/GF. We started playing this way after reading Gitelman's "Improving 2/1 Game Force" article series. It looks to me like he still plays something like this with Moss (in response to 1S, all calls from 3C through 4S show some kind of spade raise -- although 4H might be natural).

I did a quick double dummy simulation. South gets any 11-15HCP, 5+ spades, spades >= hearts. West gets a hand that looks like a pass (this was quick and dirty -- I'm sure I'm accepting some hands West would actually bid and rejecting some where West would actually pass). Anyway, here's a table of the number of tricks available, double dummy, in spades, with South declaring: (100 trials) 7 tricks: 1 8 tricks: 1 9 tricks: 11 10 tricks: 29 11 tricks: 39 12 tricks: 17 13 tricks: 2 So slam is certainly in the picture... Alex

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sakt8h2dt97532ckt]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] Partner deals and opens 1S in a strong club context (5+S, ~11-15HCP). RHO passes.

Drew Casen

OK, then -- how about making the results of swiss team events LESS "accurate"? There are lots of adjustments we could make to format/pairing/scoring that would acheive that. Would that be a good thing? Or are you claiming that the existing system is perfect?

Our view is that to be accepted by players, the scoring system must be transparant/simple. It's not clear that people would even accept something as simple as this -- I think that more complicated systems like Gerben's don't stand a chance. We used normally distributed team strengths with standard deviation 1, with units of IMPs/Board.

I thought it was pretty clear that he meant that the opponents were frightened for his (and his partner's) sanity...