PeterGill

Nigel K's idea might make Australia (5th in the last BB) the 5th seeds in the 2009 BB. Argentina is another country which sends teams of variable strength to BB's - Argentina's 2009 team looks very strong compared to the last BB in 2007. Returning to the original question in this thread: In the absence of South Africa, I cannot see anyone beating Italy. Minor medals to USA2 and Netherlands. Other finalists: Norway, China, Germany, Argentina, Bulgaria. Other possible qualifiers: USA1, Brazil, Russia, India. Venice Cup: China Seniors: Indonesia from Poland. Peter Gill.

Non vul at Matchpoints, bidding 2S or some systemic bid seems fairly reasonable to me, even with the UI. I think it's one of those touch-and-go decisions where one simply accepts the ruling, whichever way the officials decide to go, since there's no clear right and wrong. Peter Gill.

A few points: 1. Some people in this thread have referred to ACBL regulations about "25 seconds". The Cavendish is run by WBP, not by the ACBL. The Cavendish's regulations on thier website make no reference to the ACBL, just to the Laws of Duplicate Bridge and to World Bridge Productions' regulations. 2. I think one could make a case that it could be the 1H bidder with xxx, QJ109xxx, xxx, void, who appears to be thinking over 3NT. 3. The WBF has a specific regulation barring an adjusted score when the dirrctor call comes from the same side of the screen as the hesitation. WBP does not. WBP, not ACBL, is the sponsoring organisation with jurisdiction at the Cavendish. 4. My polling this week of local experts who don't know the hand has resulted in mainly club leaders, with a minority of heart and spade leaders. Peter Gill

I meant that if the rather short World Junior Pairs was used to identify the best youth pairs in the world at imps, I expect the process would be valid. Relative to adult events, youth events scored by IMPs can have unusual variations, because youth pairs are more likely to give up and throw imps all over the place (running youth events for decades allows me to make that statement with 100.0% confidence), for example giving a pair 50 imps in 5 boards (some effect, but less effect, at matchpoints) and the relative wildness of youth bidding can introduce extra randomness factors more so to youth imps events than youth matchpoint events. I'm not claiming that I would use matchpoints for this particular event - I'm just presenting some data based on my experience.

The only minus to bidding 3S is that the opponents, judging from my shortness, will often be able to make 4H, and if the bidding continues (Dbl for t/o) Pass 4H, I'm not meant to bid my hand twice by bidding 4S, am I? And partner might not be able to visualise my singleton heart, so we ill often miss a "19 or 20 combined trumps" 4S save over 4H. So there is a case for 4S at imps, as an advance save over 4H, due to my singleton heart. Interesting that nobody has voted for 4S.

I think the over-reaction to the use of matchpoints is backed up more by emotional reactions than by actual facts, especially by some younger posters. The Australian Youth Pairs is the curtain raiser of our annual Youth Bridge Week, which has been held every January for 41 years. Saturday is 2 sessions of matchpoint Pairs Qualifying, then 2 sessions of the Pairs Final (match pionted) and Consolation on the Sunday, followed by the barbecue and cricket match. I just looked through the results of the Youth Pairs from 2001 to 2009 at http://www.abf.com.au/youth/events/ayc/pastindex.html The top-scoring six or seven pairs in the Final in each of these nine years are consistently among the best ten pairs in the event, with the top-scoring three pairs usually being among the best five pairs in the event. This data strongly suggests to me that matchpointed yotuh events do sort out the best players efficiently in a quick time. I think it takes a (much) longer time for imp pairs events to sort out a youth field efficiently. I would expect similar results if I did a similar analysis of the World Junior Pairs, which also is matchpointed. Peter Gill Australia.

Jan referred to an Italy - South Africa match in her post. There is absolutely no evidence of any dumping on any of the 16 hands in that Round 20 (out of 21) match. The match was well played and low scoring. You can look at the 16 hands, and compare with the results in every other match at: http://www.worldbridge.org/tourn/Shanghai....?qmatchid=23249 Why then did Italy choose South Africa? The only other surprise qualifier was Australia, which had at least one slow pair in its team (Italy knew this), and who had also just played a recent close match with Italy. Italy prefers to play the faster players in matches they expect to win, so that might have been one of the reasons why Italy chose South Africa rather than Australia. There have been a few real cases of probable dumping.... In the 1991 Bermuda Bowl, Iceland was winning one section comfortably, with powerhouse USA team about to qualify 4th. In the last qualifying match in the other section, teams might therefore want to qualify as lowly as possible, and Poland made some very strange bids in their last match, e.g. 1H raised to 6H on a four count and so forth, in an apparent (and unsuccessful) attempt to draw Iceland in the quarter-final. Alas I don't have the 1991 World Championship book handy so I cannot give you the actual deals. Ironically Iceland beat Poland in the Grand Final. The WBF has to some extent fixed these problems by giving teams who do well some choice of Final's opponents. Ref 1991 WC Book for further details. In Australia's 1978 National Open Teams, two strong teams locked into the semi-finals both lost their last qualifying match "minus 1 to 20" to unheralded opponents who thus made the semis, triggering a three page discussion of dumping in the Feb 1978 editorial of Australian Bridge magazine. During the semi-final of the 1991 Playoff for the Australian Open Team, my team's captain discovered that we had to lose either the Semi or the Final in order to play for Australia (to our amazement), so he saw the Tournament Organiser, who told him we all had to play our best according to the rules. "Do I have to play my best partnerships?" my team captain asked him. "No," was TO's reply. Such oddities happen sometimes in the tournament world. Overall I think dumping occurred quite often in the 1970s, but is less common now. My examples are from Australia, not because Australia is a cesspool of dumping (it isn't), but because Australia is the country which I'm familiar with. Peter Gill Australia.

Some Directors and ACs are not very good at gathering the facts about what actually happened. Bridge players make mistakes aplenty when they play bridge, so it's hardly surprising that officials also make mistakes.

On the actual hand, the 5NT call to look for a grand slam is really hoping for magical card play by Brad Moss. The less experienced partner is, the more one whould pass 3D (and have a tough lead problem - Trick 1 is the last time you will be able to lead through dummy to partner), because inexperienced players tend to overbid strong hands more than experts do.

With Bidding Cards landing on the table (or tray), you just need a mechanised cloth or tray that can identify the time when each bid touched the cloth or table. For the card play, the same cloth could detect hesitations in the card play too.

Heaps. For example, right this minute if you log on to BBO and go to mtvesuvius's table you will meet many juniors - look at their profiles. Also, juniorsbbo (Paula Mittelman) is logged on at the moment.

Share the written explanations with all parties, or just with both opponents (and not with partner) at the end of the bidding? An interesting idea. If anyone can figure out if it's a good idea, please let us know. I'm not sure. It seems to have some merit, and I cannot figure out what the downside would be.

I think South's comment is a self-servng comment which, like most self-serving comments made to ACs, should be ignored. There's no evidence to back up what he says. Bid on a 4 count into a potential misfit? Sounds unlikely to me - but it's the sort of thing which is easy to claim afterwards that you would have done.

We are not given the vulnerability nor told who the Dealer was. Later there is a reference in the original post to "if NS were vulnerable", to add to the confusion. The post does not reveal which explanation - East's or West's - was deemed by the AC to be an infraction. Without an infraction, there cannot be any score adjustment in NS's favour. Thus I think that the original post does not explain all the relevant issues. So my comments cannot be sensible, in such a confused context. It seems to me that the AC may have based their decision on slightly different facts from those in the original post. In the original post, "EW agreed that it should possibly be" should not be misinterpreted as setting EW up to have had an agreement that they only possibly had. If the post reveals all the information which the AC was given, I think the AC established nothing about whether E or W explained wrongly. Summary: N misexplained to E. E's explanation has not been shown to be wrong. W's explanation has not been shown to be wrong. Due to NS's methods, even if 2D is a transfer, South will think North has 4 hearts and long clubs, so South cannot possibly enter the auction, due only to the NS methods. On many auctions, North has a very tough lead to 5H and might well lead a club, allowing 5H to make, so 5H making should surely be factored in as a %age in any score adjustment. Because NS identified the different explanations and took the initiative by calling the Director, did some AC members not notice that it was originally N and S who gave different explanations? What happened at the other table? This is vey important in this case, because if 4S or 4SX made at the other table, that fact might well prejudice the way that non-TD's looked at the whole hand. Is the original post an actual report written by the AC? It's all too confusing for me.

Beijing's WBF Regs actually are at: http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/rul...Contest2008.pdf

If it were a WBF event or an Australian event with screens, the rules make this ruling very simple. East called the Director, hence no adjustment. One reason that it must be West who calls the Director is that West is on the same side of the screen as South, and thus is able to identify a noticeable hesitation better than North can. The same regulations allow for East to hold up the tray movement by introducing small hesitations if desired. I'm surprised that nobody seems to (emphasis on "seems to") have checked the screen regulations that apply in India. Most countries mirror the WBF regulations in their Trials for Sao Paulo. If India doesn't, shouldn't they change their Trials Regulations to be consistent with the event that the Trials lead to? The Australian regulations can be found at http://www.abf.com.au/events/tournregs/ABFScreenRegs092.pdf Oddly, the last update of these regulations is on 1 April 2009 (tomorrow, an April Fools joke?) The 2008 WBF Regulations are at www.worldbridge.org/departments/rules/GeneralConditionsOfContest2008.pdf

I agree that the AC handled the appeal well. Because West was provided with the correct explanation (as verified by NS's system notes), West's play was not based on any infratction. The infraction occurred on the other (NE) side of the screen. As for any procedural penalty against NS, most emphatically no penalty. Many pairs would have difficulties when there's interference in an Ogust auction. Peter Gill.

QUOTE (jdonn @ Mar 18 2009, 12:26 AM) Maybe it's from starting to play so young and being so sick of "it's so nice to see young people playing bridge!" about fifty thousand times a day. Also the "you would be so nice for my granddaughter!" comments, notwithstanding that the granddaughter could have been anywhere from 6 to 38 years old. or could be ..... Back in the 1980s I was playing against Mrs Kidman and her partner in Sydney. Her partner said: "Wouldn't these two nice young men be ideal for your daughters Nicole and Antonia?" We failed to follow that up. This was before Nicole moved to Hollywood. Peter Gill Sydney

1 Nickell 2 Cayne 3. Strul 52. Zhuang 12. Diamond 36. l'Ecuyer 7. Meltzer 8. O'Rourke Best early matches: R32: 52 Zhuang (despite Fu-Jack being taken by another team) versus anyone R16: O'Rourke - Rosenthal Matches involving 12 Diamond, 28 Ivatury or Seed 5 John Diamond also came 2nd in the LM Pairs in Boston 3 months ago. My best friend asked me a few months ago what happened to Diamond - Platinick, the "gun pair" of the USA team which won the 1991 World Junior Championship. Gromova and Ponomareva of Team Gromov anchored Russia to win the World Women's Chmpionship a few years ago, but the Vanderbilt is much tougher. Peter Gill Australia

When will the final session take place? The link on the website has been changed to 20.00 hours CET, so the final session is at 20.00 hrs Central European Time. Peter Gill.

I found out last night that the claim in this thread did not actually happen. Declarer actually exited a heart to Tony Nunn, who played CJ which was ruffed. Now declarer played a diamond and conceded. Sometimes the play on BBO goes so fast that BBO operators cannot keep up and are virtually forced to explain the play as a claim. Peter Gill

Ron Klinger wrote up the hand in his daily newspaper column yesterday - without mentioning that 4S could have been made in the ending. Admittedly, Ron was concentrating on the typically Aussie bidding at the other table. I kept the cutting to give to Tony Nunn tomorrow to check what Tony says about the hand. Tony does not miss much. Peter

Mat McManus also directed the 41st annual Australian Youth Bridge Championships for eight days immediately prior to the National Open Teams. He is not your commonplace director. Mat works non-stop - directing, organising, scoring and predealing ALL the boards for a week. So Mat had every excuse to be tired - but he was dummy. ;) This board was in the 3rd 16-board set, after McManus - Ware had sat out the 2nd set. Perhaps they had just found out that I would be sitting out all the second half of the match, and that had eroded their confidence and concentration? McManus - Ware are not a regular partnership. They play one event together each year - the National Open Teams - playing either Crunch or modified T-Rex or some such unusual system. They were the only pair (of 192 teams) playing a HUM. Mike Ware plays fast, with lots of claims, and appears to have no problem whatsoever remembering the 60-odd page Crunch system. After the match one of their teammates told me that McManus - Ware played a terrific week's bridge until the semi-final. Perhaps the standard of the opposition contributed to their sub-par semi-final? :) Peter Gill

The 1959 Bermuda Bowl was actually won by Italy, as were the 1958 and 1957 Bermuda Bowls. I didn't check any of the other answers.

A very good pair should have agreements about auctions like: (1H) X (4H) X (P) ? Is the first doubler expected to bid a 4 card spade suit here? What does the 2nd X mean? Does the 2nd X tend to deny 4 spades or to show 4 spades? Does (1H) X (4H) 4S tend to suggest 5 or 4 spades? It's much more important to get these sort of situations right, in the common S versus H auctions, than to add extra gadgetry to one's system. Depending on how each partnership answers such questions, one fits one's personal bidding style into the partnership style for these high level decisions. I strongly believe that Doubling with many 5440 shapes is much better than bidding the 5 card suit. It is only when the 5 card suit is the boss suit spades that the decision (Double or overcall 1S) becomes close. If I had a much weaker 5044, i.e. not enough strength to reopen with X after (1H) 1S (4H), then I would Dbl 1H, because 5-3 spade fits with the long suit being forcied by heart leads often play 1, 2 or even 3 tricks worse than a 4-5 fit in a minor when I have a void. That is, if I was able to make only one bid, I would Dbl, which describes more of my hand than 1S does. On Andy's actual hand, I think the 5044 has to Dbl 3C for take-out, with 3D over 3C as 2nd choice. Having a void in the opponent's suit makes all sorts of aggro actions the best actions. You need to get in over 3C, not over 3H, as over 3C the safety level of 3D is still available. As for responder bidding after (1H) 1S (2H) on the actual hand, surely you jest. I think Pass is automatic. Peter Gill.