Rossoneri

I think some have probably experienced what I'm going through, suddenly finding the right plays at the table seems difficult, at times impossible, and your results just start dropping. Sure, it comes back after a while, but while you're stuck in a rut, it does seem difficult. What do most people do to cope with it/make it more bearable/get back your form faster?

Some pairs would end up taking 5 minutes to bid a board in that case :P Not saying that the idea is completely without merit though.

To be fair, part of the thread earlier did take a rather poor turn.

Added a hint for continuations in the original post.

[hv=pc=n&s=skj7hkqt53d64caj6&n=s9864hjdak8cq9854&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=pp1s1np3nppp]266|200[/hv] the 5 of ♦ is led, opps play 4th best leads. How do you continue? If it makes any difference in your consideration at all, there are 5 tables in total, and most of the field is relatively weak and you expect only 1 other pair to be your match in skill level or better. Hint: A of ♥ is on your left, AQ♠ and K♣ on your right. If you lead the ♥J, West wins and returns another ♦. If you lead a ♠ off the table, East ducks.

Looking at the above replies, I'm sure I'm not the only person saying this: Care to explain why?

Didn't he get one already?

Pleased to see someone else enjoyed this book as much as I did! I feel that I have personally gained some insight into making better plays at the table after reading this book. Agree that it is not an easy book to go through - and I am majoring in statistics so I am familiar with all the basic concepts. Do not expect to finish the book quickly, and do not despair if you get stuck along the way. That said, I would only suggest reading the book if you are at least intermediate+ as there are more accessible books for lower skill levels.

AFAIK, GIB uses some heuristics/simulation so it is possible for the correct "solution" to be missed.

Well if East could change suit, wouldn't South have led out of turn? I don't quite get you...

Sure, but I would like to note that the bulletin was not from "Posnan", neither was it from Poznan. It was from Kuala Lumpur.

Having played against Jorrit, and the fact that he has played in ol' Blighty for coming to 4 years now, I'm pretty confident that he did. :)

(I would first like to state that I was not present at the event, hence I do not claim to have the full/correct picture in any way.) More from the recently concluded APBF Championships. I'll quote the relevant bits from the bulletin. From Day 5's Bulletin: Page 9 From Day 6's Bulletin: Page 12 From Day 7's Bulletin: Page 11 And on Day 8: Page 7 This short piece in the bulletin was entitled "Very Strange". There is no clear indication who the author is. Somehow it is hard not to notice how strangely the Appeals Committee works. Some seemingly frivolous appeals seem to have gone unnoticed, which I believe, sets very dangerous precedents in the APBF when these appeal cases are published in the bulletins. Could this encourage more “groundless” appeals and upset the friendly atmosphere of the APBF is anybody’s guess!! Up to now the China teams have not filed any appeals nor have any of the rulings in their favour being appealed. Strangely enough, their appointed Appeals Committee member has sat on the panel only once, while some other members are “regulars”, even when his own NBO’s teams were involved. Makes me wonder how the whole thing works. -------------------------------- General Conditions of Contest (forgot to add this!) 1) Is it usual practice to have a named appeals committee? 2) In appeal case 3, the chairman is from the same country as one of the sides involved - this strikes me as highly unusual in a tournament where players are representing their countries. I don't think this is common practice? (To be fair, I can understand if they wanted a highly qualified TD to be chairing the appeals committee, and I am in no way doubting anyone's impartiality here.) 3) In the other thread regarding a specific appeal, there was a commentary the following day. And then, another one. Again, this strikes me as being highly unusual. I'm also slightly worried as the wording seems strong and the "accused" parties do not have a fair chance to defend themselves. Thoughts?

Thanks Wayne. The bulletin from the day after has the following. I have no idea who wrote it. Page 12 Comments? Also, is this the first time that such a "commentary" of an appeal has been published in the tournament bulletin?!

This happened at a (supposedly) premier teams event. I happened to be at the club settling some other directing stuff when I was asked about this. By the time I had reached the table, the players were on the next board already, although it is by a long way the exeception rather than the norm to have the bidding cards left on the table. In the end, the two players involved couldn't quite agree on whether the review was mis-stated and NOP did not want to pursue the matter any further. However, NOP's partner who is a director and myself can't quite think of which law(s) were relevant to the situation. Looking at the replies, I would agree about the bidding cards being removed, as this is something which mildly annoys me whenever I am back home. I guess I'll have to do my part to try and reverse this "cultural" thing.

This hand is taken from the APBF Championships Bulletin: Page 12 ------------------- [hv=pc=n&s=st75haj92dk742cj7&w=sak8hqt7d9653ca32&n=sj963h864dt8ck954&e=sq42hk53daqjcqt86&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=3nppp]399|300[/hv] (No auction was given, but West was declaring 3NT) Tournament Director's statement of facts and ruling "I was called to the table at trick 11, West was the declarer in 3NT and she had taken 7 tricks from hand. She lead a diamond, North played D10, dummy’s diamonds were AQ and another CQ which was good. So if she played DA and CQ, contract would be made at this moment. South pulled a card out of his hand and the declarer saw this was D7. So the declarer played the diamond queen, South then played DK and cashed a side suit trick and contract went one down. When I was at the table, I have confirmed from all plays that the D7 was detached from hand but not a position that his partner could see. Therefore according to Law 45A, it was not a card played and also Law 45C could not apply. I ruled that he could change that D and so the contract was one down. Also I have thought about Law 74B3, But this is a matter of courtesy and should apply to changing this result. And Law 73F, should not apply as from the seating position, I ruled that the detached card seen by the declarer was accidental rather than on purpose." Decision of the Appeals Committee Declarer on lead with 7 tricks needing 2 more for the contract of 3NT. Lead small diamond towards AQ. The South player took out the D7 before the play from dummy which was placed in such position that declarer could not fail to see it. Declarer then called for the Q upon which the next player retracted the 7D and played the K!!! South cashed a side suit winner and 3NT – 1. Determined that the D7 was not a played card, however determined that the declarer failed to make the contract through inferior play thus causing his own bad score. The committee determined that the action of taking the 7D prematurely influenced the declarer into taking the finesse, as in a previous trick a Diamond had been finessed, holding the trick. There was therefore a strong probability almost a certainty that the finesse would be successful again; especially when South took a card from his hand in anticipation rather than waiting for his turn to play. Law 74B3 and 23 (Authority to adjust) applied. Decision: 3NT, 9 tricks. Deposit: Returned. ------------------- Comments? Incidentally, one of those involved at the table reads this forums so he/she might have something to add/correct!

Opening leader asks for a review for the auction (in this case, with his screenmate, but one could also consider situation without screens) and screenmate gives a wrong auction. Does this count as MI? The most common MI laws are Laws 21 and 47 but neither of them seems to cover this.

Agree that the Minutes are not very clear, and should be better worded. Also agree that 10 tricks seem the most logical result to adjust to. Also have to admit that I suspected this was another construction till I saw the word "Poznan".

We seem to have gone off on a bit of a tangent here. I don't see how in either case you are adjusting the table result?

I didn't quite get the point about ST before SQ, is there some sort of expert consensus to play it like this? That aside, yes, the unblock was the most important, and yes, it doesn't really seem like +150 would have been much different, but I guess the point Phil was trying to make is that, it could matter when you're trying to get the highest score at matchpoints.

Sure, there has been MI, but either way I don't see how EW have been damaged by NS, rather than by their own actions. Table Result stands.

Good luck to both teams!

I had an impression that OzOne was disbanded. Am I wrong and they are still around?

I've tried it in Jeff Smith's. I can't seem to get it to work!

West didn't say he would. East's main contention was that she would have led a ♦ had she known it was a transfer.