Pig Trader

The Appendix Mitchells also have all pairs playing all 26 boards. If we ever had 21, 23 or 25 tables again, we'd still stick with the Appendix Mitchell as we only need two sets of duplimated boards. I think that's the only disadvantage of the Web Mitchells over Appendix Mitchells.

Back in the days at Sheffield when we had up to 26 tables, the Appendix Mitchell was used whenever we had 20.5 to 26 tables. The players would call it "The duplicating movement" because at most tables, after the first board had been played, the players duplicated another board with the same number and took it to the table 13 higher or lower. (The tables in the middle had to duplicate two boards.) That was before duplimating machines, of course! The Appendix Mitchells were popular at Sheffield despite seeming out of favour elsewhere for reasons I never really understood. More recently, Web Mitchells burst back into fashion and these are not dissimilar and have the advantages of greater flexibility and no upper limit of tables.

Quite right. In fact, even the scoring program hasn't been told that there are effectively two sections. We don't generally get this number of tables nowadays as we have far more sessions per week, but in the days when we used this movement more frequently, I doubt that more than two or three players ever actually realised that the field was split in two. Our 20 table movement is similar but the sections don't correspond with odd and even numbered tables because of the effect of the share and relay element. Our 15, 16, 17 and 19 tables movements are essentially two sections meshed together so they truly are one section.

Because it's easier to share boards with adjacent tables rather than having loads of players running up and down the stairs every five minutes with boards. We have been using this movement since decades before we got a duplimating machine 14 years ago! It's also quite nice to not appear to be obviously split into two sections! :rolleyes:

At Sheffield BC, we like 9x3 rounds and for 18 tables, we use a Mitchell movement where EW move up two tables each round and Boards are shared between each pair of tables. This is effectively the same as having two 9 table Mitchells, but it doesn't seem so much like two sections. We use similar movements for 14.5 tables to 20 tables. There's more details in the Appendix at http://www.sheffieldbridgeclub.co.uk/TinyFileManager/resources/files/129/admin/sbc%20-%20td%20guide%20-%20movements.pdf

Partner hasn't been able to double 5♦ so there seems to be a good chance it is making. The TNT seems to be about 18 so if 5♦ is making, we may be 4 off in 5♠. I would seriously consider bidding 5♠ though, as I could be out on the TNT. Is 5♠ gambling? I think probably not, but it doesn't actually matter on this occasion. Law 12C1e says "If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by an extremely serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by a gambling action, which if unsuccessful it might have hoped to recover through rectification, then ...." This condition hasn't been met because even if we judge 5♠ to be gambling, then the non-offending side has not contributed to its own damage. The NOS has actually reduced its damage.

"Cannot" is a strong word and I don't believe that it is the right word. Just 20 years ago I would play in EBU and BBL Swiss Teams events with different boards in each match, IMPed and VP'd. It's just that when duplimators came along there became an opportunity for much more satisfactory Swiss Teams events. :rolleyes:

Law 16B1b uses the words "serious consideration". With the one exception, my pollees considered and rejected raising diamonds in such a way that I did not seriously consider that they had seriously considered raising diamonds, which is why I worded my previous post after serious consideration as I did. :rolleyes:

So, anyway, back to the OP! :rolleyes: I did. Of six polled, only one failed to discount raising diamonds fairly quickly and actually chose 4♦. One chose 3♠, but then South would raise to 4♠ anyway. The others all thought 4♠ was clear. That made raising diamonds not a LA (under EBU White Book advice - which is the best advice that I have), and that is rather backed up by views expressed on this thread. I have had no suggestions from the players or anyone else how EW might have called differently without the MI, so I have concluded no adjustment. Thanks for your views.

Yes, we did indeed do it intentionally, so that it is like F2F, and we think it is good! :rolleyes:

No, you won't be told that, because it's from an online game. (It's actually from a Swiss Pairs match MP->VP and FWIW the players are all graded around 60%.) I expect I may well need to poll players giving them the North cards. I was thinking as per Paul that 4♠ was an obvious call for North after 3♦ but maybe some would raise diamonds. In the event of allowing 4♠, I'm also having difficulty seeing EW getting back in with clubs if they had had correct information. In my match, I was West and did play in 5♣X-2 but when I opened 1♣, I was showing 4+ clubs, as well as the auction being significantly different.

Yes, that's right. Alerting is exactly as it is F2F, and not as it is in BBO.

[hv=pc=n&s=sj654hkqjtdaq4c63&w=s3ha543dk7ca87542&n=sakq982h87dt862ct&e=st7h962dj953ckqj9&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=1c2dp3dp4sppp]399|300[/hv] WBF Regs - BCL but assume F2F regarding alerting. 1♣ = Alerted. May have as few as two clubs. (Strong NT, 5 card majors) 2♦ = Multi Landy, showing a weak jump overcall in either major but South had forgotten and thinks it's a WJO in diamonds, so not alerted. 3♦ = No agreement systemically. If North had called 2♥/♠ showing that major plus a minor, then 3♦ would be inviting game in partner's major. Not alerted. EW want a ruling as they think they might reach 5♣, probably doubled and two down, for a better score than the 4♠= as happened How would you rule? :rolleyes:

Law 47E1: E. Change of Play Based on Misinformation 1. A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted without further rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not be accepted by his LHO in these circumstances.

It was Love All and the match was a Swiss Pairs Match MPs > VPs. Apologies - I am usually the first to criticise lack of information in an OP. The NS players are around 55-60%ish players and my first three pollees said they would pass. So I stopped polling that question to focus on "demonstrably suggested" because I was not convinced that the hesitation showed me enough that I didn't already know. Opinion here suggests that this is approaching a borderline case.

[hv=pc=n&s=s7h85djt532cqt843&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1sp2spp]133|200[/hv] This is from an online match at BCL. There was an agreed hesitation by partner over the 2♠ bid. I have polled and passing is unsurprisingly a LA. Generally, of course, a hesitation followed by Pass demonstrably suggests action, but I wonder if the AI of the auction and what we have in our hand makes action insufficiently suggested over passing to consider adjusting. The player did bid 2NT (showing 5+/5+ in the minors) and NS did end up with a better score than defending 2♠ - hence the request for a ruling. EW are playing Benji Acol, weak NT and four card majors. TIA for opinions.

I confuse you even when I don't post anything? :P

You could have avoided the whole problem by allowing a more reasonable time per round. At an EBU congress last weekend, we allowed 52 minutes for seven board matches. That suggests allowing 59 or 60 minutes for 8 boards. In the Swiss Pairs we did assign one or two averages over the three sessions where a table would have started the last board significantly after all the other tables. However, in the Swiss Teams, we really don't want a situation where one table has played a board and the other table is prevented from doing so. If there is a table getting seriously behind, we ask the faster table not to play a particular board that the slower table is due to play last, until it looks like we will allow the slow table to play it. That way, if we have to take a board away, then the faster table won't have played it either. But better still is to draw players' attention that they are getting behind while they have still have good opportunity to catch up.

Jules, It is also worth considering the word "unintended" while we are here. A designation is not "unintended" if, at the time of uttering the designated card, it was the card that at that instant of time you intended to designate. The classic example is when leading towards an AQ in dummy and you intend to finesse so you call for the Queen but then you suddenly realise that LHO has played the King. So now you want to play the Ace instead. So you say "Queen. No! The Ace!" but because the Queen was the card you intended to play at the time you said "Queen", the card cannot be changed, no matter how quickly afterwards you said "No! The Ace!". In such a case it is Law 45C4(a) that applies.

This comes to effectively the same thing as the Sheffield BC movement. I forgot it is in Jeff Smith / EBU Score already. :rolleyes: (I didn't understand Vampyr's comment either!) :unsure:

Sure. You need one set of 27 boards 9 rounds of three boards each. There is some sharing between adjacent tables. See http://www.sheffieldbridgeclub.co.uk/admindocs/sbc%20-%20td%20guide%20-%20movements.pdf I don't know where our movements for 15-20 tables come from. Chien Fou thought they may be from Scandinavia when I asked him some years ago. They might otherwise have been devised by a late SBC member. But they are excellent for us. You would need to input these movements into EBU Score or Score Bridge.

Thanks, everyone. As I said in the OP, I thought it was close, as did two of my colleagues, but we were all minded, but only just, to allow the claim. I agree with Pran that the Laws on contested claims are as good as they can possibly be. A further question did occur to me, and that is: suppose the declarer had instead said "The rest are mine (whatever you lead)"? Would this have made you more inclined or less inclined to acccept the claim?

" .... if it is determined as fact that the clarification was not interrupted by an opponent .... " While always something to be wary of, it wasn't an issue here. I'd have said if it was. :rolleyes:

No, you can't weight a claim ruling but well done the ACBL for seeing The Light! :rolleyes:

"he asked 10 players and all of them would have lead ♠" Then the 10 players are all wrong because I would have led a heart! :P Seriously, I do wonder if the 10 players were given the appropriate scenario, though the poll doesn't define anything anyway. We here are all of the opinion that a heart lead is extremely reasonable.