Walddk

.... and Chag Sameach to all of you (us) who will be celebrating Chanukah instead. Roland

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=saq65hak53dkq4ca3]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] RHO annoyingly opens 1♦ and you double. Pass by LHO and 1♥ response from partner. East passes, and now it's you. What is the best way to show this powerhouse? Roland

[hv=d=s&v=b&s=s86432hdaqj3ca1043]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Do you open this hand in 1st seat? Before you reply, you may want to consider what your rebid will be if partner responds 2♥. Roland

4 hands from real life bridge. What are your bids, and why? 1. [hv=d=s&v=b&s=s6hk853daq6cak1092]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Strong NT. You open 1♣, LHO overcalls 1♥, and partner responds 1♠ (4+). Pass from RHO. What do you rebid? ..... 2. [hv=d=s&v=b&s=s6hk853daq6cak1092]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Opps don't bid. Partner opens 1♦, you 1♥, 2♦ by partner, and 3♣ from you. Partner has more diamonds: 3♦. You? ..... 3. [hv=d=s&v=b&s=s6hk853daq6cak1092]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] East opens 3♠, passed to your partner who reopens with a double. What now? ..... 4. [hv=d=s&v=b&s=s6hk853daq6cak1092]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Uncontested auction. 1♥ - 1♠ 2♣ - 2♥ 2♠ - ?? You may or may not agree with 2♥ (I do), but that's beside the point. What do you bid now? Roland

I'm in two minds here. On one hand it's desirable to avoid "chaos" by letting 300+ spectators speak at the same time, on the other hand it's a rare occasion for the 99.9% of the BBO users to voice their opinions during live "vugraph". Let the 12 wise men decide (I'm sure they are around somewhere :) ), as long as I don't have to programme anything. Roland

I suspect that it will be virtually impossible to find a time slot that will make everyone happy, but the most important issue will always be to find enough volunteer operators. You don't know what I know, but I am sure you have a feeling. Right, our live vugraph schedule will be more than hectic in the months to come. Four new just in today for January and February (not listed yet), and there is no reason to think that we will get less after that. However, I suggest weekdays if at all possible. As you all know, most vugraph broadcasts are on weekends (Friday often included). Good luck to the organisers. This is not an easy task but certainly a cause well worth fighting for! Roland

huh? teams= 4 people playing at a time, on a team. pairs=2 people playing as a pair. That does not seem like a hard concept. Thought you would understand that I was referring to the scoring format. The way B-a-M works it is matchpoint scoring (the relative difference is essential). Real team events are scored with IMPs. One of the most important aspects of real team events (IMPs) as far as I'm concerned is the safety play. That is eliminated if you play B-a-M. Each to his own; if you prefer a team game with MP scoring, go ahead. Roland

I also prefer team events, but it's an illusion if you think that the B-a-M format has anything to do with teams in the proper sense of the word. B-a-M is more pairs than matchpoints! In real team games overtrick(s) or an extra undertrick matter little, in B-a-M they matter a lot! Roland

Well, a delay of 5 minutes is nothing compared to the 1995 BB Final (USA vs Canada) Pseudo-live Broadcast we are getting soon ;) "What's Another Year", as the Irish singer Johnny Logan put it in the Eurovision Song Contest in 1980. Roland

From a commentator's point of view I am opposed to the idea of rushing through a 16-board segment in an hour or so. Some hands are easy to analyse, others deserve a thorough and time consuming analysis. Then add all the conventional bids as well as judgement in bidding, play and defence, and you will be cramped for time if a board only takes 4 minutes on average. The likes of Michael Rosenberg, Bart Bramley, Fred Gitelman, David Burn, Richie Reisig (and others surely) may be able to do all this within the alloted time, but the vast majority of commentators can't. 16 boards in about 2 hours, as is the case in real life, and you get a smoother and more enjoyable broadcast for everybody involved. If the expert commentators can't keep up with the pace, how can you expect the less skillful among the spectators to comprehend what's going on? It's a fact that it's easier to be an on site commentator, because you speak faster than you type. Commentating on the internet is a different ballgame altogether, because most people must look at their keyboards while typing. At the same time they have to keep track of layout, bidding, play, defence, and also what their co-commentators write. Sometimes this is difficult during a normal broadcast even though the players are in the tank occasionally. In my opinion, when it comes to a recorded broadcast like this one, it will be an almost impossible task if you give less time. Yes, the operator can stop for a minute if he/she is asked to, but how can you be sure that the operator will notice that request by one or more of the commentators? Believe me, operators often miss public as well as private messages while a broadcast is in progress. I don't blame them; they are busy with other important matters. Roland

I did not say that, Mike, and I didn't even imply it. What I said was that the L&E Committee was not in a position to make a decision, presumably because too many members were involved in this case. The president of the SBU was on one of the teams in question. You can't possibly have that person on the committee. I don't think it's disgraceful at all if the SBU decides to approach another jurisdiction for advice. The AC of the EBU is very competent, and everyone, even in Scotland, should accept their ruling now that the SBU has asked them to make one. If the members of the SBU are unhappy about this, they will surely let the council know, if not before then at the AGM in May. Roland

Let me make this clear, so that no misunderstanding is possible. My view is entirely my own and not put forward on behalf of BBO. I don't think anyone will accuse me of not being a loyal BBO user. Hundreds of hours working with vugraph should be enough evidence. Roland

I beg to disagree, Mike. A competent AC in any country will just look at the facts and make a ruling according to those facts. They would never even consider the aspect that their decision might favour A rather than B. I agree, however, that it is always best if the national governing bodies can handle those cases themselves. But if they for some reason can't, I don't see anything wrong with seeking advice elsewhere. Roland

Roland if I understood your post, the governing body of bridge in Scotland basically said we surrender and cannot reach a decision for some reason? So the "buck" was passed? The decision then took days/weeks to decide and was decided by another bridge organization, England, against which Scotland will compete? If so, this is a complete travesty for Scottish bridge and my ancestors are rolling over in their graves! These authorities should all resign in shame, shame, shame. You are right in the sense that the buck was passed to another jurisdiction, because the SBU L&E (for reasons we may never know) was not in a position to reach a decision. I suspect, as Frances has pointed out, that too many members on the L&E Committee were disqualified to take part because they were involved one way or the other. With this said, I fully trust the integrity of the English Bridge Union, and that they would never reach a verdict that could benefit England and harm Scotland. I understand if some may see it differently, and for that particularly reason, and to avoid any kind of speculation in this context, it might have been a good idea to approach an NCBO outside the UK. Netherlands, France, Denmark, Sweden, etc., etc. The EBU did definitely not rule in favour of England, considering that the (on paper) better team won the Scottish trials after the TDs ruling was upheld. Roland

I don't agree that it is "predictable" that there is such animosity that the 3rd pair can't come from the losing team. Appeals are a part of bridge, and real animosity between two teams when a match was decided by a ruling is not necessary nor indeed that common in my experience. Well, if you knew (of) some of the pairs that were involved, you would not be a bit surprised to see that this animosity arose. That's what I meant by "predictable". I agree with you en general terms: rulings are part of the game and should be accepted. Everyone is entitled to be disappointed with the rulings of course, but a little later you must get on with things without holding a grudge against anybody. Roland

Our broadcast from the Gold Cup Finals (one quarter-final Friday and the final Sunday) was very exciting. It went down to the wire before Janet de Botton's team from England won against Patrick Collins, also from England. So far so good, but when it comes to the technical aspect of the broadcast, I think it's fair to say that it was a farce. More than 50 times was our operator disconnected, and that became very frustrating, not only for our operator who was absolutely innocent, but also for the hundreds of spectators and 16 commentators. Somebody (perhaps a few) forgot to do his/her/their homework which, unfortunately, is often the case prior to a broadcast. Let me quote from the web site of Bridge Great Britain: The Gold Cup is the most prestigious Open Teams event in Britain, and is organised by Bridge Great Britain (formerly the British Bridge League). If the Gold Cup really is the most prestigious open teams event in Great Britain (I know that several in Britain disagree), I think the organisers should have done much more to make it a success. All this went wrong: 1. No broadcast from the semi-finals on the Saturday. 2. No results service. 3. No check as to the internet connection at the Hydro Hotel in Peebles, Scotland. 4. No attempt to stick to the timetable announced beforehand. Not even today, Monday at 13.30 CET, can you find the results of the one quarter-final, the semi-finals and final. This is just not good enough! In this context, I would like to emphasize that our operator, Margaret Pemble, did all she could to get this going as smoothly as possible despite all the tehnical problems she faced. She even made the hotel management get an engineer to have a look on the Saturday when there was no broadcast. He couldn't find anything unusual with the dial-up connection and the hotel's switchboard. The answer is blowing in the wind over the Scottish hills, but there must be a few people at the BGB who have red faces. Better luck next time! Roland

Here is the final result of the English! "jury": The Laws & Ethics Committee of the Scottish Bridge Union declared themselves disqualified to deal with the case and asked another jurisdiction, the English Bridge Union, to deliver a ruling: The AC of the EBU concluded that pass was a logical alternative for North, they therefore overruled the on site AC and upheld the TDs ruling. The result was adjusted to 5♠XX+1 = 1600. Hence the non offending side only lost 2 IMPs (against 1660 at the other table) and consequently finished first in the women's trials. The winning team will now represent Scotland in the Lady Milne Trophy and the European Championships next year. This has, quite predictably one must say, caused some animosity between the two teams, and it is expected that the 3rd pair will be selected among pairs from other teams. Oh well, the drama occasionally occurs away from the table and not just at the table. This is also bridge ladies and gentlemen, whether one likes it or not. Roland

Who plays a simple overcall as forcing? Roland

I could have had xxxx, xxx, xxx, xxx. I don't; I even have a great hand in context, and pass would never cross my mind. It's a clear 4♠, and I am not worried that it won't make. Partner's bidding tells me that I can make 3♠ if I have a Yarborough and 4333. Roland

If the AC's ruling is illegal, and I agree that it is, then it seems wrong that no one is in a position to rectify the breach of the law. If the NCBO has a Law and Ethics Committee (and Scotland has), wouldn't it be natural for the committee members, when the ruling is put before them, to tell the AC: "Sorry guys, your ruling is illegal. You will have to come up with something that is legal according to the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. Try again". Roland

I think you got this wrong Ben. North's double of 5♠ was not slow, South's pass of the redouble was - and then North decided to pull her own double with the 2425 hand. With this said, I agree that the correct ruling must be 5♠XX+1. North would never have pulled if South had passed 5♠XX in tempo. Why should she? She must expect 5♠ to go down after her parner's 2♠ (sound club raise). Wasn't that why she doubled in the first place? You are not allowed to have second thoughts after partner has warned you (slow pass) that it may not be such a good idea to defend. To be honest with you, I would even rule "frivolous appeal, deposit forfeited". It's quite common in cases of hesitation ... then a pull. Roland

Sorry, I don't know, but I will keep you posted as to the ruling of the L&E Committee of the SBU. Like all other national "bodies", they take their time in starting. Roland

I don't have the grounds of the rulings, so I don't want to speculate. However, if I were to rule based on the information I have from a very reliable source, only two rulings are possible: 1. 5♠XX+1 2. 6♣X-1 Either pass of 5♠XX is a logical alternative or it's not. You can't give a weighted score in a case like this. If South had a long think (agreed) before she passed 5♠XX, North can't pull. It is not even close in my opinion. If South had passed in tempo, North would not have pulled. The UI she got after the long think made her pull. Therefore, the TDs ruling was correct, and I understand that the non-offending side has appealed to the Laws and Ethics Committee of the Scottish Bridge Union on "grounds of incompetence of the AC". It's a serious case when you need to go this far by dismissing a ruling of an AC. There is usually no further step beyond the AC. On the other hand, if the rules and regulations give you the option of bringing the case before the "Supreme Court", you are obviously entitled to do so. Roland

Part 4: And now the issue in a nutshell: After the redouble of 5♠ you give it some thought*) and decide to pass. When this comes back to partner, she pulls to 6♣ which was the winning action on this layout: *) agreed long think. [hv=d=s&v=b&n=sk5hakj5d96cj9652&w=s1087643h93dqj532c&e=saqj92h10dak874ckq&s=shq87642d10ca108743]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] The TD ruled it back to 5♠XX+1 (-1600), appealed by NS. The on site Appeals Committee overruled and came to this verdict: 6♣X-1 (-200) 75% of the time, 5♠XX+1 (-1600) 25% of the time, hence -550 (and 14 imps against -1660 in the other room). EW have appealed to the national body, the Laws and Ethics Committee of the Scottish Bridge Union, on grounds of incompetence of the AC and are waiting for them to reopen the appeal. Eventually, these two teams tied for 1st place. The tie was broken on a head to head basis between the two teams. The result was in favour of the NS team, so the selection of the Scottish woman team for the Lady Milne Trophy and the European Championships will depend on the appeal, still pending. How would you rule? Roland P.S. No, "dog", Liz McGowan was West and she was the one who walked the dog with her slow approach (3♠ and 5♠). Yes, she could have bid 6♠ after North pulled to 6♣ (doubled by East) but it wasn't that easy.

I agree with most of your points, Adam, just not this. In a previous post I did write that EW play a 14-16 NT. Roland