Siegmund Posted July 18, 2010 Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 We took our beating, with all 3 hosts and a few kibitzers watching. Heh. We needed a few practice hands to warm up, apparently. Between that and some software trouble this cost me more than one torn out hair. (Hoping to juuust barely make it into the top half, but not sure I will.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted July 18, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 We took our beating, with all 3 hosts and a few kibitzers watching. Heh. We needed a few practice hands to warm up, apparently. Between that and some software trouble this cost me more than one torn out hair. (Hoping to juuust barely make it into the top half, but not sure I will.) There was an operator error on board 3 (at least two) so the score you got on that one will be thrown out, and you will be give either average or the average of your other 15 boards, whichever is best for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peachy Posted July 18, 2010 Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 I would support having the first round with 15 boards only, rather than adjust anything. Throw it out for all bidders? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elianna Posted July 18, 2010 Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 I would support having the first round with 15 boards only, rather than adjust anything. Throw it out for all bidders? That seems like it would harm those who did well on that board, and benefit those who messed up on that board. Seems unfair. Of course, I don't know how I did on that board (I don't remember which it was), but even if that was the board that we ended up doing really badly, I wouldn't want it thrown out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLOGIC Posted July 18, 2010 Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 I would support having the first round with 15 boards only, rather than adjust anything. Throw it out for all bidders? Definitely not imo (and I don't remember if I did well on that board or not). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted July 18, 2010 Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 When a board gets fouled at one table in a pairs event, you don't cancel the results of all the other contestants on the same board. This situation appears to be equivalent. By analogy, one might argue that Siegmund and his partner should get the higher of 60% and their own average, which is what they'd get in a real bridge event under Law 12C2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluecalm Posted July 18, 2010 Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 I would support having the first round with 15 boards only, rather than adjust anything. Throw it out for all bidders? Yeah, definitely don't throw it out.There may be more errors and throwing it out for all bidders may results in cancelling too many boards overall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted July 18, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 Turns out what I thought was an operator error was not. We have a script the operators use for NS bidding, and I thought the operator didn't follow the script. It turns out EW made an unexpected bid and the operator in fact did follow the script, I just didn't take into acccount the auction. So this hand will count for Sigumend and his partner... be it good or bad.... B) I will try to explain what happened here the best I can when the first round is over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted July 18, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 For Round One... following people can host table for you... I will update this if others step up to offer to help InquiryHanoi5JillybeanSallyally Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peachy Posted July 18, 2010 Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 When a board gets fouled at one table in a pairs event, you don't cancel the results of all the other contestants on the same board. This situation appears to be equivalent. By analogy, one might argue that Siegmund and his partner should get the higher of 60% and their own average, which is what they'd get in a real bridge event under Law 12C2. This was a bidding contest! There was no play, no defense, no opponents, just 16 hands collected from all over and auctions with a rare scripted opposing action in a few of them. I think the laws do not apply to a bidding contest and that the contest organisers have the absolute right to do as they please, with no regard to any bridge laws. Similar types of contests appear in many bridge publications, like The Bridge World or ACBL bulletins and district bulletins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickRW Posted July 18, 2010 Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 This was a bidding contest! There was no play, no defense, no opponents, just 16 hands collected from all over and auctions with a rare scripted opposing action in a few of them. I think the laws do not apply to a bidding contest and that the contest organisers have the absolute right to do as they please,... Obviously that is correct, but never the less the organisers want to do what is most equitable without risking losing boards or results where possible - the actual law doesn't seem inappropriate in this case at least Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted July 18, 2010 Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 This was a bidding contest! There was no play, no defense, no opponents, just 16 hands collected from all over and auctions with a rare scripted opposing action in a few of them. I think the laws do not apply to a bidding contest and that the contest organisers have the absolute right to do as they please, with no regard to any bridge laws. Similar types of contests appear in many bridge publications, like The Bridge World or ACBL bulletins and district bulletins. I didn't say that this competition was governed by the laws of bridge - obviously it isn't. But it does seem to me that the rationale for retaining everyone else's results applies as much to this competition as it does to a deal at bridge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hanp Posted July 18, 2010 Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 Could you guys move this discussion to the laws forum? ;) More seriously, I agree with gnasher and others that the hand shouldn't be thrown out and that the pair should not be hurt because of this missing hand. 60% or their average score seems as good as anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codo Posted July 18, 2010 Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 60% or their average score seems as good as anything. Nice one ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted July 18, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 The following pairs have yet to bid the first round... yes, still over a week left to do it in.... ant590 - crayzeejimcascade kermitFlycycle/Wackojackgnasher/catch22j0i/gwnnjdonn/gibkarlson/threenobobkfay/jchiumbodell - javabeanmohitz/akjqolegru - driver733rogerClee/cherdanotlgoodwin/timgTomi2-JHDWVampyr/Lamfordzasanya/ravia6 Plus Hrothgar/Free if they want to bid it online using their notes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jillybean Posted July 18, 2010 Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 Mbodell and Javabean are bidding at the moment, strong ♣ system Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hanp Posted July 18, 2010 Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 Strong club system should be fine, as long as it is GCC legal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted July 19, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 19, 2010 kfay and jchui are bidding now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cascade Posted July 19, 2010 Report Share Posted July 19, 2010 Strong club system should be fine, as long as it is GCC legal. Is there a GCC rule? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted July 19, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 19, 2010 No rules on your bidding... Jdonn and Mr GIB up now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLOGIC Posted July 19, 2010 Report Share Posted July 19, 2010 Strong club system should be fine, as long as it is GCC legal. Is there a GCC rule? lol it's hanp humor cascade Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cascade Posted July 19, 2010 Report Share Posted July 19, 2010 good our basic system is pretty natural but strangely not GCC legal. More natural than 2/1 I would say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jillybean Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 zasanya and ravia6 are bidding now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jillybean Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 TimG and tgoodwinsr are bidding now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jillybean Posted July 25, 2010 Report Share Posted July 25, 2010 hrothgar and free are up! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.