ponedjeljak, 27.03.2006.

Karlovcu kup 2006

Tim Karlovac je osvojio kup Hrvatske za 2006 godinu! U finalu su savladali Pulu, još jedno ugodno iznenađenje. . Prošlogodišnji pobjednici ZBK tim Ivančić osvojili su treće mjesto. Dobar turnir sa 34 tima, novi način bodovanja rang liste obnovilo je interes za kup. Došli su timovi iz Splita, Rijeke pa čak i iz Zadra što nas sve treba posebno veseliti.

Karlovac je napravio odličan uspjeh. Poštić D.Belan Mokni i Šantek su svima dokazali da su jaki tim i da je prošlogodišnji neuspjeh bio slučajan. Pula je poizbacivala sve timove Jurice Tomljenovića i sljedećih godinu dana Simić Ivanov Pokorny i Kauzlarić su glavni igrači JT-a (ali JT Pula). Trebali bi svi sa više pažnje proučavati Pokyjeve postove na forumu.

Neki novi vjetrovi pušu u Hrvatskom bridžu. Osim lanjskih pobjednika tima Ivančić od lanjskih polufinalista nitko nije uspio ponoviti uspjeh. Prošlogodišnji finalisti nastupaju za tri različita tima jer Tesla i Tomić više ne igraju zajedno. Nema AGFE koja je htjela igrati ali se Dule razbolio i nije stigao iz Rijeke. Martinović i Novosel zajedno sa Đivom i Radeljom igrali su za Split ali nisu uspjeli dalje od desetog mjesta. Lanjski Dubrovnik nije igrao jer je doživio sudbinu svih malih klubova - veći timovi su ga pojeli. Đivo je u Splitu, Ch kod Tihane a Miše Jančić počeo je igrati sa Pavom Handabakom. Isto tako od svih reprezentativnih selekcija nijedan igrač nije igrao u finalu.

Izbornik Diklić uskoro će proglasiti sastav open repke. Još se nekoliko parova bore za status trećeg para i oni će međusobno igrati trial drugi vikend u travnju. Naprijed Đivo i Radelja! Sigurno ste najbolji ako niste barem ste mi najdraži!

četvrtak, 23.03.2006.

TD Presentation Part 2

2 useful websites TDs should probably be familiar with.
http://www.worldbridge.org for bridge laws. You probably need to know laws before you can really direct bridge.
http://bridgebase.com/tourney/help/ for BBO TD format. How to adjust scores, set up a match, etc. Please read this document to find out. Its a little outdated, but most of it is very relevant.

------------------
Lusobrasil's lecture itself:

About claims:
The problem in table bridge is that when there is a contested claim the fact that someone contests it gives information to the claimer that he cannot of course use. Only way to treat this in a sensible way is how it is actually done, play stops, opps state why they disagree and the TD adjusts the result if opps are right. Claimer is bound to normal (including careless) lines of play, opps can be brilliant with open cards. But they can´t say "I require claimer to play this or that".

In online bridge there are similar problems. When someone claims the fact that the claim is rejected gives unauthorized information to the claimer.He doesn´t know from where it comes, but he knows something is not running... An extreme example: Claimer is in dummy with xxxx in a suit, and AKQ109 in hand. No entries to dummy. "All mine". Someone objects. Claimer could think: "I will of course cash AKQ, only way for someone to object is to have the J long onside or offside. If it is offside I´m done, so it must be onside for me to have a chance. If play continues, someone someday will try to finesse! The only way to deal with claims online, in a way that avoids this kind of problems, is to adopt a policy similar to what happens in table bridge: Claimer states a line of play with the claim statement. If opps reject the claim, they simply call the TD that adjudicates the result.

About undos:
The easiest and simplest approach in tournament play is to have "undos not allowed". I understand that the policy of each "organization" may strongly push for undos allowed (and that is a good thing for the general ambiance). With undos allowed a lot of information problems can happen, because there are three bits of info that are unauthorized for one of the partnerships:

A) The card is exposed
B ) The player didn´t want to play that one.
C) The player has a different choice to play.
B.1) There was a genuine misclick
B.2) There was a mistake from the player, not paying enough attention
B.1 is one thing, B.2 is completely different. And sometimes it is impossible to distinguish between the two.

For example, when there is something like AQ in dummy, declarer goes for the finesse but LHO plays the K. Without noticing it declarer plays the Queen. Of course he would "never" play the Q under the K. A smart TD will ask privately "why did you play the Queen? I presume you didn´t see the King"... But a smart declarer will say, anyway, "Of course I saw it, I wanted to click the Ace". It will be impossible to know.When an undo is requested the TD should be called. When it is a clear case of misclick, and if the tournament is on "undos allowed", the TD should give a green light to players stating the unauthorized info stuff anyway.When it could be a case of paying not enough attention, or change of mind, the TD should NOT allow the undo, and state the unauthorized info stuff about partner not being permitteed to use the info that player had another thing in mind - partner "never saw" the undo. Actually, it would be a good thing to not allow the undo to be seen from partner´s point of view unless the request comes after partner played already a card AND the LHO of the "undoer" says he is willing to accept the undo. In this case, the unauthorized information problem would vanish and most of the problems too.In the example case, I would not allow the undo unless I was pretty sure that the player genuinely wanted to play the Ace and that there would be no future problem with unauthorized information on the Queen.

A good TD is a good "question-asker"...
The way to ask the questions sometimes makes all the difference in the world, for getting the facts straight. It is classical for example in hesitation problems:
If you ask "did you hesitate?"
Player will say "no, immediate bid"
If you say "how long do you hesitate? 1 minute, 30 secs, 10 secs..."... he will say "not much, maybe 10 secs only"
I once had a player that said "I didnt hesitate..."
then I asked "but if you had !sxxx !hxxxx !dxxx !cxxx?"
He replied "ah, then I would pass immediately... ":-)
The player was not "hesitating". In his view that was different from "thinking"
So... think on the question to ask before asking. Facts can show up on a much brighter and clear light

Some typical examples on rulings:

Silly system, but illustrating a point: Bidding goes, with opponents silent and actually with nothing to bid at anytime: 1!c (strong, taken as nat by partner) 1!h (nat, taken as !s, positive by partner) 6!s (nat of course, taking into account the meaning understood from 1!h) 6NT (I dont know what is happening). 12 top tricks. Opps feel damaged because of the different explanations. Where is the damage? Just because the explanations don´t match the hands, or the agreed system (they don´t seem to have one here) that doens´t immediately grant the right to an adjusted score. Players in this example landed in the top spot by chance, but opps would have done nothing different, for whatever amount of extra information given to them. No damage from the different explanations, no adjustment.

	K Q 10 9 8 6 5 10 2 10 5 Q 3
J 7 4 2 Q 6 7 4 2 10 7 5 4		A 3 A K Q J 9 8 6 K 8 6 2
	J 9 8 7 5 4 3 A K 3 A J 9

West	North	East	South
-	3	X	XX

On the RDBL North says "why did you redouble?". South kept silent all the time. TD is called. North is warned for not talking on the table, especially this kind of talk, and play continues. In the end East doubles, and 4!s is made. EW require an adjustment. Where is the damage? Was any of the NS actions changed by the comment? No. Was any of the EW actions influenced by the comment? Even if it was, EW take their own inferences from the NS action, haste, hesitation, remark, gesture (in table bridge), or the like, at their own risk. So if East says "I doubled because of the comment", that "is his problem". He would be entitled to redress only if the comment could have been made deliberately to gain something from the EW actions, which in no moment appeared to be the case.

Consequent and subsequent damage:

Consequent damage is damage that results directly from an infraction. For this there may be redress. Subsequent damage is damage that stems from what happens after the infraction and not directly related. And for subsequent damage there is no redress. The WBF inclusively recommends that when there is consequent and subsequent damage in the same hand, redress is given only to the consequent part (normally in the form of some imps or mps being transferred). Hesitations: In online bridge it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between a genuine connection problem and a hesitation. When there is an hesitation the partner cannot choose from logical alternatives one that could demonstrably be suggested by the hesitation. When he does that TD must use his judgment to eventually adjust the score, based on what would have happened if that action was not taken and giving the benefit of the doubt to the non offending side. This is "more or less easy". Well, it is not. Judgment calls are a tough thing... Anyway, they´re part of the job.

What if the player says "I had a connection problem"? Sometimes there are conn problems that dont get a red light but result in delays. My approach is this: "I am very sorry that you had a connection problem in the precise moment where there was a tempo-sensitive auction going on, and I must rule that your partner might have used that (of course accidental) variation in tempo" For partner the approach is "Of course I believe that you particularly didn´t use the variation in tempo, but a player in your situation, with taht auction, might have taken the actions you took with the help of it". I just say "might have", like the laws state. We never call a player "unethical" or worse. That requires a lot of proof. We should use the approach of "might have done" that is used in the laws. This way we can adjust against a player without having to call him anything or getting a lawsuit... However, when in my soul I "know" something might be going on, I normally find a way to tell the player(s), politely, that in case they might be doing it they should know that I know that they know that I know that...

Differences in approach:

There are a lot of cultures around in terms of TDing. Some countries are typically stiff on applying penalties, some are more "easy going". As we can not apply penalties in BBO, this reflects on the easiness with which one adjusts results. My two lectures were geared towards convincing this marvellous audience that adjustments are not penalties are should be given where is damage and where damage results from an infraction. If this approach is followed, the different cultural approaches ease off a lot. When penalties are enabled the culture and style differences will surface. My approach is to regard always TDing as a service to players. Impoliteness, rudeness, etc., should get the appropriate "reward". Infractions that are genuinely involuntary should get some leeway as long as the player knows it is an infraction and does all his best to avoid it again. Humanizing the TD job is the way to go on these matters.

Do not, please...
1 - Run tourneys on "no adjustments".
2 - Run tourneys on "Playing TD". It is enough work already to run a proper tournament, and if you want to play just join one of the hundreds of events always going on
3 - Run "automatic penalty of this or that". Automatic things make me nervous, because if you say that you are automatically doing something you unhumanize the job and dont get space to be tolerant when required.
4 - Run "no psyches" unless eventually it is a tournament geared for beginners or a very specific audience. He who never sinned (psyched) throw the first stone...

Do, please...
Run nice and fair events, properly cared for, with polite and competent TDs

simpleboi if opps accept a misclaim, whereas declarer cannot possibly make the hand with any normal line , then later realised their errors, what is the ruling? Are there any differences if it happens before or after a new board is played?

I forgot my lawbook on another office, so I will do this by heart... until the end of the tournament, or any reasonable period of time after that (no 30 minutes because it will not be possible to change results for that long period) the trick wrongly taken goes back. In table bridge, the accepted claim, after the start of the next board, the trick goes back with the burden of proof reversed this means opps can take it back only if they cannot lose it by any nnormal line of play (it is easier to get tricks back before the next board)

jillybeanYou have talked about undo's in play, how do you manage undos in bidding the laws seem to deal with these quite differently

he cannot ask for a card. TD judges the claim on it´s merits undoes in bidding Tablebridge we are under law 25. We cannot do exactly the same thing in online bridge (for example, we cannot give table score to one side and 40% at best to the other) What I would follow in bidding is a clearly involuntary bid, I would allow without any penalty until prd calls. After prd calls it is just too dangerous to allow the bidding to come back (it is stirring the magic cauldron and looking for trouble) A bid that MIGHT be a change of mind, I simply don´t allow.
But thjis is an example of the limitations of the current version of the software Here also the "question asker" may shine... A player with 5 clubs and 5 spades sometimes changes his mind about bidding one spade or club Before asking why he wants to undo I look at the hand and see if the bid that was made makes some sense... So as a general principle and until we can give rulings according to law 25
A change of mind I dont allow. A misclick I allow (ally speaking) This raises a point "Involuntary" is - I never wanted to bid this. If a player passes a blackwood reply, absent minded and at that moment wanting to pass, thinking he was playing in the right suit, I dont allow the change.

markku south opens 1!h pas-4!d-pas then 1 minute thinking and 4!h -pas- ? hand is AJxxx Axxx x Axx, allowed to continue? Thinker had KQxx Kxxxx xx Kx

I allow to continue (we have to!) and then adjust back to 4h plus whatever

chicken how do i choose "forbidden logical alternatives" after hesitation? is there still a 75% rule?

there used to be, in Kaplan´s time. 75% rule has gone because a lot of actions were 60%/40% or the like and the players would come into lose-lose situations The 97 code had a change in relation to the ´87 version, where the word "demonstrably" was added to comply with the practice followed at top level, where there had to be a more clear connection between the hesitation and the action A lot of times the hesitation carries no useful information. For example, a player might be thinking on bidding on or doubling. This case, the partner doesnt get a help - if he decides to bid on, partner might want to double, and vice-versa A LOT of times, really. The tendency to "hesitated? I adjust" should be fought....

jbeoddy How about a player who 'frequently' psyches opposite the same partner, (and does it against novice and intermediate players)?

jbeoddy I find a law to penalize him frequently opposite the same partner. Check the WBF document on psychs. You can get useful ways and ideas to do it. www.worldbridge.org

rain You said--a good TD is a question asker. Can you please give another example to demonstrate what a question asker is?

let me think lol...
I can make an example with systems
A strange explanation of a bid.
Player (experienced) says "the explanation is according to the system, I misbid"
Now, the way to establish quickly if it was indeed a mistaken bid is to ask
the rest of the system, quickly and before player has time to think...
The questions on hesitations, shifting the focus from "was a hesit" to "how long it was"
are also examples.
And when the player plays a Q under a K...
Did you want to play this? Of course not...
Did you play this because you didnt see the king? Yes, that was the reason...

martujes also sometimes the whole bbo system is slow and players do not reject the claim even it appeared as a claim rejected...... that doesnt mean any further information does ... it?

must solve on a case by case basis. As a general principle, if play stops and TD assigns the final result is the safer way to proceed in all cases

abalucy Since online the cards are only shown to the opponents of the claimer - is just having play continued not as fair as ajudicating?

no, because the claimer has the oinformation that something is not according to what he thinks...

chot If claimer must make a finess for the claim to be good, and opps reject the claim--even though the finess would work if it ... is tried--should the TD presume that the claimER would try the finesse?

generally, in table bridge If the finesse is right he cashes on top, if it is wrong he finesses. I think this gives the idea... Of course, we consider "normal" lines, although if ... inferior...

silvia44 'UNDO' is allowed to ask for, but opps are in their full right to reject it! My suggestion is Accept undo, if it is an obvious MISCLICK .Question is this a good way to ...do so ...

That was basically my point above, when I talked about undos... But again, the safer way is to have them enabled, and when there is one request ask for the TD, who will decide on a ... case by case basis

gpm_bg If both side of teams explain wrong what they mean while they bidding, who is for penalty? First who send wrong information or both teams?

The principle is Each player is entitled to know the agreements on the SYSTEM of the opponents. When you establiish that both partnerships didnt explain bids according to their system, you have to eventually adjust (not a penalty), compensate for eventual damage, taking into account that all players get the agreements of the opps AND that some of them will think their (wrong) explanation is good and continue bidding according to this... Not easy, most of the time (nobody lied... someone made a mistake in the explanation, thats the approach)

jimcloth Can players affected by results of a table have recourse if damaged party don't ask for redress?

Of *another* table, you mean? No. Never.

slothy what can be done about players, normally those playing strong !c systems, who REPEATEDLY refuse to elaborate on explanations of bids

each TD should have his own technique on this. Not easy, especially because you mean players with poor english most of the time. I will tell them something like Explain ME in your mother language, ask someone to translate, and askj this someone to translate "Every time this happens and you lose time so that you cant play next board, it is your fault and you will get 40% at most", In real life, players are expected to use english, yes? so this doesn't apply? and then relay back to them in their mother language this... WOrks like a charm... Sometimes they even learn english immediately they are expected, but sometimes they really dont know enough, and I dont think they should be stopped from playing because of that

aceofheart Are actions taken by declarer during the play due to some misinformation during the bidding consequent or subsequent

consequent. They are related to the infraction.

inquiry-- what if a player states what cards are in his hand. doesn't penalty cards apply?

Depends on teh context that he made it. Maybe he is stating to declarer "doesnt matter what you play". If it causes damage to opps, adjust accordingly. I might even get a biased eyesight on counting tricks against him, if I think he was making fun out of it, for example.

vidra Opener opens and partner missexplain. Now opener bids one more for the road and his partner is clear about meaning. Opps bid gambling bid and fail. Is opener entitled to result from board or gets weighted score?

real life bad-bad. Opener gets the bad score and opps dont benefit. Not weighted, you mean *split*

martujes u mean a bad claim must be adjusted?

yes, ally speaking.

petak, 17.03.2006.

TD presentation from BBO

TD from Portugal Rui Lopes Marques has given very interesting presentation on BBO. This is transcript from BBO forum.

General Comments
Welcome all and... lets start working -)) The most important thing in a competition, I think, is the integrity of the event.
What I mean is that the one that wins is the one that should win according to his results. Not the one that was most lucky in TDs assignments. So, a TD should be as transparent as possible. Without being invisible of course

Procedural Penalties/Difficulties directing at BBO
BBO has a severe limitation on the software for running tournaments in the form of inability to give penalties. If you wish to give a penalty to a player you have currently to do it on the score of a board, thereby giving a plus to another pair. This means that you break the integrity of the competition when you assign a penalty of some sort. Example: Lets think about those "one trick penalty for not alerting" Board 1 4S=, Board 2 4S=... penalty in either board will mean 4S-1. Which means something like 7-10 imps, depending on vuln
Now Board 1 and Board 2 4S+1... Penalty would be then 1 IMP only... And someone would be collecting in one case 1 imp, other case 7 to 10 imps.
1) Any penalty should be proportional to the size of the crime
2) Extremely important---penalties should not benefit anybody else.
So as much as possible penalties must be avoided. If BBO permits TDs to deduct points from a player/pair, then there would be no problem in gioving MP or IMP penalties... but in any case never "trick penalties"... Even in table bridge I tend not to penalize whenever possible... because we are in a tournament not to show how smart or brilliant we are, but to administer the tournament to the taste of the players and according to the regulations in force, as much as possible. So, the important thing to consider whenever we take any decision at a table is..."equity". Not justice, but equity. There are many cases when the laws of bridge seem unjust but justice is what the legislators care with TDs must do equity within the framework of the regulations and laws they have.

General comments on giving A+/A- scores
About giving A+A- scores: The mark of a good director is to give as few possible av+av-. On table bridge we only give those 60/40 or similar when no result can be obtained at a table. When there is a result at a table, and there has been any kind of problem that resulted in damage, we try to achieve equity by removing the damage... how do we do this? for example with a wrong explanatioin, assume the good explanation would be given to the opponents and NOT to the offending player that is astray, of course. Like if players were behind screens what would the players with the good explanation do? what would happen from the pn (from then on)? Only if you cant get to a final (adjusted) result should you say ok there is damage but I cant determine what is the final outcome and so I give 60 to the non offenders and 40 to the offenders AV+AV+.... never, or almost. This is when there is no possible result but not by the fault of the players I would give that if for example a kib says to the table the final outcome before they start the bidding, or the play, or something like that ok?

Something to remember when players call for TDs and seek appeals?
TDs are not in a tournament to be smarter or idolatrated by players They are in a tourney to administer it and be fair and polite to all.
TDs should ALWAYS give players a chance to be polite too... but when a player is not, then the TD can act on an (almost) equivalent plan. If a TD is rude to you, you can always report him, and not play in his tourneys. Players have always their times of distress
and it takes a lot from tds sometimes to put up with that. Please, when there are questions let them vanish before throweing more in the air. It takes a lot from TDs, even emotionally. But a TD should remember also that a lot of times a player is only wanting someone to "let it out" before resuming his normal ways. I was the td in charge of the transnationals at the estoril´bermuda, and after 20,000 boards played, there was no single appeal (and no match with more than 30 VPs awarded). why? there was a lot of luck there
but also players a lot of times complained, wanted to appeal, etc. but they just wanted a chance to be listened. Always listen to players.
Even if they say things you dont agree with, listen to them. That is your job, too

What laws to use when directing in BBO?
Now... What laws? You all know, if you direct in table bridge that there is an international code of bridge with 90+ laws. For online bridge there is a published version made by wbf in 1999, when the scene on online bridge was on its infancy and these laws have severe shortcomings. So we should follow the main bridge laws...
Online Laws
Live bridge laws

Unfinished Boards in BBO
About unfinished boards: .... Principle of equity. The players have gone to some extent towards completing the board. We assume that they are not in a "1!c" only auction but somewhere finishing the auction or in the middle of the play. We should ALWAYS get a result on those boards. Take a look at the movie and see the probable outcome. If you cant decide between 4H= and 4H-1 try to find who was the guilty one and adjust against him. If you cant find because they both blame each other then you are free to do 40/40. One detail Another shortcoming is that we cant see the frequency on a board during the tourney. So it may even happen that both 4S= and 4S-1 are below 40%... in which case you would be giving a gift to one of the pairs... Beware... Maybe it will be changed in the future (uday, pleaseeeee) It is very helpful for a td to see the frequencies on a board when making these decisions. One other detail... huffelen would be nice when BBO saves those boards that runs out of time. Avoid adjusting in one way because you see as a whole that the hand is going that way. What matters is where the hand goes taking into account the bidding and the card play that happened up to the time I see too many times TDs saying "the normal result is this" when they should think "it is this, taking into account what happened up to now"

Playing TDs?
This brings an other important issue. Playing TDs... It is a practice here, but it poisons the integrity of the competition.... A playing TD cant make adjustements, cant see unfinished boards in time, cant get timely information from players. Even if they adjust in the end, the players will be gone and the competition will be meaningless most of the time because whenever someone is in trouble he just lets time run out. But for a minimally serious tourney... Please, dont drink and drive. One other thing: Do not be too light on judging damage just because of a wrong explanation (for example).

What if TD doesn't respond to your protest immediately?
purshi some time td doesnt repond to our protest ,then? You dont keep pressing the buttons... tds are sometimes extremely busy
and taking care of other tables. Always note the nickname of one of the TDs and ask them in private a little later.

How many tables should a TD run to ensure a quality tourney?
DDoing this sort of an analysis to restore equity can be time consuming. Do you have any thoughts on what an appropriate ratio of directors to players should be for online bridge? At most 25 tables per TD for a quality tourney. A very good td can do a little more, but if there are 3-4 calls at a same time it takes a lot of discipline to sort all of them out.

What to do in the case if a partnership has no agreements?
If there is no agreement the good explanation is "no agreement". West may be polite to say "there is no agreement but I mean this or that" but he is not required to do that.
Q:Many times partnershipos are last min pick up...and your partner has no idea what you mean you tell ops what you mean your p interprets different and you are now at disadvantage .
A: That is a fact of life.

Psyches
I got a question about psyches. Psyches are a part of bridge. I would refer you to the WBF notes on psychs... They are very well written.

Misclicks and Undoes
Q: If a player misclicks a bid what should he do if he meant to say " a club" and instead bid "a diamond"
A: Because ops will call director later when they see u had only 1 diam. Misclicks... The organizer can start the tourney as "no undos"... in that case, nothing to be said or done, however siilly the misclick is. If the organizer starts as "undos allowed", important The undo should not in any case be used to convey information and they should not be allowed if they match a change of mind the undo should be only a slip of finger and never a slip of mind. For example, a player opens a spade with 5sp and 5 clubs and then wants to change to 1C... no can do. The players when they have any doubts about allowing an undo, should call the TD that will allow it or not on a case by case basis.

West	North	East	South
-	-	-	1
2NT	X	pass	pass
pass

2NT X	K 9 3 A K 10 5 2 5 3 2 K 7
8 4 A K J 9 8 Q J 9 8 3 2		Q 6 5 4 2 J 9 6 3 10 10 6 5
	A J 10 7 Q 8 7 Q 7 6 4 A 4

(SOUTH) is the opener, both passes up to now are fake 2NT is just explained as UNUSUAL nothing else. Up to now, there is a misexplanation in the sense that unusual is hearts and clubs in this situation. North and South got the wrong info on the hand...
What is the correct agreement of the system of the players? Something to be investigated by the TD. If the TDS cant get to a conclusion if it shows C+H or C+D (the lowest always), then he should assume wrong explanation. The code states that a player is entitled to know the good explanation of the *system* and not of the cards of the players. This "of the system" creates difficulties to many tds... Suppose a player opens a weak two in D when in fact he agreed to play multi... There is no infraction at all... the player simply misbid. What would constitute an infraction would be for example in live bridge for him to hear partner explain it as "weak two in D" and use that (unauthorized) information. So on this example let´s assume the worst for EW .Wrong explain (the good explanation of the syst would be D+C). And North will keep attacking D... assuming W was short there. At this point North had pretty much forfeited any right to redress. At the first trick, it is clear to North that West has as much as 3 cards in one of his 5-card supposed suits. So North should know by now that the explanation is not ok and can ask (directly, privately, not on public chat) something about the meaning of the bid. West simply thought "unusual" to be the lowest, and not the lowest unbids., West created an involuntary infraction, but North was not damaged because of the infraction, but simply because he stopped thinking... And we as TDs should not give players points for not thinking. What if North is novice? Why does mean exactly? If N is a novice, we can have some leeway. But I think it will be good for a N novice to understand that he needs to think on the hands,,, and in this situation also. (novices should be able to count to 13) North doesnt need to be smart, we are in a bridge tournament, and players are playing bridge and not throwing random cards so if north is absent, throwing random cards, he can get a bad result with or without the infraction. The damage was self inflicted by North, not caused by West.
Q: It is also rather lazy by west just to say "Unsual", especially when there can be doubts as to what it means? He should have said "!clubs and diamonds, minimum 5-5" or "could be 4-5" or ... whatever he/she plays?
A: If the explanation is correct according to the system, nothing can do. If West corrects the explanation and N commits suicide nothing can do. If N only asks after continuing D knowing W can have only 3 hearts nothing can do. We should protect novice players somehow. But we should also instill in them the good principles of thinking, and I think this is quite easy in that matter

Q&A about the example hand
Players should explain the following way: I as a player dont see ANY of my partners explanations, remarks, whatever For example, I open multi and my prd explains as Weak 2... My partner bids 2H (pass or correct) but i know my parrter is bidding 2H forcing because he thinks I have a weak two in D. If I have a normal pass over a 2H from p in reply to my multi, I should PASS because I can NOT know that my partner mistakenly explained.

silvia44 So mine questions is, when people not alert when you have made it clear to alert anything even when you are not sure, what then?
silvia, if the no alert causes no damage, why should be opponent benefit from that?

rwylee If pairs continuously refuse to alert/explain, or even announce their system? what should we do? penalty? what kind? or just remove them? Many countries have laws which have changed in regards to giving avg+/avg- type scores. should we avoid those as well?
yes, I mean try to avoid some sort of automatic penalties for anything. I dont mean that if there is some damage that you should not do anything... You should.

echognome since split scores are not possible, should we then use avg+/- as our approximation?
fot ok warning would be good but as pointed out what if pair constantly fails to alert? WHen they refuse to explain... they explain. if they dont explain there are subs available

aylaofclan what do you mean by "no possible result"
I mean that players cant get to the end without having the board compromised. av+av- is +3 -3. For example you see your cards and the kib says "7 is down"... And it is, because trumps are 2-0 with K offside. Then you cant allow the board to be played until the end so players cannot get a result.

MitchS what good is any online ruling without recourse to an appeals process ?
If a TD is very good you will rarely need an appeal And we are trying to make better TDs. If the decision is bad, the organizations should be able to provide some sort of referring comittee, namely in the $$ tournaments.

MishoVnBG Hi! Playing vs random players with my partner, I didnt receive alert about jump 2NT bid by opps after 1!d-(P)-1!h-(2NT)... When I asked about bid opp told me "I dont have any agreements with partner, so you know exactly what he knows". Your comment please?
If the opp said to you "we have no agreement", you take what you expect from bridge common sense. I would take it as a black two suiter And call the TD (and ask privately for the TD to ask the other player the meaning of the bid before they talk at the table about it
(so that TD can establish if that is probably true or not. This is an important point When you go to a table, if needed ask them to stop playing and ask questions privately to players (and ask them to reply in private so that you dont make more info appear at the table than needed, and you can extract the information from players a.s.a.p. (before time passes...) Now at the real bridge table sometimes players cant go to full disclosure, or are tired or pressed. We agree they should... I am addressing what we should do when they dont.
Never penalize them automatically, because a lot of times it is not the "un-full disclosure" that creates the damage, but something else.

deniseb in sayc there is no more alert only in 2/1 and others. Why is there no more alert in sayc? Is it engraved in stone anywhere? -) I mean...
Each sponsoring organization does whatever they want with the alert policy And the tourney follows the sponsoring organization´s request on that subject. Just dont say "in sayc there is no"... You should say "in these tourneys those conventions do not require alert".

utorak, 14.03.2006.

Mudre misli

Recikliram temu i nastavljam sa umotvorinama sa foruma. Mudre misli koje smo kroz dvije godine foruma napisali i potpisali. Današnja je tema Licitacija. Sigurno najzahvalnija tema za polemiku na forumu nekako preživljava tiho u zavjetrini od strane tema HBS, Reprezentacije i Sudački Forum. Predlažem profesoru Elezoviću da za slijedeće izdanje knjige Bridž obavezno uključi i ove citate.

topic: kaj ja znam kaj treba
ad sam ja....meni se ucinilo zgodnim licitirat 4 karo....kontra mi je nekako bezveze, 3 pik isto tako, a osjecao sam se pozvanim da nes kazem:)

topic: sto kazes na...
Partner otvori 1 pik na prvom mjestu, Butler, druga protiv prve sto kazes s: Q543-1054-J83-1074

Ako je 1 pik standardni 11-22 otvor, pass je svakako nešto što iz raznih razloga (i opstruktivnih i konstruktivnih) ne dolazi u obzir. Isto tako, ne dolazi u obzir ni 3 pik, isključivo zbog nepovoljnih manš-pozicija. Ako igramo običnu podršku kao 3 pik 6-9, ipak smo dosta preslabi za licitiranje iste. To bismo mogli recimo sa Kxxx-xxx-xxx-xxx. Stoga, ne preostaje nam ništa drugo nego licitirati 1NT. Ako partner povuče Gazzillija s 2, rebidirati 3 (vansistemski) što bi partner trebao shvatiti kao list ovoga tipa.

Znal sam de neš reć pass lukavče, samo lako tebi kad ja nisam čul za tog grizlija...

topic: Pegulica
ja bih pasirala. budući da to nisi stavio u alternative, osjećam se nastrano i pokušala sam iznaći argumente za dodatnu vrijednost svog lista

topic: disaster corner #19
mislim da si ovaj post trebao napisati unazad, kako bi bio ipak potpuno nečitljiv. ovako sam ipak uspio razaznati neke njegove djelove

Kao i obično, uspio si mi dokazat da sam u krivu. Nikako "opcionalna" kontra ne može biti najgora kada sam zaboravio da je dio hrvatske bridž tekovine i "anti-opcionalna" kontra, a.k.a. multi-kontra ili dualna-kontra. Kada dam kontru nikako ne znači da je dajem zbog poenčića i nejasne orijentacije. Kontra znači, "šupio sam ih gorko" ili "imam negativnu kontru", a ti partner, pogađaj

Kolega ne bih mogao ekvivalirati mišljenje s vašim. Ja znam da tvoji partneri Branko i Tomica ne bi za živu glavu licitirali, čak što više i inače im moraš kliještima izvlačit nešto više od pasa.

topic: I opet nezgodacija u idućem bordu
Ako vam je to forcing onda trebate promjeniti neke stvari u sistemu jer ćete se često nalaziti u nezgodnim položajima nakon protivničke kompetitivne licitaže.

topic: And the best croatian pair is...
Zanimljivo kako je u hrvatskom bridžu postao recentan tretman samokažnjavanja. Odigra jučer naš vojskovođa Bak 3NT za -1 i mrtav hladan kaže: "Zadnji za mene, red je da se kaznim jer sam opao partiju u glavu, idem se odmorit..." Eh, ne valja tako momci. Treba upregnut još jače kada vas olujni vjetrovi zle kobi nemilice šibaju i tjeraju na posustajanje...

topic: Kompeticija
Imaš dobro rastumačen fors. pass u Robsonu
da me zanimalo šta robson kaže pito bi robsona, a ne tebe.

topic: Vaš licit biti će
Dajte molim vas da se javi onaj tko je licitirao 4pik, radi daljneg promatranja.

medjutim mislim da u svakom paru treba biti max. jedan umjetnik i jedan odbranbeni igrac tipa Najdoskog(mladji mozda ne znaju o cemu govorim ali Tesla i Rase znaju )koji lupa po nogama neprijatelja i ne prelazi centar tako da bi ja Raseu licitirao 5 tref....

topic: Rebidiraj me nježno...
Posljednjih par dana uspio sam se uvjeriti da postoji barem 6 licita za koje su pojedini ispitanici tvrdili da su najbolji. Naravno, nitko nije bio sa mnom na istoj valnoj duljini, ali to je već postao običaj, da ne kažem standardna praksa...

topic: U sandwichu
Rigidna pravila stvorena su samo kao pojednostavljene smjernice za početnike i bridžiste u razvoju koji nemaju dovoljno iskustva da bi pravilno vrednovali kakvoću pojedinih prelicita.

međutim smatram da rigidnost nije samo tu (PA ČAK NI PRVENSTVENO) zbog pojednostavljenja već zbog održavanja nekakvog komunikacijskog kanala dvaju partnera, što je osnovna značajka ove igre. licitacijski prostor, čak i kad ne bi bilo protivničkog mješanja, dozvoljava prijenos ograničenog broja informacija, pa se zbog tog limita , inače beskonačne količine informacija MORAJU "pakirati" u rigidne strukture. to očuvanje komunikacijskog kanala i izoliranje Gaussovog šuma, što je više moguće, osnovni je uvjet dobrog partnershipa.

ja to mišljenje iznimno poštujem, a poglavito ako biva redovito i dosljedno promovirano od mojih protivnika

topic: Trebam dobru i ozbiljnu procjenu
Ovdje ću citirati simpatični natpis iz Šahovskog kluba Bosna, kojem je BK Sarjaevo krao povremeno prostorije: Uči do majstora ćeš stići, i dijete padajući nauči se ići. ŠK Bosna, četerostruki klupski prvak Europe.

topic: ovaj je bre lud!
jebala te cedulja! igraš bord a ne cedulju!

Svi citati se jednostavno mogu sakriti pred kristalno jasnom porukom sljedeće izjave ostavljene na raspravi o satnici (!) A lige.

topic: Pakleni plan inžinjera Rukavine iliti kako lupetat gluposti i ostat živ
Niko od vas i vaših suflera nije nikad ama baš nikad ništa konkretno predložio i realizirao.
Samo ogovaranja, optužbe, sumnje, a faktor korisnog djelovanja je kao u prototipu parnog stroja iz 1604.

ponedjeljak, 13.03.2006.

Forum

Forum su nazivali glavni javni trg u središtu Rimskih gradova. Rađeni su po uzoru na Rimski forum i carske forume širom Rima po cijeloj Italiji i nekadašnjem Rimskom carstvu. Najbolje očuvani primjeri su Verona - Piazza delle Erbe, Rimski Forum - Philippi i Rimski Forum u Mérida, Španjolska. Forum se najčešće gradio sa sjecištu glavne NS i EW ulice u naselju (Cardo i Decumanus). Forumi su bili mjesta gdje se trgovalo, družilo i raspravljalo. Neki od starih Rimljana još uvijek dolaze na crobridge forum:

topic: Nesreća i nepripremljenost
Čudno. Ja sam nekolicnu primijetio da ga napadaju zbog njegova nerada i dezorganiziranosti, ali da ga netko napada zbog njegova rada i dosljednosti u istome - to mi je malkice promaklo.

topic: Što reći
Ajoj...mislim da, drugim riječima, tražiš od hrvatskih sudaca konzistentnost i barem nekakvu organiziranost...

topic: Repka 2005
Mi bi u Hrvatskoj mogli zaštititi u zavodu za patente način izbora repke koju možemo nazvati odokativna metoda...

evidentno nitko trančirajući tekst nije primijetio da u tekstu koji je poslao savez nema riječi "reprezentacija", "repa", "rep", "repatica", "krepati", "okrepa" itd. ipak, kao revni znanstvenik, nisam se dala smesti, dubo je u svom šlamperaju i nepismenosti mogao baš i koji tipfeler napraviti pa sam stavila dodatni search sa "tacija/e/i/ama", opet promašaj nema i "imitacija", "konotacija", "rotacija" ni bilo koje riječi sa tim nastavkom.

A ja sam čuo da je Emil jednoj od vas rekao da bi savez mogao financirati žensku repku sa 20 paketa durex kondoma.Svašta se čuje na ovim prostorima

topic: Hrvatska do Pekinga
Tak bi svi mogli igrat za istu bridge ligu, dobivat bodove, a bog i bogme i pušit i pit za stolom...kak ćeš ti za stolom Ljubi Zemuncu reć: "Nemreš pušit!" Ja sam siguran da bi se moglo i jest za stolom, recimo slanine i luka...ovdje se bojim ak izvadim slaninu i luk za stolom da bu mi protivnik pozval suca da to ne jedem jer je to masno i loše za zdravlje pa mi je bolje da jedem nekakve makrobiotičarske pizdarije...pa poglečte kak nam Željko Mavrović zdravo izleda...ha?

Radite šta oćete samo mi ostavite Sarajevo u ligu.
Sehen sie diese Stadt? Das ist Walter!

topic: Zanimljivih presuda nikada ne manjka...
Kontrirala sam 4 pik sa tlakom na 200 i to zato kaj je Davor uz vidno olakšanje rekao hvala, a Poky umro od smijeha (pa kokoš i zavređuje samo smijeh).

sve koji ne razumiju pokya, molim da pročitaju elementarna djela iz to područja licitaže:
1. Mike Lawrence: How to explain your partner's bidding
2. Terence Reese: When to alert, when to remain silent

topic: Najprije skok, pa onda...........
Vrlo rado ću se uključiti u diskusiju s nepoznancem ako se staribak, starifrak, ili kak se već u stvari zove, uredno i civilizirano predstavi općinstvu, imenom i prezimenom. Valjda do njega i nekaj drži? Po e-mailu to je Miro Tesla pa ako je tome tako veseli me. Ipak volim vidjeti potpis s imenom i prezimenom. Do onda idem na Doru ali sad ne više festivalsku, već konkretnu. Bit će i skok u vis i skok u niz. Za skok u dalj više ne mogu garantirati. Hm????, možda se omakne. A, bit će i pića i najboljih jela..........., život prolazi, a ostaju djela.

topic: Babe u kuhinju
Dobro ne sve ali neke svakako bolje kuhaju nego igraju.Kako se moja životna družbenica izrazila vrlo deskriptivno o papiru dobivenom u ponedjeljak možda je i bolje da bude uz špaker nego uz screen.Jer bolje je dobit po tikvi tećom nego licit daskom. Taj nesretni dopis (možda non paper nije loše ime za isti)pokazuje da je u bridžu važan novac.Pa i je.Zamislite da je predsjednik saveza netko drugi pa da nema proljetnih krkanluka u Pavillionu ili Samoboru(sad već tradicionalnom)odletio bi taj čas.Prema tome ne jezite se nego prihvatite zdravo za gotovo i čekajmo neku novu bridge snagu.

topic: Dvije jednostavne sekvence
Povratio sam tri puta kad sam pročitao besramne prostote u tvom postu, a nisam izdržao pročitat do kraja.

topic: Dva primjera
Sad sudac malo bolje promotri bord i zbori:
"A čuj, fakat dobro zboriš, uistinu nema nikakvog razloga vjerovati da bi išla drugačije, čak što više. 3NT bi licitirali isto kao što su i sada - jasno su to pokazali. Ali znaš šta, imam ja svoje društvance koje misli da takvima kao vi treba uzeti čim više, edukativne mjere radi - ništa osobno. Uostalom, jasno vam je da vas nitko ne tjera da igrate bridž ako niste partnership ili ako na dogovore prije turnira ne utrošite barem dva i pol sata. Uostalom, meni je slađe na vas gledati kao da ste htjeli nekog zmuljat pa vas preventivno klepit po prstima i spoznat koliko ste korigibilni, znatiželje radi."
XY sada odvrate:
"Hvala pametan i iskren suček naš, divno je imati pravednika poput tebe koji nam još i sve tako lijepo objasni. Wooohaaaa, I love this game."

topic: Prvi žiri sezone u Cassandri
onda bi se barem trebali složiti da su EW imali priličan peh da je ih je to što protivnici nemaju dogovoren sistem dovelo u situaciju da su de facto izblefirani u krivu odluku, iako nitko za stolom nije blefirao.

topic: Poticanje prljave igre
Stoga, Dino, teško da bi se u datim okolnostima moglo pričati o nepotpunoj informaciji. Informacija je, iako blago nespretno formulirana i neispravno shvaćena, ipak bila potpuna.

topic:Gospodin profesor Rašić istančuje Vaš osjećaj za kartu - poduka prva: dvostruki prohvat
Naziv posta sam po sebi dovoljan.

i za kraj jedan saborski: Zastupničko pitanje u Saboru o bridžu u školama

Upravo zbog toga što bridž ima status olimpijskog športa i punopravan je član HOO, inicijativa SBK VuPik Vukovar može se podržati kao nova aktivnost, a s obzirom na interes učenika i učenica i kao nova sekcija školskog športskog kluba, koja bi svojim radom i promicanjem bridža potaknula da se i u ostalim školama osnuje sekcija bridža, te organiziraju međurazredna, odnosno međuškolska natjecanja.
Međutim, zbog niza opravdanih razloga (nastavni plan i program, kadrovski uvjeti i sl.) Ministarstvo znanosti, obrazovanja i športa ne može podržati inicijativu za eksperimentalno uvođenje bridža kao fakultativnog predmeta u vukovarske osnovne i srednje škole.

nedjelja, 12.03.2006.

Što je ova rekontra?

Neki igrači sa svojim metodama, svojim agresivnim stilom i svojim nastupom impresioniraju svoje protivnike na turniru. Takvi su Eric Rodwell i Jeff Meckstroth, čim sjednu za stol protivnici osjećaju pritisak. Njihova licitacija je znanstvena, stil super agresivan a cedulja puna topova i nula. SOS Rekontra je jedna od njihovih omiljenih konvencija. Kad ih (najčešće) kontriraju u 3NT tada Jeffova ili Ericova rekontra znači bježmo iz opasnosti. Sljedeću ruku odigrali su nedavno na jednom većem turniru:

West	North	East	South
-	-	1	X
Pass	2	Pass	2NT
Pass	4	Pass	Pass
X	Pass	Pass	XX
Pass	4	Pass	Pass
X	4NT	Pass	Pass
X	Pass	Pass	Pass

4NT X 6	8 A 9 8 6 4 2 8 5 2 9 5 4
6 3 3 J 10 9 6 4 3 A Q 6 2		K 7 5 4 2 Q J Q 7 K 10 8 2
	A Q J 10 9 K 10 7 5 A K J 7

Kontra i 2NT obećavaju 19-20 poena. Dva herc obećava samo tri herca ali 4 herca pokazuju pravi fit. West je dao kontru zbog AQ u trefu i partnerovog otvora. Jeff je rekontrirao ali ga je Eric izvadio sa 4 pik vjerujući da je rekontra SOS. 4 pik je zahtjev da se igra u nekoj drugoj boji, no Southu se to svidjelo. West je i to kontrirao pa je Eric sad sa 4NT pokušao natjerati Southa da igra u svom minoru. Još jedna kontra i ovaj put je Eric passirao da ne mora igrati 5 herc u rekontri.

Došla je ataka pik šestica. East dodaje dvojku a izvođač uzima pubom. Kako su herčevi dva jedan to je deset štihova napravljenih u kontri. Nažalost Jeff je igrao da West ima sigurno sva tri herca nakon svih kontri koje je dao. Odigrao je sedmicu herc iz ruke i propustio je do Eastovog puba. East je odigrao mali tref da promovira svoj kralja i desetku. Jeff je dodao mali a West uzima damom. Sad je siguran da mu partner ima kralja ali ako je kralj treći mora paziti da ne blokira boju. Vratio je malog trefa no East nije shvatio da igra ispod asa. Stavio je osmicu i Jeff uzima puba i sada na kraju zna napraviti preostqale štihove. Eastova prva pogreška nakon groznog otvora ali ovaj put fatalna. Zašto je odigrao mali tref ispod kralja? Valjda su Eric i Jeff sa svojom pojavom i licitacijom napravili šum u njegovoj glavi i pogriješio je. Oni su godinama najbolji američki par, a ova partija pokazuje da njihov uspijeh počiva dijelom i na ovakvim greškama. Otvaram natječaj za slične brljancije odigrane protiv Brka i Marine.

srijeda, 08.03.2006.

Može i bez asa

Na evropskom prvenstvu na Malti 1999 godine jedno odigravanje nije stiglo u dnevni buletin jer je odigrano u zadnjem kolu. Tada su svi izvještaji već predani redakcijama i novinari se pakiraju kući. Piotr Tuszynski prekrasno je odigrao bord. Naizgled je sve jednostavno jer na atak tref kralja ima deset štihova: šest aduta, dva asa i dva karona.

West	North	East	South
1	Pas	2	2
Pas	4	Pas	Pas
X	Pas	Pas	Pas

4 X K	K J A 9 8 6 5 4 A J 9 8 7
Q 10 8 Q J 8 5 2 A 10 7 2 K		6 4 K 4 3 9 Q 10 6 5 4 3 2
	A 9 7 5 3 2 10 7 6 K Q J 3

Izvođač poput mene bi lijepo uzeo tref atak asem i igrao karo. West uzme asa i da karo partneru na porez. Povrat herc i sad još uvijek moram dati herc i adutski štih. Vi ste sigurno pametniji i iskusniji od mene pa bacite herc na tref asa i drugi herc na mali tref. Na žalost, još uvijek ćete dati karo asa, karo porez i doživjeti adutsku promociju. As je u stvari smetnja koja izvođača ostavlja na stolu. Kralja tref porežete u ruci, impasirate pik puba i pik kralj. Nakon toga izađete sa karonom u ruku. West mora uzeti asem i odmah igrati herc da ubije ulaz do tref asa dok još ima aduta. Tuszynski je igrao karo prema ruci i igrao pik asa. As tref na stolu statira jer više nema ulaza do njega. Izvođač je sad polupao sve adute i došli su do ove završnice:

	8 6 A J
Q J 10 7		K 4 Q 10
	10 7 J 3

Izašao je sa sedmicom herc! Tref sa stola a East uzima herc kralja. Još jedan herc do dame i sad odbac tref asa. West mora izaći u karonu i predati zadnja dva štiha. Obrana je mogla još otežati izvođaču: da je West uzeo deseti štih u hercu damom izvođač mora pogoditi tko ima herc kralja. Ako je kod Westa sa stola mora baciti trefove, a ako je kod Easta mora baciti karo i tref. Famozan bord.

Dnevnik.hr
Gol.hr
Zadovoljna.hr
Novaplus.hr
NovaTV.hr
DomaTV.hr
Mojamini.tv

Komentari da/ne?