Ten years ago, from the Summer Meeting in Brighton, I posted on A-level results day.
I am just as pleased to report that my younger daughter H has got into Cambridge, to read Classics.
She too has worked very hard ... we are very proud ... blah, blah, blah, ...
1 . 2 . 3 … is this thing working?
Summer Meeting back live and in Eastbourne.
Most of the scoring computer functions seem to be working.
Scoring issues and internet access issues solved.
We are running without large screens of scrolling results – to avoid players crowding together. Instead, live results and assignment are available via the EBU web site and the Bridgemate app, and we have posted a QR code to take players to the live results page.
Played speedball, partnering the TD, to make the event happen. FIrst time we had held cards and used bidding boxes since February 2020.
Gérard Neuberg of the Neuberg formula has died.
There is a short obitury (in French) in the FFB magazine.
The EBU TD panel consists of those TDs the EBU will use to direct at its events, including trainees who serve a probationary period before “donning the purple” blazer, or not. (We no longer have purple/maroon blazers, so I guess it should be “donning the red polo”). Every two years, the panel meets for a weekend away to share best practice and remind ourselves how to sit in a bar until “a bit after two”. Some topics come up two-year after two-year, and a workable and consistent approach to Law 27 is such a topic.
It is getting to the stage the new Law 27 is no longer new and in a few years will become the old Law 27. We (EBU TDs) continue to oscillate about what the different players at the table should be told about the options available to the offender in replacing his insufficient bid. I think the truth is that we do things differently depending on the auction and the experience of the players at the table. We also continue to discuss particular cases of what calls constitute “rectification calls” under Law 27B1(b) — that is, calls that will not silence offender's partner. Here again we oscillate between a more or less liberal interpretations of the law. But there seem to be nothing much to be learnt as general principle, but just to look at each case separately.
The case we looked at was 1NT –(3♦)– 2NT; with responder holding ♥AJxxxxx. The point of the exercise was to distinguish the application of Law 27D (after Law 27B1) from the application of Law 23 (after Law 27B2). But we had to know whether a replacement bid of 3♥ would silence partner.
Responder intended 2NT as Lebensohl but was confused about what auction he thought he was bidding Lebensohl in, so it was not clear if his intended 1NT –(2X)– 2NT – 3♣ – 3♥ was to play or invitational. It was also not clear whether the partnership had an agreement as to whether 1NT –(3♦)– 3♥ was invitational or forcing. So we were forced to conclude that 3♥ as a replacement for the insufficient bid did not necessarily have the same meaning as 3♥ after the insufficient Lebensohl and so did not have the same-or-more-precise meaning as the insufficient Lebensohl.
We concluded that 3♥ would only be a non-silencing replacement bid, if responder knew what strength of 3♥ bid (to play, invitational or forcing) he was intending to show via Lebensohl, if the partnership (in particular, opener) knew what strength was shown by the proposed 3♥ bid, and if those two meanings (in terms of strength) co-incided. This all requires a lot of investigation by the TD during a live auction, possibly wanting to ask questions of both members of the non-offending side independently and without giving information to other players to which they may not be entitled.
Meanwhile (in another part of the forrest) the WBF laws draft subcommittee are considering how to fix/improve this law. Any radical redrafting has been rejected: for instance suggestions that the insufficient bid should be an unauthorised withdrawn call (see open season on law 27). It is possible that the “meaning” of the insufficient bid, instead of being the “intended” meaing, becomes the “apparent” meaning (or the information conveyed by the insufficient bid). So the TD does not need to ask the offender what he was trying to do, instead he has to decide what it looks like he was trying to do. It is also possible that any unauthorised information generated by the offender (for example, “oops, I thought he had passed”) will be wound in to the restrictions on offender's partner.
We shall have to wait patiently and see what happens.
So, there may not be much more to say here on Law 27 for a few years. At the panel weekend, I lead a session on scoring and we (again) recognised the value of sharing our experiences with the different scoring systems. So I might try and write up some details of scoring system problems and achievements over the last year and post them here.
More ramblings and some deliberate puns/typos from the last seven daze.
The first weekend was intense: I was scoring all sections from one computer. The computer was networked to another computer on the balcony with its own bridgemate server and large display screen. The results from upstairs were collected on the upstairs computer and written to the database on the master computer; and the rolling scores were displayed on both floors. Everything worked but the computers did run a bit slowly at times – database access over ethernet is just not the same as accessing a database on the same computer.
We kicked off with ruling and appeals from the off: the first appeal related to a ruling in match one. During the midweek events there have been less actual appeals but lots of threats and “french” appeals (haranguing anyone who has to listen about how unfair it all is).
RIP: Robin Williams, a clown who couldn't live any more; Lauren Bacall, a goddess who should have lived forever.
...
and then I went to look at the end of Friday point-a-board teams scoring and got involved in fixing the pianola uploads; and then setting up the networked computers for the Swiss Teams; and before you know it, it was another 1:00am finish.
Arrived at the venue earlier than scheduled – due to mad dashing in and out of lifts and up and down escalators/stairs at Gatwick, so I made an earlier connection – looking like something out of the Fast Show. So plenty of time to set up a few more computers for the midnight late-night (11:30pm) speedball.
So now I have set up another computer and (more importantly?) connected to the internet and social media.
I knew most of the setting-up was already done because the EBU had posted a picture on twitter before I had got on my second train #ebubrighton.
Other TDs arriving now for briefing meeting; and it's Sarah's birthday – happy birthday to you!
Lots going on, not all of it good, and not all of it can be reported.
At the EBU AGM, I was elected to the Laws and Ethics Committee, following my work on the White Book earlier in the year. This gives me a certain privileged position (for instance, with respect of disciplinary matters) and so constrains what I can post unofficially. Thanks to all who supported my election.
Meanwhile doing some TD and some L&E-like activities:
| K Q J 10 9 8 5 3 | A | |
| 10 5 | W E | Q 9 8 6 2 |
| 10 5 | A J 4 | |
| 5 | J 8 3 2 |
I declared 4♠ on the ♣K lead and ♦9 switch. I ducked to the ♦Q and ruffed the club return. Then ♠A, another club ruff, and a top spade from hand. LHO revoked with a small heart and corrected with a small spade, leaving the heart as a major penalty card.
I checked that the opponents knew the law, including possible lead restrictions, and we did not call the TD. So I played my master stroke, taking the diamond finesse immediately. This lost (not unexpectedly) but I banned a heart return hoping South would only have red cards and I would make ♦A anyway. RHO produced ♣Q and I looked as stupid as the other declarers who had been given (and taken) the opportunity to finesse twice in ♦.
Relating the hand at the tea break, a friend remarked that only a director would find that line: a friendly enough remark but not intended as a compliment!
