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!
Session 2 of the Swiss Teams was when multi-section Australia movement really kicked in. During the session the teams had a new team number which was the same as their new home/NS table number, but the overall results were expressed in terms of their initial team number. The BridgeMates use the 'in session' number whereas the scoring program used (mainly) the initial team number. This was all new for everyone but players/TDs/scorers got the hang of it after a couple of rounds.
I scored the first session of the day, which was interesting when the computer screen failed before the start of play. We could still attach a monitor and use that to duplicate the desk top — so we could copy the data files. Copying the data files to a spare computer and we were able to resume before play started.
In the evening, I had a session off from scoring — although I was involved as 'assistant to the scorer'. I had unauthorised information rulings in both sessions: whether I was TD or scorer. In both cases, it was clear there were logical alternatives but the real question was what was suggested by the disallowed information from partner.
A more interesting ruling involved 14 exposed cards during the auction period. The TD made a ruling that allowed played to continue (with fewer penalty cards). One side had just been on the club TD course, the other side included a number of national referees: and both sides thought the ruling was wrong!
A mixture of administration, playing, scoring and more playing.
The morning included another iteration of masterpointing PWTE and I had the afternoon off and played in the Open Pairs. Nothing remarkable happened in the bridge but it did mean I now have results on Pianola — so when I uploaded results later in the day, my Pianola login showed a breakdown of my percentage for the afternoon session.
The Swiss Teams was scored as multi-section Australian — meaning teams play at the same home table in each session, but may move sections between sessions. The software is relatively new and we did face some organisational and technical issues, but the session happened with no obvious problems. The assignments at the end of the session were complicated because we had to put some teams back where they were before to allow for various disablements. Nevertheless we were assigned, with the results and assignments on the internet, soon after midnight.
Chief (gordonTD) and I wandered into the Midnight Speedball to find there was a half table: “We could fill in” TD: “but the half table is in the movement and we have moved for round 5”; “we can fix this”. So we updated the movement (in much the same way as in the Mixed Pairs yesterday) and were able to play two thirds of the speedball. So that is two sessions of results on Pianola — the only bridge achievement is that in the speedball we were the only pair to bid and make a slam.
Upstairs/downstairs events on Tuesday led to knee problems for the poor scorer but it now feels like we are over the worst for Brighton.
The Mixed Pivot Teams was complicated as ever but seemed to go smoothly, although we continue to have BridgeMate configuration problems. There were also awkward rulings and talk of several appeals — one of which happened. Some players and appeals committees seem to expect the TDs to do extensive player-polling before giving any judgement ruling; but in some events polling can be difficult to organise and can take up a lot of time for the TD — time they could be dealing with other incidents/rulings.
Wednesday was sufficiently less 'full on' than Tuesday, that I stayed to do scoring for the Midnight Speedball and I played one board for the winning pair. The speedball went to time and we had results on the internet and photographs of the winners by 1:35am.
Thursday involved more BrigeMate configuration problems in both the afternoon and evening sessions. There was other problems in the evening Mixed Pairs, with one player unable to continue playing, due to 'illness', which meant a change to the movement. Nevertheless, the operation to merge the earlybird session with main session data while the main session was still in play was again successful.
The biggest outstanding problem in scoring is the Play With The Experts: the masterpoints have the unique combination of two winner movement, stratification, and a mixture of green/blue points. Any pair of those issues would be problematic but the combination of all three involves iterated construction of a spreadsheet with all the constituent masterpoints, and the spreadsheet has to be rebuilt by hand every time we find a problem with the previous data.
The masterpoints for the Mixed Pairs is a combination of stratification and a mixture of green/blue points: so I left that for Friday morning and we were back at our hotel until midnight. Unfortunately, the bar was open and an early night was avoided — instead the TD tradition of 'a bit after' 2am was observed.
A busy day: arrived at 10am to set up a fourth scoring computer, left after 12:30am when I had to redo the internet uploads. These were the days events:
| U25 Pairs | Upstairs | 12:00-15:15 and 15:45-18:45 | Open Pairs | Downstairs | 14:00-17:30 | Seniors Pairs semi-finals | Downstairs | 14:00-17:30 | Pairs Trophy (early bird) | Upstairs | 19:00-22:30 | Pairs Trophy | Downstairs | 19:45-23:15 | Seniors Pairs finals | Downstairs | 19:45-23:15 |
I had fifteen minute outside the venue for dinner while the U25 Pairs was finishing: ten minutes waiting for chips to be cooked and five minutes eating them in a shelter on the promenade.
The hairiest point of the day was merging the early bird Pairs Trophy data in with the other sections, while the main event was still in progress. This meant the competitors could watch complete scolling results as the last boards were played and the results were final as soon as play was complete.
I had a half day: meaning I was only at the venue in the morning and evening. I spent the morning rearranging computer stations, copying files and generally setting up for scoring the midweek events. In the evening, the scoring went smoothly until it came to the master points: the combination of green points, blue points and stratification was too much for me and for the scoring programme; we went to bed and calculated the masterpoints in a spreadsheet in the morning.
During my afternoon off, I went to Shoreham by bus. We had a great aunt/uncle who lived in Shoreham and generations of my family have visited Shoreham (and the beach) since forever. My plan was to walk from the centre of town over the footbridge over the rive Adur and on to the beach beyond. The (old) footbridge was to me an iconic feature of Shoreham — so I was dismayed to see it has been replaced by a concrete and steel structure. Furthermore, the new bridge is still under construction, so my plans to recreate childhood memories were thwarted. (Hence the 'not bridge' label to this post.)
Back in Brighton, I was able to listen to some of the cricket but I missed all the action when England won the match and the Ashes.
The Brighton Hub and Pianola is proving a success — so much so that we had to provide alternatives results because everyone wanted to access the results of the Swiss Pairs as soon as the event was finished and scored. Otherwise scoring the Swiss Pairs went smoothly, and bridge in the upstairs section was free of incident. There were more awkward incidents in the downstairs sections.
Scoring the evening's Open Pairs and Open Teams had its moments — the BrigeMates went live in the wrong events and players in the teams were able to enter some names before they were fixed. The upshot was that some players appeared to be playing in both the teams and the pairs until we checked against the names slips. The recurrent theme of scoring at Brighton is doing things that don't happen (very much) at any other event. This starts with the Sunday Open Teams were the movements are special and not always obvious for the scorer.
There was time between scoring to give some rulings and to reflect on previous rulings. I had to rule on misbid or misexplanation when there had been a two-suited double in a strong 2♣ auction. I did not expect to find much support from the system card but there it was: it was not the exact sequence at the table but the fact that they had a documented method of two-suited calls was enough for me to rule misbid not misexplanation. The problem with mixing scoring and directing is that it is difficult to have time to discuss/explain rulings with players at the end of the session because you have to sort out the scores.
I discussed yesterday's misbid ruling with a TD colleague who is here as a player. The bracketed words in yesterday's blog 'absent any unauthorized information' came back to bite me. My colleague agreed that the failure to use the stop card before 2NT was evidence that opener had misbid but it was also unauthorised information to his partner. So his partner's action in not making a slam try should have been judged as a potential use of unauthorised information, not (just) as potential evidence of a concealed partnership understanding.
We also learnt that non-forcing responses when opponents have doubled are alertable — a change in the Blue Book from the Orange Book.
Lots to do for scoring the Swiss Pairs: dealing with new replacement pairs after pairs withdraw, dealing with names (foreign names with prefixes 'de', 'van' were causing us particular grief), and sorting out stratification. Assignments on the web and uploading to Pianola went faster than last night. I did not quite finish in time to play in the speedball but I was there to help set up the Swiss teams scoring. (Ultimately the Swiss teams speedball was scored by hand – so we will try to recreate it on the computer on Sunday.)
Two claims caused some discussion/disagreement. On the first a player claimed 12 tricks, in a line which included throwing a loser on a trick he would have to follow suit. Nevertheless the only normal lines would drop a doubleton queen for 13 tricks and that is what he got. On another claim, declarer claimed one off as soon as he saw the bad trump break, without planning the further play. There were ways to go off but the play had to be perverse not to make. (Should 'perverse' replace 'irrational', 'not normal', 'beyond careless or inferior'?)
I had to rule on a misinformation/misbid auction. Dealer opened 1♣ (strong, artificial) and rebid 2NT in a competitive auction. This was explained as 23+ (1NT was available to show a weaker balanced hand). This explanation caused the defenders to misdefend 3NT when declarer turned up with only 19 HCP. Opener claimed this was misbid, he bid 2NT because he thought the auction was already at the two level. This was plausible: there had been a lot of bidding for the auction to still be at 1♠ and the player had not used the stop card before bidding 2NT. So I ruled misbid rather than misexplanation. The defenders asked me if the this misbid has been fielded – perhaps responder was worth a slam try opposite 23+ HCP. I decided the misbid was not fielded but really the 'fielded misbid' regulation seems unnecessary in this sort of auction – any meaning for 2NT is permitted, there seems no reason why they should try and conceal their agreements about strong balanced hands, and (absent any unauthorized information) why shouldn't they bid how they like.
The most obvious inovation at Brighton was the EBU TDs in their new uniform; out goes shirt and ties and maroon jackets — in with red polo shirts. The jackets had pockets that would fit a law book and note pad; as an alternative, a number of styles of ‘man’ bags are being sported. No pocket is big enough for the White Book, which I have printed and spiral bound, on display next to the scoring computer.
The move is towards webifying the Brighton experience: less on paper — more on the web. The expectation is that all the results (and other player information) can be read on players' phones. The results are being displayed via Pianola. Of couse this means getting the results straight, and doing the assignments, before the poor scorer goes to bed. (This year, bed is in a different hotel — an interesting walk along the sea front through the drunken revelers.)
The Brighton Hub (on the EBU website) will also have articles that would have previously appeared in the bulletin. The ever popular TD Corner will appear there, so opportunities for more ramblings.
A follow up to White Book 2013 and Inadvertent designation is an offense?.
Firstly, the White Book 2013 is on the EBU web site: L&E publications. I made the last change last night: correcting the cross-reference from Law 45C4(b) to Law 25A.
I was only looking at that page because of discussion on IBLF where campboy was arguing that a player who makes an unintended call and corrects it (under Law 25A) is not an offender. This is consistent with a strict reading of Law 45C4(b), see Inadvertent designation is an offense?. It appears that a player who has made an unintended action (call or designation), and has corrected the action under the appropriate law (Law 25A or Law 45C4(b)), has not committed an infraction and is not an offending side. These are the points that support this conclusion:
(Of course, there are other points that do not support the conclusion.)
This conclusion does reinforce the strict reading of Law 45C4(b) re unauthorised information:
Law 45B4(b) refers to Law 16D1, and Law 16D1 tells us calls and plays are authorised.
This is probably not what we want.
The EBU White Book 2013 is done, as far as I am concerned: just a couple of hyperlinks to be updated when the target pages are ready. I have been working on this solidly since the end of March.
Inevitably, doing such technical writing (as I did in ‘real life’) you read things in source material that you thought you had read many times before and find it does not say what you thought it said. I thought that the 2007 Laws had changed the word ‘inadvertent’ in Law 25A (change of call) to ‘unintended’, but not changed it in Law 45C4 (b) (change of card designated). But when I came to quote from Law 45C4 (b) for the White Book, I found that it too used the word ‘unintended’. (The word ‘inadvertent’ does remain in the law book in the heading of Law 47C — but I am sure that is unintended!)
It is strange I had not spotted this, as an earlier post Inadvertent designation is an offense? was confused as to which word was used in Law 45C4 (b). Re-reading that post, I see that there should have been a WBFLC ‘open invitation’ response about the reference to Law 16D1(sic) in Law 45C4 (b).
If technical editing teaches you anything, it is that you can't get everything right.
“Well, nobody's perfect”Some Like It Hot (1959)
Meanwhile I have got involved the revision of the EBU White Book. I have attended a couple of L&E committee meetings and given my editing brief — make it shorter!
Despite this, the White Book was donated material that is currently in the Orange Book, but will not be included in its reincarnation as the Blue Book. The shortening was achieved by deleting sections that said the same thing as earlier sections for the second (or third) time; and worse: sections that said something different than earlier sections on the same subject. There were also sections on out-dated technology and out-dated methods of calculation. Finally a consistent approach to white space has improved the look and saved a few pages.
In between the deletion, there has been much re-writing, new interpretations, new regulations, and new VP scales. The VP scales based on the new WBF VP scales, but the “discrete” (integer) scales — not the “continuous” (decimal) scales in use at the European Open Championships.
A draft goes out to the proof-readers today, and it is ¾ the length of the previous version.
Being on the end of a telephone means you can take rulings from anywhere in the world. Last month I had to deal with back-to-back telephone rulings from different countries, and both were appealed. Both were misinformation ruling, with the non-offending side failing to make a game try (when game was making).
The first ruling was from a welsh event (a different NBO, if not a different country). I contacted various TDs and players and arrived at a ruling the following morning. I gave a weighted ruling — some proportion of bidding and making game — but not enough to change the match result. The non-offenders appealed but my ruling was upheld.
At the national level, the EBU has a procedure for recording psyches: they are classified by the tournament director and a form goes back to the EBU. If a pair is thought to have developed a parthnership understanding that is not permitted or is not being properly disclosed, then the record of the pair can be investigated from the forms. The coverage of suspicious auctions is very patchy but the process of recording the hands by the tournament director can be relatively non-confrontational.
At lower levels, the procedures are usually less well defined, even if they exist. The procedure usually involve a “psyche book”, even if such a book does not actually exist. The notional purpose of the psyche book is to record psyches, but as I have discovered, its main purpose if for established players to intimidate their opponents by threating to put them in the book.
Playing in a league match, I psyched 1♠ – presumably I was third in hand, not vulnerable against vulnerable, with not many points and not many spades (two, I think). Partner dutifly raised to 3♠ ahd we played there, drifting a few off. As soon as it became clear I had fewer spades than I was supposed to, LHO (with the big hand) started to erupt. At the end of the hand, players from other tables assembled to help with the situation and soon it felt like all the players in the teams-of-eight match were gathered round the table – except for my partner and me, who were sent to the far end of the room (in disgrace?). I am sure that there was much discussion of putting me “in the psyche book”, although given that the sponsoring organisation was the league, it probably did not have such a book. Eventually play resumed, with no adjustment, although I am sure the opponents (and some of my team) thought I had cheated.
My first introduction to the local concept of the pysche book occurred when a player talked to me for advice. Apparently a hand they had bid had been recorded in the psyche book but the player only learned of this after the event, and the pair had not been given a chance to explain their actions. I looked at the hand and it did not look like a psyche and certainly nothing that looked like a concealed partnership understanding. It turned out that the TD's reasons for recording the hand had nothing to do with psyches and “recorded in the psyche book” was a bit of smoke screen.
As TD, I was asked for a bid to be recorded “in the psyche book”; since the player who asked was also a TD (and had directed at this club far more ofthen than me), I presumed he knew what he was talking about. I duly took a note of the hand on an EBU “report of hand” form. After the event, I got in touch with the powers that be, only to discover that there is not psyche book and no procedures. Again, this appeared to be sabre rattling, and totally lost of the player complained of.
