[nige1]

JanM, on Jan 16 2009, 01:52 AM, said:

Hijacking a little . I haven't been able to find an easy way to convert Word documents to good HTML. The converter in Word itself doesn't do a good job, copying and pasting usually messes up formatting and numbering. As a result, all of the Conditions of Contest posted on the USBF site are PDFs and I spend a ridiculous amount of time converting tables that are easy to produce in Word or Excel into web pages (I'm not good at HTML; I'm using the Joomla editor). I'd actually prefer to post HTML if there was an easy way to do that. Any suggestions?

When you've saved a Word document as HTML, you may use utilities like Dave Raggetts HTML TIDY that can be configured to remove buckets of superfluous Word tags and isolate much of the formatting as style. Even TIDY can't remove all the Word gobbledygook however and you have to clean up by hand, using an editor. Once you have done so, you can use TIDY again to convert the resulting mess into valid strict HTLML or XHTML.

i was surprised when Cardsharp said that an HTML version was more bulky than the PDF version, because that hasn't been my experience; but anyway I tend to to convert large documents into several linked XHTML pages.

[barmar]

awm, on Jan 9 2009, 05:21 PM, said:

Suppose that opponents, through some abuse of UI, reach 6NT (say there is a slow response to blackwood and opponents then choose to bid on when no logical person would do so off two aces). I am on lead with two aces. I lead one ace, then continue that suit. Eventually the contract makes.

However, details matter.

Suppose dummy has KQJ in the suit of the second ace. If you reasonably assume that the opponents wouldn't bid a slam off two cashing aces, you might conclude that declarer has a void in that suit, and cashing the ace would set up a bunch of pitches. Happy that you guessed the correct ace to lead first, you now make a passive continuation, hoping declarer will attempt a ruffing finesse later.

Failure to cash this ace would hardly be "wild and gambling", there's sound bridge reasoning to it.

[Trinidad]

barmar, on Jan 16 2009, 05:13 PM, said:

awm, on Jan 9 2009, 05:21 PM, said:

Suppose that opponents, through some abuse of UI, reach 6NT (say there is a slow response to blackwood and opponents then choose to bid on when no logical person would do so off two aces). I am on lead with two aces. I lead one ace, then continue that suit. Eventually the contract makes.

However, details matter.

Suppose dummy has KQJ in the suit of the second ace. If you reasonably assume that the opponents wouldn't bid a slam off two cashing aces, you might conclude that declarer has a void in that suit, and cashing the ace would set up a bunch of pitches. Happy that you guessed the correct ace to lead first, you now make a passive continuation, hoping declarer will attempt a ruffing finesse later.

Failure to cash this ace would hardly be "wild and gambling", there's sound bridge reasoning to it.

My standard of play is just not good enough since I haven't mastered the technique of a ruffing finesse in a NT contract. But maybe, with hard practice, one day I will.



Rik

P.S. (And now serious) In general, everything you wrote makes sense, if you are defending a suit contract. So yes, there are definitely more things to consider. This is even conceivably possible against a 6NT contract. (I could imagine the Rueful Rabbit gaining a top in 6NT-1 when his opponents cash two aces while the field is in 3NT -2, against opponents who don't cash. ) But I think Adam's example was pretty clear.

[awm]

Maybe another way to view this is to say....

Suppose that I have some unauthorized information during the auction. This isn't fair, but the laws don't "assess a penalty" for this. Basically the point is that we are supposed to restore equity.

Essentially this means that the bidding at my table (with the UI) should not lead me to a superior contract which I would have been unlikely to reach without the UI.

So the director needs to determine four things:

(1) Was there, in fact, UI?
(2) Were there logical alternatives (LA) to any of the decisions I made subsequent to the UI?
(3) If so, did the UI suggest one action over another and did I take the action the UI suggested?
(4) If there was UI, and I had logical alternatives, and I did pick the one suggested by the UI... did this sequence of events lead me to a superior contract?

If the answer to all four questions is "yes" then the table result should be adjusted.

However, it is possible that the answer to the first three questions is "yes" but the fourth question is "no." In other words, there was UI, there were LA, I took the "wrong one" but this actually landed me in a worse contract than the one I would've reached by taking my other logical alternatives. Of course, if I then proceed to get a lousy score there is no problem and the table result stands. But if I end up getting a good score essentially because the opponents screwed up an easy defense or took some insane action in the bidding then there is not really a need to adjust. The damage is due to the opponents choices, not due to the UI.

Now it's often non-obvious what it means to be in a "good" or "bad" contract -- a contract which fails double-dummy but will often be misdefended might well be a "good" contract in the sense that I will usually get a good result from it. So the standard to be applied is that the opponents basically "failed to play bridge" -- that players of their standard should've easily been able to extract a good result from me on this board and yet they failed to do so (i.e. they sacrificed for -1100 in a six-card fit over a game that was going to fail, or they failed to set 6NTX holding two cashing aces in the opening leader's hand). Obviously there is some director's discretion here.

[blackshoe]

Actually, in the situation you posit, the law requires that you, the "offending side" who apparently used UI to advantage, should get an adjustment based on what might have happened, not to your advantage, absent the UI, regardless whether the NOS "continue to play bridge". The NOS does not get redress, however, for the part of the damage they suffered which is attributed to their failure to "play bridge". They do get redress for the remainder - the part attributed to the irregularity. Frankly, I"m not at all sure I know how to make that determination, but that's what the law requires.