This part of the web site is designed to provide members with general bridge and club related information. There is a wide variety of articles, tips and general interest features listed in alphabetical order. Please bear in mind that whilst the authors of the articles and the Club have taken great care to ensure accuracy, members are referred to the Official publications such as the Laws of Duplicate Bridge, Blue Book etc for more detailed, precise (and possibly, more accurate!) information. The EBU button on our web site will also be useful re the latest Law changes.

Some items are held separately on the system so for those you will need to simply click on the header - and enlarge as appropriate.

SEE ALSO  http://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/convention-cards/announcements-table.pdf

Partner should alert  - not the player making the bid. If a bid is not alerted but you still want to ask about it then ask AT YOUR TURN TO BID. Ask only when you have a reason to ask; if it is just out of interest then leave your enquiry to the end of the auction. 

Weak natural overcalls are more common these days as they can really disrupt the opposition. However, as they are non-forcing on partner they are not alertable.

Opening two bids should be announced as either weak or strong, forcing or non forcing.

The range of 1NT and 2NT openings should be announced along with information if it might contain a singleton.

Can I make a first round double over 1NT to ask partner to bid? Because it will not be expected, you must alert any take-out double of opponents 1NT opening. A double of opponents 1NT is expected to be for penalties and shows at least 15HCP or "compensating distribution" - if it is not, or you play a variable double depending on your seating position etc then you must alert.

Stayman is announced, as are transfers. If you play that a 2 level response to your partner's 1NT opening may be a transfer and also may be a weak take out you must NOT announce it as a transfer - either alert it or describe it fully (eg "shows hearts but may be weak take out of diamonds")

Artificial suit bids above 3NT made on the FIRST round of bidding (eg a splinter bid at the 4 level agreeing partner's suit or an opening Texas bid and so on) ARE alertable, otherwise they are not.

System bids below 3NT (except those that are announced) must be alerted.

See also Appeals Committee below

What can I do if I remain unhappy at a Director’s ruling? The club has established a fine tradition and reputation for resolving differences at the table amicably and with good humour, and long may that continue. Nonetheless, as a responsible Club we have to be prepared for that rare time when you may find yourself unhappy at the director’s ruling. If this occurs there is little merit in having a long debate at the table; (a) its discourteous to the director who will only be doing his / her best; (b) it affects other players enjoyment; (c) it delays the progress of the event. Instead, simply tell the Director you wish to reserve your rights and play on. Reserving your rights will do two things: it protects your position and ensures the Director takes both an accurate note of the problem and a full hand record (or retains the curtain cards) at close of play. If time permits speak with him / her briefly at the end of the evening, but if you remain unhappy or time does not permit further discussion then it is open to you to use the Club’s appeal process which exists in line with EBU recommendation and the Laws of Duplicate Bridge.

Within 48 hours of the score being published on the web site (if you don’t have Internet ask any main committee or other member to let you have the score / traveller details as all time limits are strict!) you should give the Director verbal formal notice of appeal and within 72 hours thereafter send a letter signed by you and your partner setting out the full grounds of your Appeal. The Director will notify the Appeals Committee who will form an impartial Appeals Panel comprising a minimum of three members of the Appeals Committee, to include at least one Director of the Club not involved in the disputed decision. After the matter has been considered, you will be informed of the outcome. If you remain unhappy you have the right, as we are an EBU affiliated Club, to appeal to the WCBA where you will need to follow their process. Ultimately you can take your appeal to the EBU. Our Appeals Committee comprises all the club Directors plus experienced players. It is independent of, and does not report its findings to, the main club committee. Hopefully, none of us will ever have need of it but the process is there - just in case.

Please note an Appeal will not normally be heard if it concerns a Director's ruling re the imposition of a penalty score or fine as a result of a member or his partner's own conduct.

APPEALS COMMITTEE

1.BACKGROUND

1.1        All EBU affiliated clubs are recommended to have an Appeals Committee. This can be of real assistance when either:

• A director makes a decision but recognises it’s a finely balanced decision. This director himself can then lodge an appeal against his own ruling so the matter can be deliberated upon more fully

• A player feels aggrieved and ‘argument’ continues. Play can resume much more quickly if the director can say “well, that’s my ruling but please use the Club’s appeal process if you feel strongly.” In other words “lets move on”

• A more consistent approach to tricky situations can be achieved

1.2        At its Main Committee meeting of the 30^th June 2004 PDBC agreed to introduce a formal Appeals Committee. So far PDBC has been fortunate with very few disputed decisions but the day will come when an issue arises that necessitates an appeal process. It is better to have that process in place now, rather than wait for “the accident to happen”.

1.3        Notwithstanding the clauses in this document and the fact that Pershore Duplicate Bridge has a formal Appeals Committee, it is to be encouraged that any matter of a disputed ruling can, in first instance, be discussed immediately after the session of play finishes whilst the Director and players are still present. The Director may call upon members of the formal Appeals Committee to assist at this stage if they are still present. In this way it is hoped that matters of dispute will continue to be resolved amicably, without the formal processes in this document being invoked, but should this not prove possible then a formal Appeal to the Appeals Committee can be made.

1.4        A contestants right to appeal for a review of any ruling made at the table by a Director is embodied in Law 92 (A). A director may also appeal his own ruling.  Law 92 (B) states that the time limit to request an appeal expires 30 minutes after the official score has been published, unless the sponsoring organisation specifies otherwise. This Law has very much in mind high ranking tournaments but the proviso allows clubs to specify their own time limits. In PDBC it would be unworkable to allow an appeal to be lodged within 30 minutes after the official score has been published as this is not done until a) it is on the web site and / or b) in the score book at the club the following week. The latter is far too lengthy a period as a week later memories and facts etc would be lost. Instead therefore PDBC has adopted adopt the time limits set out below.

2.  APPEALS PROCEDURE

  2.1        All appeals must initially be made through the Director – Law 92 (C).

2.2        An appellant should provide immediate verbal notice of possible Appeal but certainly no later than 48 hours after the score was first published on the web site, and within 72 hours thereafter to provide a written statement to the Appeals Committee setting out the grounds of the appeal. No Appeal outside of these time limits will be considered.

2.3        An appeal will not be heard unless both members of a pair or the Captain of a team concur in appealing and for this reason the written appeal should be signed by both players (Law 92 (D)) and sent to the Director of the session.

2.4        The Director will refer the Appeal to the Appeals Committee Chairman. In so doing, the Director should also provide his / her record of events giving rise to the dispute.

2.5        The Appeals Panel will consider the matter, usually within 4 weeks, and advise the Appellant of the outcome. 

3.      COMPOSITION & PROCESS of the APPEALS COMMITTEE

3.1        The Appeals Committee will consist of each and every Club Director, plus at least three experienced Club members.

3.2        The Appeals Committee may, at its own discretion, co-opt other club members onto its Committee if it deems it necessary.

  3.3        The Appeals Committee will elect its own Chairman.

3.4        The Appeals Committee Chairman, on receiving notice of Appeal from a session Director, will as soon as practicable, convene an Appeal Panel. The Appeals Panel making the adjudication is to comprise a minimum of three members of the Appeals Committee, to include at least one Director of the Club (not involved in the disputed decision).

3.5        The Chair will ensure impartiality eg if an appellant was at the time partnering a member of the Appeals Committee that partner could not sit on the Appeal Panel. 

3.6        The Committee should be required to keep its own notes and records of Appeal decisions and it will not be bound by its own previous decisions.

3.7        The Appeals Panel will make its decision within one month of the written statement of appeal being received and communicate to the Director first involved.

3.8        If the Director changes his original decision he will notify the scorer of any amendments necessary and the Appeals Committee chairperson will communicate the decision to the Appellant.

3.9        Should the Director not change his decision despite a recommendation so to do by the Appeals Committee, the Appeals Committee chair should communicate to the Appellant only that the Committee has met but agreement with the Director involved has not proved possible and that therefore the Appellant is advised to appeal to higher authority if still aggrieved.

3.10      No reasons or “thought processes” etc should be revealed to an Appellant and the Appeals Committee’s deliberations should remain secret. For that reason it should not report to the PDBC main committee any of its findings and no officer of the PDBC committee should be a member of the Appeals Committee except in the capacity of Director or player and they should not discuss Appeals in PDBC main committee.

3.11      The Appeals Committee may recommend to the main Club Committee the introduction of penalties for Appeals without merit (usually a refundable deposit) if experience shows this to be advisable.

NOTE: it is unlikely that the full Appeals Committee will need to meet regularly or at all outside of hearing a formal Appeal but that is a matter for them to determine.  

Payee: Pershore Duplicate Bridge Club

Sort Code: 09-01-55

Account: 11652089

Reference: for RealBridge weekly fees use RB + your EBU number. else use reference provided in separate emails eg "SUBS"

The equipment is owned by the Club, and as such members (who have paid for it) can borrow any equipment at any time – provided of course that any equipment needed for a Club Evening or other Club Event is returned on time. The borrower assumes responsibility for any loss or damage whilst in their possession.

TEAM EQUIPMENT Provided members are not representing another Club, members may borrow boards and bidding boxes etc free of charge to help with NO FEAR, OPEN or just friendly "two teams of four" type competitions. The Club has its own special “Team Box”  containing 32 boards; 8 distinctive bidding boxes; scorecards; Orange Book and a MP / IMP / VP chart.

To borrow any equipment contact the Chairman

click on the link -

Bridge Tips 1:  Rule of 20 ; Barrage Bidding ; Invite over 1NT ; Listen to the Auction! ; 8 ever, 9 never - restricted choice exception;

Bridge Tips 2:  Gambling 3NT ; Overcalling ; Hand Evalution ; Losing Trick Count ; Counting Your Losers ; Suit Combinations and Play ; How to Speed Up play ; Misbid

Bridge Tips 3: Responding to 1 major opening ; Jacoby 2NT ; Trial bids ; Puppet Stayman ; Muppet Stayman ; Rule of 11 ; RKCB ; Michaels ; Ghestem CRO ; Ghestem ELH ; Multi-Landy & Cappelletti 

Bridge Tips 4: Many club players say they play "Standard Acol". Do you? Click to find out!!

Bridge Tips 5: Many club players say they play "SAYC" or "Standard American". Do you? Click to find out!!

Bridge Tips 6: Checkback ; Transfers over 1NT ; Bidding Boxes ; 4-4-4-1 Hands ; Exclusion RKCB ; Kickback ; 3 level pre-empts

Christmas Quiz 2022     XMASQUIZ_2022.pdf                

Christmas Quiz 2022  Answers     XMAQUIZ_2022 ANSWERS.pdf

“When I claimed I said ‘the rest are mine’. It was obvious I would have drawn trumps before running off my side suit winners but my opponents challenged this as they had a trump left.” When you claim (or concede) play has ended. You must show your cards and immediately state fully how you will play the remaining tricks. If you do not and generalise, and / or opponents query your claim, you cannot then state how you would play the tricks nor amend your explanation. The director should be called and he will rule on the basis of what you first said. If incomplete or ambiguous he will judge a reasonable line of play - NOT necessarily the best line of play - and if, when claiming you did not mention an outstanding trump, a finesse or something similar, he will rule you are likely to have forgotten it, even if you are a grand master! If you are not certain of an opponents claim or concession do not try to work it out or discuss it - simply ask for the Director.

Click on the Newsletter you want:-   (please contact Alan for earlier editions)

August 2013        December 2013       newsletterMar_14.pdf       Newsletter_Aug14.pdf

newsletterMar_15.pdf       newsletter12_15.pdf       Newsletter 06_2016.pdf        newsletterFeb_17.pdf      Newsletter07_17.pdf

newsletter_10_17.pdf       NEWSLETTER 12_2017.pdf       newsletter03_18.pdf           Newsletter09_18.pdf 

newsletter12_18.pdf     newsletter03_19.pdf    Newsletter08_19.pdf   newsletter12_19.pdf  newsletter03_20.pdf  NEWSLETTER_June20.pdf  Newsletter08_20.pdf   Newsletter25_09_20.pdf  

 Newsletter09_21.pdf   newsletter12_21.pdf  Newsletter06_22doc.pdf  Newsletter09_22.pdf   newsletter12_22.pdf   Newsletter06_23.pdf  newsletter12_23.pdf

Safeguarding of your personal data is important to us and is also a legal obligation under the General Data Protection Regulations.  All members are expected to read the club privacy notice (click on link below) and to let the club know of any changes to your personal data.  Please advise us if you wish more information about data you think we hold or amendments you wish us to make regarding its use.

Please click on Club_Privacy_Notice.pdf

It is of considerable help to the club if members who pay tax complete a Gift Aid charities donation form - click on link for the form.

PDBC_GiftAid Declaration_single.pdf

Handicaps in bridge are designed to operate the same way as handicaps in other sports:- namely the players who normally come at or near the top are handicapped to make it more difficult for them to reach that position next time they play. Conversely, players who usually come farther down the field benefit from a handicap system by having their score adjusted upwards, thereby boosting their position.

Because handicaps create an artificial result matches where handicapped scores determine the victors are not recognised by the EBU for Masterpoints. However, a handicapped result can still be given alongside a normal result - we do this each week at Pershore, with the result appearing on the web site so players can tell if by their own standards they have a "good" evening or "not so good" - as it provides a way of showing how all the players fared when their historic capability is taken into account.

HOW ARE THE HANDICAPS CALCULATED?

There are several ways in which this can be done but since 22nd April 2015 we have based our handicaps on the National Grading Scheme  and ranked players from +6 to -6. 

Handicaps are usually calculated for each individual player and then totalled to create a pairs handicap.

HOW FREQUENTLY ARE HANDICAPS CALCULATED?

These are updated monthly as per the NGS 

SUPPOSE I DON’T HAVE A HANDICAP?

If you have elected not to disclose your NGS grade in your EBU members page you will probably not be handicapped at all or receive the highest possible handicap depending on the type of competition. If you have not played sufficiently often to merit a NGS grade you will not have a system generated handicap but the Club directors may, at their discretion, award a temporary one. Everyone has to start somewhere – and of course until you have played a game on which your historic NGS grade can be calculated you cannot have a NGS handicap! Clearly, to win a prestigious event like the Michael Farey Trophy it would be wrong if we permitted a player without a handicap to win the prize – as they may well have benefited from not having a handicap. That would not preclude them from entering the event and playing and their effect on the scores of others would not matter – they simply could not claim the prize if they came top, it would be awarded to the highest placed pair with a handicap. 

This is shown courtesy of GEZZER

History of Bridge & GEZZER

Bridge is one of the world's most popular card games.Derived from whist(the word "Bridge" comes from Biritch or Russian whist),it is played by four persons , two against two as partners; a standard 52-card deck of playing cards is dealt out one at a time, clockwise around the table, so that each player holds 13 cards.The object of play is to win tricks, each trick consisting of one card played by each player.The three major tournaments which decide the best players in the world are the World Team Olympiad , the World Championships(Bermuda Bowl),and the World Open Pairs.Collectively,they are known as the Triple Crown.Only 10 players have won the Triple Crown.   

Bridge is derived from the 17th century card game whist, which was in vogue among the English nobility of the time. In whist, four players (who comprise two partnerships) are each dealt 13 cards from a 52-card deck, with a partnership's objective being to win as many tricks* as possible. There was no auction to determine the trump suit** as there is in modern bridge, and the scoring was vastly simpler. Though whist may seem crude in comparison to today's bridge game, its popularity spread to other parts of the world, most notably the Middle East. In Turkey, it is believed that whist evolved into one of the first forms of bridge in the late 19th century. The calls "double" and "redouble" were added to double and even quadruple any betting stakes, and the concept of a declarer opposite an exposed dummy also emerged at this time. By the turn of the century, the game evolved into plafond ("ceiling") in France and auction bridge elsewhere in the world. Plafond was an offshoot that required each partnership to state the number of tricks they were going to take, while auction bridge introduced the element of bidding to determine which suit, if any, would be trumps.

In 1925, the game that we know today was derived from auction bridge and plafond. Contract bridge was invented by the American Harold Vanderbilt, who had some invaluable idle time on a steamship cruise. Vanderbilt's brainchild incorporated a number of new features, most notably a sophisticated scoring table and varying modes of vulnerability. "Contract" was so named because it required a partnership to commit to a contract of a certain number of tricks. Failure to fulfill a contract resulted in a scoring penalty; success, in an award. Contract bridge quickly gained popularity throughout the United States, where it experienced its Golden Age in the 1930s and 1940s. During this time, famous expert matches were conducted, including the 1930 Anglo-American match and the 1931 Culbertson-Lenz match. The Anglo-American match featured a team headed by Col. Walter Buller of England against a squad captained by Ely Culbertson of the United States. Buller, who had vowed to beat the Americans "sky-high", lost - by a humiliating margin. The result of this event bolstered Culbertson's status as an authority on the game, and his Contract Bridge Blue Book of 1930 became a best-seller. The following year, Culbertson challenged fellow American expert Sidney Lenz to a 150-rubber team match, contending that the Culbertson method of bidding would be a cinch to triumph. The match did much to spark even more public interest in contract bridge, and by the time Culbertson claimed victory over Lenz, the game was vying with baseball to be America's national pastime.

In the following decades, bridge fever lessened, but interest in the game remained. Sports Illustrated included regular bridge columns and articles, and Time featured expert Charles Goren, "Mr. Bridge", on an issue cover. Bidding systems and conventions, which attached special meanings to certain bids, also continued to proliferate during this time. There is controversy over whether or not the increased theoretical complexity of bidding has adversely affected the game's appeal, but these advancements in theory have undoubtedly improved the accuracy with which players can bid to reach their best contracts. The point count system, a method of assessing the value of one's hand, was popularized during this time by Goren and is still the commonly accepted method of hand evaluation.

Duplicate (tournament) bridge also became a hot activity during the middle of the century. In duplicate bridge, players at a table are dealt hands that are subsequently passed on to another table, and then to another one, and so on. Consequently, a competing pair plays the same deals that any number of other pairs play, with the differences in results being the basis for each pair's final score. Duplicate began its rise in the '30s and continues to be popular worldwide.

World championships, which use a team variation of duplicate bridge, began in 1950 and saw the United States dominating until 1957. That year, Italy began its incredible streak of 10 consecutive Bermuda Bowl world championship victories. The Italian Blue Team included some of the greatest players ever; bridge writer Sally Brock notes, "When I was at university the ultimate compliment you could receive at the bridge table was 'you played it like Garozzo!'" Not until 1970 would the United States win the heralded Bermuda Bowl, and then only in a field that did not include Italy's best lineup.

But the story of the United States team that won in 1970 is itself worth telling. In 1964, multi-millionaire Ira Corn decided to form a team that would one day beat the fabled Blue Team. Bankrolling the project himself for years on end, Corn hired six well-known players to study and practice full-time at his Texas mansion. Known as the Dallas Aces, this team was the first of its kind; never before had players been paid as professionals to compete in bridge events.

The Aces won the Bermuda Bowl in 1970 and again in 1971, realizing the ultimate goal of their countless hours of hard work. Today, the United States is still a strong force in international competition. American professional players compete in tournaments as the paid partners or teammates of a sponsor. These players can therefore make bridge their full-time career, making them formidable opponents of players in other countries who cannot find sponsorship.

Contract bridge, though, remains popular around the world. It combines the elements of mental stimulation, luck, and socializing that are hard to find in other games so cheap and easy to play. Although bridge's Golden Age popularity may not be replicated again in the United States, millions of Americans still enjoy the game. And bridge players are not limited to the States; Holland, for example, teaches bridge in public schools. The game is played so much in Iceland that the tiny country of 300,000 boasted the world championship-winning team in 1991. Other unlikely hotbeds of bridge include Brazil, Turkey, Israel, and Norway. France, meanwhile, won a world championship in 1997, while Italy, as mentioned, has put together some of the greatest teams ever. Bridge is one of the few games played today by people of all ages, races, and nationalities.

During the burst of activity that happened on the world wide web, bridge became available online. Additionally, thousands of different styles and designs for casino gaming became available with online gambling, with casinos incorporating the games into their selection. During the year of 2002, we saw a number of online casinos rise steadily.

Lets recognize the famous bridge players:

Benito Garozzo of Italy is almost every people's favorite bridge player of all time, and this book recounts from an insider's perspective many of his most spectacular bridge hands, played in partnership with Belladonna, Forquet, and others. Re-reading the account of "Garozzo on Defense" on pp. 310-311, surely one of the most brilliant defenses ever, I am still in total awe of his four brilliant plays in one hand! (I will write to the publisher and see if they will let me post this excerpt here on the Internet). The common wisdom is that the Italians won all their championships mostly through their superior bidding, but after reading this book you may well join me in feeling that their card-play was also several notches ahead of the rest of the world -- indeed, quite probably they were the best card-players of all time.

Giorgio Belladonna (b. 1923) - Member of the Italian Blue Team that won 13 Bermuda Bowl world championships and three World Olympiads. He, Pietro Forquet and Benito Garozzo often vied for the honor of world's best player at the height of the Blue Team's success. Belladonna enjoyed bidding theory during those times and invented the Roman bidding system along with several other conventions based upon the forcing 1C opening.

Ely Culbertson (1891 - 1955) - Ely Culbertson may have done more to popularize bridge than any other player. He conducted famous challenge matches (including the Culbertson-Lenz match and the first Anglo-American match), founded his own bridge school, started The Bridge World magazine (still in print), created his own system of bidding, and wrote a number of best-selling books, including his Contract Bridge Blue Book of 1930. Culbertson's great abilities as a publicist were supplemented by his strong playing skills. He successfully partnered his wife Josephine in a number of challenge matches and national events.

Pietro Forquet (b. 1925) - Well-known in international play for his nerves of steel, Forquet won 15 world championships while a member of the Italian Blue Team. In 1971 he also wrote the book Bridge with the Blue Team, widely considered to be the world's best collection of fascinating bridge deals.

Benito Garozzo (b. 1927) - One of the world's best players for decades, Garozzo won 13 world championships, including the Bermuda Bowl 10 times. He was a member of the famous Italian Blue Team that won, won and won during the '60s and '70s. His passion for scientific bidding has led to many contributions on that front, and he has written two books about the bidding systems he employed when playing with Giorgio Belladonna. Garozzo is still playing actively as a U.S. citizen. American expert Grant Baze once wrote of his experience discussing bridge problems with Garozzo's Blue Team friends: "Occasionally, Forquet and Belladonna would say: 'This problem is too difficult, we are going to have to ask Benito.'"

Mr. Benito Garozzo and Mr. Pietro Forquet formed one of the great partnerships of the world through 1972. From 1972 until 1976 he paired with Mr. Giorgio Belladonna. As a World Bridge Federation Grand Master, he ranked second in lifetime ratings in the world behind Mr. Giorgio Belladonna as of 1993. He was a member of the Lancia Team that toured the United States in 1975.

He won the World Team Olympiad in 1964, 1968, and 1972. He placed 4th in the World Open Pairs in 1966, 7th in the World Mixed Teams in 1972, 6th in the Rosenblum Cup Teams in 1982, 7th in the Olympiad Open Teams in 1984. His Italian national wins include the Italian Open Teams in 1958, 1963, 1967, and 1968.

Fulvio Fantoni (born November 9 1963 in Grosseto) is an Italian international bridge player. He is a five-time world champion at teams, a World Grand Master of the World Bridge Federation (WBF), and the WBF first-ranked player in summer 2009. He is one of 10 players globally who collected the Triple Crown of Bridge.

Fantoni's regular partner is Claudio Nunes. Fantoni-Nunes are generally regarded as one of the top pairs worldwide. They play the so-called Fantunes system, an innovative bidding system that is characterised by natural but forcing one-level openings in all four suits.

Claudio Nunes (born March 23, 1968 in Rome) is an Italian bridge international. He is a five-time world champion at teams, a World Grand Master of the World Bridge Federation (WBF), and the WBF second-ranked player as of summer 2009. He is one of 10 players globally who collected the Triple Crown of Bridge.

Nunes' regular partner is Fulvio Fantoni. Fantoni-Nunes are generally regarded as one of the top pairs worldwide. They play the so-called Fantunes system, an innovative bidding system that is characterised by natural but forcing one-level openings in all four suits.

Alfredo Versace is an Italian & International bridge player. He was world champion at teams,a World Grand Master of the World Bridge Federation(WBF),and Versace's regular partner is Lorenzo Lauria.

Lorenzo Lauria is an Italian & International bridge players. He was world champion at teams,a World Grand Master of the World Bridge Federation(WBF), and Lorenzo's regular partner is Alfredo Versace.Him teams friends are Fulvio Fantoni,Claudio Nunes,Norberto Bocchi and Giorgio Duboin.

Norberto Bocchi (born September 29, 1961 in Parma, Italy) is an Italian bridge player. Bocchi has won four World teams championships along with six consecutive European teams championships and a seventh European in 2010. For many years his regular partner was Giorgio Duboin. After missing one European and World championship cycle (2008–2009), he returned to the Italian national team in 2010, now playing with Augustin Madala, and Italy returned to the victor stand.(2010 Open Teams, final standings)

In July 2010, Bocchi is the World Bridge Federation 13th-ranked player and the European Bridge League fourth-ranked player.He currently lives in Barcelona, Spain.

Giorgio Duboin (born September 30, 1959 in Turin, Italy) is an Italian bridge player. Duboin has won four World teams championships along with six consecutive European teams championships and a seventh European in 2010. For many years his regular partner was Norberto Bocchi; now he plays primarily with Antonio Sementa.

In July 2010, Duboin was the World Bridge Federation second-ranked player and the European Bridge League third-ranked player.

Zia Mahmood (born January 7, 1946 in Karachi, Pakistan) is a famous Pakistani bridge player. Zia was educated in England from the age of six to twenty-one. He qualified as a Chartered Accountant of the Institute of England and Wales and spent three years running the family newspaper chain in Pakistan. He also spent eighteen months in Abu Dhabi developing business interests.

Zia spends much of his time in Great Britain and the United States and is very much part of the London bridge scene. He is a World Bridge Federation and American Contract Bridge League Grand Life Master. Zia has a knack for bringing out the best in his partners and is regarded as one of the greatest players of the game. He is the author of Bridge My Way, an autobiography, and has hosted many TV shows. For many years his regular partner was Masood Salim then later Michael Rosenberg. Zia currently plays with Bob Hamman.

Robert David (Bob) Hamman (born August 6, 1938 in Pasadena, California) is an American bridge player, considered by many to be one of the greatest players of all time. Hamman was a member of the famous Dallas Aces team, which competed with the Italian Blue team for dominance of world bridge in the early 1970s. He has won 12 world championships, 50 North American championships, and is still playing for more. In 1994, Hamman wrote his autobiography At the Table: My Life and Times (ISBN 0-9642584-1-2). As of 1999, his biography on the American Contract Bridge League hall of fame lists his competition achievements, and reads:

"One of the world’s greatest players, ranks #1 among WBF [World Bridge Federation] Grand Masters, also ranks 1st in world performance over past 10 years. Member ACBL Hall of Fame. Has been highest ranked player in the world since 1985."

The World Bridge Federation ranks Hamman as a World Grand Master and 8th in the world in terms of Master Points.

Among his more interesting accomplishments are eight wins in the ACBL's most important pair championships (Blue Ribbon Pairs, Life Master Pairs and Men's Pairs) with eight different partners. Probably his most popular and emotional win, other than the 1970 Bermuda Bowl, was the 2000 Vanderbilt Teams. Despite myriad other wins, Hamman had not won the Vanderbilt since 1973. His partner, Paul Soloway, was severely ill and commuting between the tournament site and the hospital, and had literally come out of his sickbed to play the final quarter of the teams quarterfinal match, where they won 34 IMPs in the final quarter to win the match by 1. On the final board, Hamman and Soloway had a bidding misunderstanding to reach a very poor 6H contract, but their opponents could not work out declarer's hand due to the unusual auction, and the contract made, providing the margin of victory. In addition to his World Open Pairs victory in 1974 with Bobby Wolff, he was second in 1994 with Michael Rosenberg.

Hamman is the president of SCA Promotions, a prize promotion business in Dallas, Texas.

Michael Rosenberg (born May, 1954 in New York City, New York) is one of the top bridge players in the United States. He moved to Scotland as a child and returned to New York in 1990 where he lives with his wife Debbie, also a top player.

Michael won the 1994 Rosenblum Cup, and was second in the World Open Pairs Championship in 1994 (with Bob Hamman) and 2002 (with Zia Mahmood). As of 2007 he has won fourteen North American championships, as well as multiple wins in the major invitational tournaments. He has also won the World Bridge Federation (WBF) Par competition in 1998, a test of declarer play skill, and is known for his advocacy of a high standard of ethical behavior for players. He is known as "The expert's expert" for his encyclopedic knowledge of cardplay techniques, and a frequent contributor for The Bridge World.

Federico Primavera (fulldiRE) began his bridge career in 1988 as a member of the National Junior Italian team coached by Benito Garozzo. Federico has won several other tournaments in Europe, as a silver and gold medalist in the European Junior championships, with partners including Alfredo Versace, Antonio Sementa, Claudio Nunes and played an Italian Championship also with Giorgio Belladonna as partner. Currently he is playing full time with Irene Baroni and together they offer individual and partnership coaching as well as group lessons. Federico is well versed in numerous systems, including 2/1, SAYC, Precision, Blue Club, and his own system incorporating new concepts in competition and both Garozzo and Lauria-Versace gadgets.

GEZZER is the world's leading club of bridge, games center and one of the largest and most beautifully designed clubs around world. You can enjoy in general as a bridge player and you can Join the friendliest bridge club with bridge games, free lessons, tournaments for all levels etc..Private lessons for individuals or groups can be arranged by request. For more information, contact us at the address above or send us an email at bridgezzer@yahoo.com or egezzer@gmail.com

You can find many great options to play in this club and to be able to join any of GEZZER’s activities you need to be a member of the club.Membership is required. Everyone is welcome. Besides it’s required that all players info should be correct and complete. All members must accept all the club and tournament rules. It’s an international club with members from many countries, so good behavior and consideration for other members is required.

It's a great learning experience and the best way to find new people to play with us.

Hope to see you soon at one of our clubs...

see also Pattaya bridge club http://www.pattayabridge.com/for humorous Famous quotes and also Humour

Courtesy of Eddie Kantar & others:

• We had a partnership misunderstanding. My partner assumed I knew what I was doing.

• It's not enough to win the tricks that belong to you, try also for some that belong to the opponents.  (Alfred Sheinwold)

• The real test of a bridge player isn't in keeping out of trouble, but in escaping once he's in.  (Alfred Sheinwold)

• "Where's the hand you held during the auction?"  (Jan Nanitschke when he saw the dummy.)

• The difference between genius and stupidity at the bridge table is that genius has its limits.

Courtesy of Duncan Mountford, Leatherhead:

A bar stewardess was applying for a new job. Asked why she left her last employment she replied: “ Well, sir, the wages were good but it was the most ridiculous placed I ever worked. They played a game called bridge, and one night a lot of folks were there. As I was bringing the refreshments, I heard a man say ‘Lay down and lets see what you’ve got’. Another man said: ‘I’ve got strength but not much length I’m afraid’ and another said to the lady next to him ‘take your hand off my trick.’ I pretty near dropped dead when on another table a lady was saying:’ you forced me, you jumped me twice when you didn’t have the strength for one good raise’. Another lady talked about protecting her honour whilst two others were saying ‘now its my turn to play with your husband while you play with mine’. As I was leaving – I hope to die – if I didn’t hear one say: ‘ Well, I guess we can go home now, that was our last rubber.’

Unattributed:

We (rightly) pride ourselves as being a friendly Club, where courtesy and civility is extended - even to partners! We are not alone. Somewhere 'down South', on the way back from an important match which her team lost, a lady member purred: "I don't wish to criticise, partner, but if you hadn't passed my 6C cue bid we might have stood a better chance of reaching 7H". "Is that what it was?" enquired the gentleman politely. "I thought you were out of your depth and passed to save you further embarrassment!". Nice.

Also worth recalling is the following anecdote: No sooner had declarer transformed a certain top into a bottom by not taking advantage of EW poor defence, than her partner greeted the next pair approaching the table with the words, "Ah! Come to the gift shop!"

The attached is reproduced courtesy of Darren Evetts and West Midlands Bridge Club. It is a helpful explanation of the different tactics to be employed when playing pairs (Match Point scoring) or teams (IMP scoring).

click HERE to open

When you make the wrong call you are allowed to change it if:

It is inadvertent ie you did not intend it and
you change it or try to immediately after you realise your mistake, and
you change it or try to before partner calls

This usually happens when the wrong card is taken out of the box and is sometimes referred to as ‘mechanical error’. Note 2 above: if you put a call on the table, gaze around the room, then look down and realise it was not what you intended you are still in time (even if your LHO has called) because you have only just realised your error and try to change it immediately - but the Director will need to be satisfied that was what happened!!

Similarly, you may also change an inadvertent call for the wrong card from dummy in similar situations. HOWEVER - you are not allowed to change your mind. Example: You took your singleton club that was in dummy with your own Ace and then lead back a club intending to ruff with the 2 of trumps. As you play your club from hand you call "ruff low please" (or state the 2 etc) and to your surprise your LHO ruffs with the 9. You cannot now say "O, then ruff with the 10 please" or some such. That is a change of mind - not inadvertence.

Also:

Should I correct a wrong call? If the bid is a legal bid, made in turn, then you are under no obligation to correct a ‘wrong’ bid. Suppose you meant to bid 2S but instead bid 2H.Your opponents as a result missed their 3NT contract. If all else was legal about your 2H bid then that’s the luck of the game.

It would of course be a different matter if you had a habit, understood by partner, of often deliberately making such ‘wrong’ bids.

“My partner gave an incorrect explanation during the bidding but I don’t have to say anything until the end of the played hand”. If you become declarer or dummy and your partner has given a wrong explanation, or one of your alertable calls has not been alerted, you MUST rectify the situation before the opening lead is faced. You must not do this as defender until the hand is over, when you are required to do so and if damage to your opponents has resulted the director may award an adjusted score.

How friendly advice can lead to problems! NS were the more experienced players, EW being fairly new to duplicate. All were kind, friendly players (of course!) and when W made an insufficient bid N tried to be helpful ……. The bidding went N: 1D ; E: Pass ; S: 1S ; W: 1H. North said quietly “you should make that good”. West, not knowing the implications, decided that 2H was not a good idea so Passed. North now said gently, “you can’t do that, you must make a bid” whereupon W thought 2C a safer bet. At this point N realised things had gone from bad to worse and it was time for the Director. Had the director been called as soon as the insufficient bid was made all the options would have been made clear: In simple terms did N accept the 1H bid? If ‘yes’ bidding proceeds normally, but N would say ‘No’. Then W would be told to correct the bid by either the lowest sufficient bid or pass but before deciding which the ramifications would have been explained: There would be no penalty provided the replacement bid was in the same denomination (2H). If the insufficient bid or the substituted bid could have been conventional or the bid was corrected to any other sufficient bid (eg suit changed) or Pass then offenders partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call and lead penalties may apply. If offender (W) substitutes a double or redouble that call is cancelled; partner must pass throughout and lead penalties may apply. Lead penalties: If the withdrawn call referred to a natural suit that was not specified in the auction by the offender, then declarer can require or forbid that suit to be led by offenders partners at his first turn to lead and for such restriction to continue for as long as offenders partner remains on lead. If the withdrawn call referred to NT declarer chooses which suit he requires (or prohibits) to be led by offenders partner for as long as he is on lead.

So, in trying to be helpful N had actually made matters worse (and contravened Law 9B1) and a strict interpretation of the laws would certainly penalise poor EW who had not only made an insufficient bid but W had given unauthorised information to partner by mentioning pass and 2C. That said, even inexperienced players should remember one golden rule: When things go wrong call the director immediately (Law 9B1).  Any of the four should have done this. Could it be resolved fairly to all parties now? Well, the the Laws as above should be applied with a warning to E not to take advantage of the unauthorised information and then letting the bidding and play continue. If NS felt they had been disadvantaged by the unauthorised information the Director would return and determine, what if any, adjustment needed to be made but in view of N role in the affair and the inexperience of EW, I suspect NS would not get very far.

Can I insist on starting at a particular table / polarity? No, though its rare you will be asked to move. Exceptions would be the need to make up full tables or where someone with mobility problems requires a ‘sitting’ table.

As I move around the room it does it matter if I play E or W (S or N) at one table and swop places with partner at another”. Yes, It does – you can’t pick and choose whom you "sit over” and therefore the director will only sanction a change of your compass position in special (and rare) circumstances.

What is a Swiss Event? A Pairs (or Teams) event where in simple terms after the first round each pair plays an assigned, different opposing pair and where the cumulative scores of both pairings (teams) are approximately equal. As each winning pair or team can score points each round, a Swiss Event gives both weak and strong players a chance of some successes, though the overall winners usually get additional points.

Must I have at least one 4 card major to bid 2C Stayman? No. Stayman is an asking bid not a telling one! Indeed, sometimes it is excellent to use in situations where you don’t hold a 4 card major

Do I need to have a 5 card major to bid a red suit transfer?  If you describe it as a transfer, yes. If you do use transfers and want a weak take out, say in diamonds, you could try using 2S as a transfer to the minors (partner bids 3C and that can be passed or converted to diamonds), use some other method. What you must not do is to use 2D (say) and describe is a transfer to hearts or simply "hearts" when you and your partner play it also to include a weak take out in diamonds. If you do use 2D in this way it must be described as "may show hearts or weak take out in diamonds".

Why can’t we always have the same movement? There are dozens of movements for Pairs, Teams, Individual and so on but the movements we usually encounter at the Club are those commonly used for pairs events - Mitchell and Howell, and derivatives of each such as Bowman, Hesitation Mitchell or ¾ Howell. Club Directors seek always to achieve the best ‘trade-off’ between fairness, ease, speed (28 boards played by each pair is the maximum time would usually permit) and sit out time. Fairness is the most important factor. In Pairs, (its different for teams)  competition is fairest if all pairs play all boards. But there also needs to be equal opportunity for each pair. If a movement achieves both it is a complete and fair (or balanced) movement. For that reason a Mitchell movement where EW move up a table each round until all boards are played is balanced. A Skip Mitchell, where by virtue of your starting position you may be lucky or unlucky in the opponents and / or boards you “skip” half-way through, is clearly not as balanced though it may be the best compromise available for, say, 10 tables where 30 boards are in play but the skip reduces this to playing a ‘time favourable’ 27. Full Howell’s are excellent balanced movements but are more often found when the number of tables is low as moving between rounds takes a lot of time as players search for their next table! For this reason Howells are not popular with Club players, but they are balanced. TIP: - always identify which pair you will follow throughout an event, whatever the movement.

Nobody likes to sit out but when there is a half table, this is unavoidable. A movement which otherwise might be played may require the sit out pair to remain idle for 4 boards (eg a 6½ table Mitchell) or more in some cases. The director might then decide that with a very slight compromise on fairness, the sit outs might easily be reduced to 2 or 3 boards by using a different movement, eg Hesitation Mitchell.  For 9½-11 tables a normal Mitchell would need 30- 33 boards so a Bowman (a Mitchell derivative) or ¾ Howell can be used so that the evening gets finished on time with no “skipping”. Finally, some movements are designed for a single winner, some designed for two (EW and NS) winners. The Director will ensure that the number of arrow switches ensures a fair result for single winner movements.

Why do we have a ‘complicated’ movement sometimes? I have covered this before, but just lately we have been getting 11 tables (which is good!!) but ironically 11 tables is one of the ‘worst’ number of tables for any ‘easy’ movement. We could play a 33 board Mitchell – but unless you were happy to play until Midnight each pair would not play a different six or nine boards; clearly unbalanced and the result largely a lottery of whom you have played against (or haven’t played) and what boards you have had to miss. So, a hesitation Mitchell is used either for 24 boards or 26. This is fairer.  

We abide by the EBU regulation that a hand that is passed out on the first round is not re-dealt; the hands remain as initially dealt thereby giving everyone the same opportunity to bid or not. However, each player should slightly shuffle or re-arrange his cards before replacing them in the board so as not to make it obvious to the next players that the hand had previously been passed out.

“You score nothing on a pass out” It is not true a pass out scores nothing. Zero (a pass out) is a real score as all NS scores are plusses and all EW are minuses. A zero is therefore scored as per any score

There should never be any revokes nowadays since in England the EBU have permitted your partner to ask if you have none in the suit played eg "Having none, partner?". Of course if you can follow suit the actual card you played first becomes a major penalty card but that it likely to be less troublesome to you than an established revoke.

The Laws appertaining to a Revoke – a failure to follow suit – are dealt with in Laws 61 to 64. For full information it is better to read all the Laws but the broad summary following may assist. If a revoke has occurred, or is suspected of having occurred, always call the Director immediately.

1. A player must correct a revoke if he becomes aware of it before it is established. Any card withdrawn becomes a penalty card unless it was played by Declarer or Dummy.
2. A revoke on trick 12, even if established, must be corrected.
3. A revoke is established:

• if offending side leads or plays to next trick
• When the offending side indicates a lead or play (eg names a card to be played) to the next trick
• When offending side makes a concession or claim

4. Once established it cannot be corrected, except on trick 12

In determining what penalty is incurred the following applies:

How many tricks did the offending side win from the revoke trick (inc revoke trick itself) onwards?

1. None – no penalty
2. One – one trick transferred
3. Two or more:

Did the revoke card win a trick? Yes – two tricks transferred;   No – Did offender win a trick with a card that could have been played to the revoke trick?  Yes – two tricks transferred;  No – one trick transferred.

Note: The director has the power to give an adjusted score in addition if he rules the non-offending side have been inadequately compensated.

Simultaneous Pairs Scoring

by Robin Barker

(Based on sims-pairs-scoring.pdf from www.ebu.co.uk/sim-pairs)
When clubs hold heats of simultaneous pairs events, they publish results at the end of the evening, then the results are combined across the country and overall results are published on the internet. Pairs look at the overall results, looking at their score and the scores of other players at the club …

Somebody's scores must be wrong!

They cry, “we came top in the club with 56% and on your overall score we have only got 48%”. Worse still, “X & Y finished fourth at the club and they finished ahead of us and the pairs who were second and third.”

Players understand that because it is being re-scored across the field, and there are other results to be compared with, the overall results will be different from your own club results. But they do not realise how different – we have known differences as high as 20% in the past. When re-scoring the result overall, we don’t change anything, so as long as you send the right results in then the overall result will be correct.

The differences do puzzle players, and we get phone call, e-mails, letters. This is not an error in the scoring, but something that happens when you combine the scores from all the other clubs onto one result chart. Let me try to show you how it happens.

In a 6-table section the 'top' will be 10, with other scores of 8, 6, 4 and 2 with a bottom of zero. Overall, the top will be, say, 4000 with scores going down in steps of 2 to zero. A 'top' in the club will not generally score a top overall. It depends where that score fits in with the scores achieved in all the other clubs. Consider the following board from a fictitious club heat. It is Board One from a 6 Table Mitchell (share and relay). On this board, due to the favourable position of several cards, 13 tricks are generally made in Clubs, but there is a reasonable defence to hold it to 12. 3NT should lose 5 tricks (but pair 7 E/W let it through!). 7NT doubled by Pair 4 North/South was a disaster.

Club traveller with local and overall match points

As you can see, in the Club, 5♣ +1 is top for North/South while overall it is worth less than 50% (scoring 1960mp, out of 4000) because the most common score overall was 6♣ (scoring 2742 MP) with many pairs making 13 tricks (for 3634mp). The East/West top with 1400 on the other hand was almost a top overall as very few North/South pairs tried 7NT (or they made more tricks).

You can see that the two pairs scoring a top in the club (6 N/S and 8 E/W) have vastly different overall scores. This one board will make 2% difference to their overall scores and this effect, were it to be replicated over a number of boards, causes the (sometimes gross) disparity between the club scores and the overall scores.

If players think their scores must be wrong, all they can do is to check to make sure that the scores and pair numbers have been entered accurately. Assuming that the results were entered correctly, the overall frequencies will show the overall scores for each result on each board, and this will show them if their good scores were really good, or their middling scores were actually really bad.

*******************************************************************************************************************************************************

Is the National Sims scoring unfair? No. The Neuberg mathematic formula is used whenever the boards in an event have not have been played the same number of times by all players. This ensures scoring fairness across the field.  This is one reason why your club score will alter when scored alongside everyone else nationally. Neuberg would be used at the Club if one evening there were several misboards that affected a number of players. As one can imagine, the formulae is complex and it has only been with the introduction of computers that it is now possible to produce such fairness in results such as Simultaneous Pairs.

At a normal club night a misboarding is serious in that it affects the overall integrity of the result, and therefore the Director has discretion to fine or warn those responsible. Innocent players who could not correctly play the board would normally be awarded 60% (Average +)

If there are no such problems then Neuberg scoring produces the same result as simple match point scoring - therefore we always use Neuberg for all results. The actual formula is:-

    Match Points = (M x E) + (E-A)

                                      A

  Where

  ∙ M is the match points considering the scores in isolation

  ∙ E is the expected number of scores

  ∙ A is the actual number of scores

NOW - read on for full explanation as to how it works!

THE NEUBERG FORMULA

   by MAX BAVIN E.B.U. CHIEF TOURNAMENT DIRECTOR

  (Reproduced by kind permission of the author)

  MATCHPOINTING BOARDS WITH AN UNEQUAL NUMBER OF SCORES

  1. Introduction

     Consider the following situation. The last table to finish play for the evening are just about to start their final board. Everyone else has finished, and the scoring has been completed save for the final board.             

     Pair 'X' currently have a top on the final board - but there is still one result to come. What do you think the chances are that Pair "X" will still have a top once the last table have finished             

     Well, there are three possibilities. Let us say that it is an 11-table complete movement, so a top on a board is 20 match-points.

     The three possibilities are:-

  ∙ the final table will beat  'X's result, so pair 'X' will score only 18 points out of 20.

  ∙ the final table will get the same result, so pair 'X' will score 19 points.

  ∙ the final table will get a worse result, so pair 'X' will indeed score their complete top and get 20 points.

   So, if all three outcomes are equally likely, pair 'X' would have a normal expectancy of 19 points out of 20 in such a situation (the average of 18, 19 and 20).

   However, demonstrably, not all three outcomes are equally likely. After all, pair 'X' have already beaten 9 out of 9 other results, so it must be heavily odds-on that they will beat the 10th and final result as well - not certain, but very likely. So their normal expectancy in such a situation must be closer to 20 points than it is to 19. We will return to this question later.

  2. Boards with unequal tops.

 Of course, in the actual example quoted above, pair 'X' must simply wait until the last table have finished before they know their real score on the board. But what happens if the tournament director tells the last table that they cannot play the last board  because they are too slow? "Take an average" he says to the last table.             

 Now we have a real problem. What score to give pair 'X', or indeed all the other pairs who have already played the board.             

  3. Three possible approaches to the problem.

    We have seen the three different solutions proposed over the years - and they all generate a slightly different final result and, therefore, potentially a different overall winner as well!

        a) Insert an average into the results, so the top becomes 19 and the bottom becomes 1 (and the  average is still 10).The ten actual scores are match-pointed in the normal way 19, 17, 15, 13, 11, 9, 7, 5,3, 1.             

    This has the means of recognising a very important principle in pairs play, which is that all boards should be equally significant (I'll give an extreme example later of why this is important). It also has the merit of simplicity and is the method which has been used by experienced clubs for years in the pre-computer age. However it has the considerable de-merit of being blatantly unfair. Our poor pair 'X' now only get 19 points on the board, which we have already demonstrated is not enough.           

        b) Because there are only 10 results, score this board with a top of 18 and express everyone's final result as a percentage of the maximum score which was available to them. Superficially, this sounds fair, as pair 'X' are getting 100% on the board, which is certainly closer to the mark than the 95% they got under method (a).

However consider the following rather extreme case. Take a tournament where there are 26 boards in play, of which everyone plays exactly 25 (this just happens to be a convenient number to use). Say it was a very large event - several sections with 51 tables overall and a top of 100.             

    Pair 'Y' score 50% on all their boards bar one. On the one board they have achieved a 65% score. So  (24 x 50%) + (1 x 65%) = 1265% out of 2500% = 50.6%.

    However there is something strange about the movement, board 26 is only played in one of the sections and only has 11 results on it. Pair 'Y' has never played this board so their final score is not affected. Of course, our poor pair 'X' have played the board. Pair 'X' have also scored 50% on all their boards bar one. On one board they have scored a complete top - and, wouldn't you know it, it is board 26; the only one with 11 results.

    So method (b) would give them (24 x 50pts) + (1 x 20pts) = 1220pts out of 2420pts = 50.41%. Oops Pair 'Y' have beaten pair 'X'. Is this fair? Is this what you thought or expected would happen? Their results are identical save that pair 'Y' have a 65% score on one board and pair 'X' have a 100% on one board. Yet pair 'Y' are the winners.

    So, what has gone wrong? Well, what has happened is that the significance of board 26 has become almost irrelevant because it has been played less often than all the other boards. This is why the basic philosophy contained in the approach (a) " that all boards should be equally significant" is very important

  c) So, there are serious flaws in both the above approaches. Moreover, we need to find a solution to the problem as it really is most unsatisfactory that two (or even three) different and perfectly competent scores might produce two (or even three) different winners given the same set of dat          

    To the rescue comes GERARD NEUBERG of France

     4. The Neuberg Principle

    I'm afraid that this is where life begins to get complicated in which case I would urge the reader to just trust us and leap to section 6 and beyond.            

    This said, let us return to our original example - the board with 10 results where 11 results were  expected. The correct (i.e. mathematically sound) approach to the problem is as follows:-

  (a) We were expecting 11 results, but in fact we have only 10. The ratio of 11/10 is 1.1.

  (b) So, assume that each of the 10 results have occurred 1.1 times (rather than only once) and match-point accordingly.

  (c) Example    

  (d) The Match points quoted are out of a theoretical top of 20. The top score of 19.9 is arrived at by subtracting the frequency (1.1 in this case) from 21 (i.e. 1 more than the theoretical top). This is exactly the same process you use already, possibly without realising it, when match pointing normally. If the best score had occurred only once, you would give it 20 out of 20 (i.e. subtract 1 from 21 - had it occurred twice (a shared top) you would give it 19, and so on. The match points for subsequent scores go down in units of 2.2 rather than 2.0. 2.2 is the sum of the previous frequency (1.1 in this case) and the frequency of the result you are trying to calculate (also 1.1 in this case).

  (e) A second example may help to illustrate the principle, this time using whole numbers only. Say a board should have been played 16 times (top = 30), but has actually only been played 8 times. So, the ratio of 16/8 is exactly 2 this time. So, imagine that each of the eight actual results had occurred exactly twice and match point accordingly.

  Let us say that our results are as follows:-

  You can verify this by match pointing a board yourself in the usual way with two scores of + 490, four of + 460, six of + 430, two of + 400 and two of - 50. You will end up with match point scores of 29, 23, 13, 5 and 1 for the five different results.

   5. The Neuberg Formula.

     The actual formula is as follows:-

    Match Points = (M x E) + (E-A)

                                       A

  Where

  ∙ M is the match points considering the scores  in isolation (14, 11, 6, 2, 0) in the previous example.

  ∙ E is the expected number of scores (16).

  ∙ A is the actual number of scores (8).

  So, the + 490 above scores (14 x 16) + (16 - 8) = 29

  6. Application of the formula.

    Boards with a different number of results can arise in a variety of different ways, such as the nature of the movement itself or a table being unable to play a board for whatever reason.

    In all such circumstances, and in an ideal world, the Neuberg formula should be used to calculate the final result.

    However it is acknowledged that there are difficulties, not the least being:-

  (a) it is difficult (very difficult) to understand; and

  (b) it is even more difficult (though not impossible) to perform such calculations without the aid of a computer.

    For this reason, and for this reason alone, the formula has not been written into the laws of Bridge as a 'must do it this way'. Indeed, for clubs who score manually we would strongly recommend that you do not even attempt to score this way.

    The important thing is to have a rule about how you will score such boards, and then keep to it. Whatever you do though, please don't have three different scorers all scoring it a different way each night.

  All World Bridge federation, European Bridge League and English Bridge Union events are scored using the Neuberg formula, and have been for the last couple of decades. All -or nearly all - modern computer scoring software has the Neuberg formula already built-in, so if your club uses a computer it is likely that you too are already using the Neuberg formula without even realising it.

  7. Final example

 We have seen how the formula generates a score of 19.9 out of 20 for our pair 'X' in the question at the very start of this paper. And for the case of the 50.6% (1265 match points) pair who somehow managed to beat the pair with 24 averages and 1 top? Well pair 'X' would score

  [(20 x 51) + (51 - 11)] / 11=96.4% on board 26 (out of 100%). So their final score would be

  (24 x 50) + 96.4 = 1296.4 out of 2500 = 51.86%. A clear victory for them, which is precisely how it should be.

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

see also this article: sim-pairs-scoring.pdf

You can find your stratification level from the membership database or from looking at your weekly results.

The current stratification levels at PDBC are set using NGS rankings

See attached article - blue_book2017-poster.pdf

In the first round your opponents are drawn by lots. As you enter the Club you will be asked to take at random a slip of paper upon which will be your pair start table and polarity. You then play a match (a number of boards – usually five or six at a Club evening) against your opponents for that round. This means you get the chance to learn more about your opponents and it makes each round into a mini event in its own right. At the end of the round you agree scores with your opponents and a table score card is completed which goes to the Scorer. He will input all the scores for that round into the computer and the table you play at and your opponents for the next match is assigned. If you have done well you go up the ranking list ie you will be assigned (move) to a higher ranking table with table 1 being the highest; if you haven’t done well you go down.

Now this is where the Swiss element comes in: After each successive round you are matched against a pair with the same (or nearly the same) cumulative score as you and play the next match and so on, moving up or down the field at the end of each round. The higher you get the tougher your opponents should be; the lower you get, the easier your opponents should be, allowing all pairs to hopefully achieve some victories!

The other element in a Swiss event is that you only play against another pair once so even if you are leading the field going into the final round you cannot be matched against the pair lying second if you have played them before. You will be drawn against the leading pair you haven't previously played.

At the end of the tournament the pair with the highest score wins. For a club night there will normally be 5 rounds of 5 boards each round ie 25 boards played. As everyone has to play the same boards in the same round for the competition to be really fair, several sets of identically dealt boards are prepared in advanced. In a five round, 5 boards a round Swiss club event everyone will play boards 1-5 in round 1; 6-10 in round 2 and so on.

Scoring in Swiss Pairs club events is done by the TD; scoring in Swiss Teams is easily done by the players. But in either case each match is played for up to 20 Victory Points. However, all you need to do is to give the scorer the agreed scores (+600 or –50 etc.) and he will do the rest!! He will compare the Imp scores from all the matches in a round and then allocate out the Victory Points. Each pair will receive a detailed score slip for the round just completed, whilst playing the next match so you can check the scores are correctly input and it will show you in detail how you fared board by board when your scores are compared with every other pairing playing the same boards in the same polarity.

We have long encouraged the use of system (formerly known as convention cards) whenever we meet. Why? Firstly, the LAWS require it - see Blue Book, formerly Orange Book, and secondly we have a mixed ability range of members and the less experienced players, who may be only be familiar with Basic Acol or simple systems, should not be disadvantaged by their opponents failure to disclose ALL aspects of their systems. Accordingly, players without a convention card will be expected to play EBU Simple System only. Partnerships must have identically completed convention cards. Blank EBU20B convention cards are available via the Club or the EBU, as is a pre-printed Standard Acol Convention card. From the 2nd August 2011 please bring your convention card to the Club.

Directors and session organizers will periodically remind players about the announcements and alerts at the start of each session and also remind players about having a convention card available for their opponents. Your Convention Card must NOT be used as a crib sheet to assist you with your bidding – it should be given to your opponents at the start of each round and collected from them after the entire round has finished. It is not permitted to refer to your own card during bidding or play. If you are unsure what one of your partner's bids means during the auction period please DO NOT GUESS or say things like "I AMTAKING THAT TO MEAN . . etc". Simply say you do not know and pass your card to your opponets and invite them to look!

We very much hope that members will support having a convention card as it should make our games even more enjoyable for all concerned, but if you have any difficulties please bring them to the attention of the Director or Committee who will be pleased to assist you.

Why do the opposition need my Convention Card?

On arriving at the table it usual to exchange pleasantries and your basic system, ie 12 - 14 NT and weak 2s.  As we evolve as bridge players we add more gadgets to our system and it would take too long if you had announce each one at the start of every table so we exchange convention cards as well. 
Remember the opposition are entitled to know as much about your bidding methods as you do! 
Once the cards have been removed from the board, we can only communicate with partner legally by taking a card from the bidding box and putting it on the table in front of you.
Announcements, Alert and Stop are all intended to help your opponents and your partner has to pretend they never heard or saw them (they are unauthorized information); they certainly must not make any bids based on any information received this way. 
However the opposition will want to continue the auction based on your alert etc.  So, at /their turn to bid, they can ask the partner of the player who made the bid, what that bid means. In some situations this can cause more unauthorized information and, rather than ask, many will prefer to read your convention card.

Remember you should only ask questions when you are intending to make a call, not if you are going to pass anyway.  The time to ask questions is after the auction has finished (a) before the opening lead has been made if you are on lead or (b) after partner has placed the lead face down on the table.  Note: the lead should not be changed at this point, although if you feel that something has come to light which would change your actions, now is the time to call the director.

NOTE:  SINCE THE INTRODUCTION OF BRIDGEMATES, SCORING ERRORS ARE MUCH REDUCED AND WHEN THEY OCCUR CAN BE RESOLVED BY THE DIRECTOR.

I am pleased to say the travellers are now being completed with fewer errors - thank you, it makes the job of scoring so much easier. Please remember that if you see a score which does not look valid whilst you are completing the traveller please do NOT put a question mark against it or attempt to alter it etc but raise the matter immediately with the Director.

“The scorer or director will correct any wrong score”. We often issue reminders about the importance of filling in table slips completely and for East to thoroughly check the traveller scores. We do this to ensure that an accurate result can be given – members don’t want to turn out on a cold evening only to find the result cannot be given because of incorrectly completed paperwork but also because it is not often understood how reluctant a director will be (supported by the Laws) to amend an agreed score. Consider the following extract from a traveller:-

ALL NON VULNERABLE

Pair 11 may have made 9 tricks but the score, agreed at the table, is 110 - a legal score. Unless the director can have the apparent discrepancy brought to his / her attention before close of play (marking a traveller with a ? mark does not do this) in order that BOTH pairs can be found and the mess sorted out, the result will be scored as 110 as that has been agreed at the table. When we had several inexperienced members we did follow up this type of discrepancy the next morning, but it is very time consuming and the director / scorer is not under a duty to do so. In certain situations an expression like “2H+1” can be helpful but its use is optional, and its omission is of no effect - hence pair 6 will score 140. However, pair 5 will have their score altered to 400 as 600 is an illegal (impossible) score.

When a score has been incorrectly entered by the scorer (eg if 110 was erroneously entered for pair 10 above) it can be amended within the time limits that apply to such a mistake – this varies club to club but at PDBC we give until close of play the following week to allow everyone the opportunity of checking their scored result. After that, unless the sponsoring organisation (eg Ecats) sets a longer period, the score is final. Clearly it helps to know earlier rather than later if the scorer himself has made such a mistake – and I am grateful to those of you who check the web site on Thursday’s and phone me straightaway if such has occurred.

Whilst I am now putting the actual contracts onto the score data to provide more information for members when they view the scores on the web site, players are reminded that if a difference exists between the contract and the correct score (eg 3N  10 tricks but scored as only 400) it will be the SCORE that prevails. The only exceptions to this will be:-

Where the correct score and the incorrect score make no diference to the result. eg if the correct score gives a top for the board and the incorrect one does as well.

Where the recorded score is impossible. eg where 3N-1 Vul is recorded as -50

As always, please take care when recording all details and make sure that East ALWAYS checks the result. Where the contract is illegible or nonsense it will not be shown.

There are several articles in this section:-

ARTICLE 1

A director who has to adjudicate on a hesitation situation must satisfy himself on three distinct issues:-

1. Was there unauthorised information?

2. Could the unauthorised information demonstrably have suggested the action taken?

3. Were there one or more logical alternative actions not so suggested, the choice of which might have led to a more favourable result for the non-offending side?

ARTICLE 2

“Opponent’s finesse caught me a bit by surprise so I paused briefly (as I often do when playing a card) but partner had the K and opponents objected.” And so they should! You must not hesitate unless you “have something reasonable to consider” eg you had the K. If you hesitate because you are caught off guard by a play and have nothing to consider you should say so even if that reveals who has the K. In the example above the Director will probably award an adjusted score if it can be shown your hesitation cost opponents a trick(s).

ARTICLE 3

You must ask!! Bridge must be one of the very few games played where the players often feel embarrassed to ask a question, especially in relation to the opponents bidding. If you don’t ask – and if you do and still don’t understand – you are putting yourself at an enormous disadvantage. If you ask what a bid means and you get told its “Lebensohl” or “Landy” or “South African Texas” etc and you are still none the wiser then don’t be reticent. Ask specifically what the bid means; the Laws do not expect you to put up with jargon and some of the most common conventions like Stayman can be played with variations eg is it promissory or not. You are entitled to know!

However, you must have a valid reason to ask. Ask ONLY when it is your turn to bid. Also, if you do not intend to bid then do not ask! The very fact of you asking is conveying information to partner that you have some reason to ask and you will be penalised if that might have influenced your partner to bid, or make a particular lead etc. Wait until the end of the auction when you can freely ask questions before the opening lead is faced.

ARTICLE 4

Can we play a board even if I have overheard something about it? If someone calls out the score or makes a comment about what contract is possible, or states anything of substance about the hand - and that comment is heard by an adjoining table - they are required by the Laws to call the Director as it clearly would be unfair for them now to play the board and score it. Those deprived of playing the board (NS & EW) will receive an awarded score of at least 60% (the board may only be played for fun at that table) and those responsible for making the comment will be deducted Match Points.

ARTICLE 5

When making a bid it should always, if possible, be done in a normal tempo - bidding with undue haste, hesitation or with undue emphasis etc is to be avoided and is unauthorised information from partner (Law 73). In practice we all sometimes have to think longer to decide on what (or whether) to bid. The practical effect of the Laws mean that during this "think time" you should NOT make any gestures or action that MAY indicate you have a choice of bids or pass. Clearly when you think you have at least 2 choices: bid or pass but if in addition you make other actions like withdrawing a bidding card from the box then putting it back; hesitating before picking a card out the box again etc etc you are indicating you have several choices of alternative calls and the director is likely to be called even if you do eventually make a bid. It is often thought by players that they can hesitate but that it will be OK if they then make a bid rather than a pass. That may be correct (it often isn't - see below *) if no other actions have occurred other than thinking and then bidding but where "extraneous gestures" or exaggerated hesitation  occurs it will definitely not be OK!  After a bidding hesitation by a player who then decides to pass and his partner then makes a call, the Director will - if called - rule on the basis as to whether the hesitation MAY have influenced the bidder. Players will always say "I would have bid that anyway"or "I didn't notice partner hesitating, I was too busy thinking of my next bid"or "I wasn't looking so couldn't have seen what he was doing" and such like. It matters not - the director is not called upon to rule as to whether a player was influenced by the hesitation, saw it or not etc simply the director rules only as to whether he MAY have been influenced. In practical terms in applying the Laws, where there is a reasonable alternative to the bid made after his partners hesitation (that alternative may be PASS) the director will almost certainly rule against you. If you hesitate and then pass you put your partner in a very difficult position and it is likely (indeed very probable in a contested auction) for the director to give an adjusted score if the non-offenders did poorly after the hesitation and subsequent bid by the hesitator's partner. 

* types of hesitation and their consequences are too numerous to give examples of but to use just one:-

In a recent championships NS were bidding towards a slam in an uncontested auction. Hearts is agreed early on and after various cue bids etc S bid 5S as a "grand slam try". At this point N hesitates (or to use the modern expression there was a "BIT - Break In Tempo"). N eventually bids 6H which is clearly a sign off as H is their suit but S then bids on to the making 7H. The director is summoned: N said he hesitated for only about 20 seconds as he was thinking of whether to actually sign off in 6C (NS knew they also had club fit) or 6H; EW said 40+ seconds. The director didn't have to rule specifically on that - there was BIT of some amount and South MAY have been influenced by it when deciding to bid onto 7H after the 6H "sign off". The director wound the score back to 6H+1. NS appealed - and lost. The Directors decision was upheld.