[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2015-April-25, 11:47, said:

Yes, I am aware of this, but in most places the scorecard and CC are separate. So while Mycroft's solution would work in one single NO, it would not work elsewhere. Of course, the scorecard on the back of the CC situation does make the proper exchange of CCs a bit problematic, since a player will want his card after each hand to write down the score.

Except in clubs that have upgraded to Bridgemate 2; then you can just get all the scores at the end of the round.

That too can be problematic. At least, it seems we're often being chased out of our chairs by the following pair, even long before the round has been called.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2015-April-25, 13:13, said:

That too can be problematic. At least, it seems we're often being chased out of our chairs by the following pair, even long before the round has been called.

Here we are not permitted to move to the next table until the round has been called.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2015-April-25, 15:54, said:

Here we are not permitted to move to the next table until the round has been called.

There would be mutiny if somebody tried to impose that here.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2015-April-25, 10:46, said:

In the ACBL, the "private score" is often on the back of the convention card — or the other way 'round, as Alex Groner wrote in 1956 ("You can even write your conventions on the back of your scorecard!"). Also most folks here are extremely reluctant to give up their system card, even if they have it on the table, for more than a few seconds — if that. In fact, most folks here seem to view the idea of exchanging cards at the beginning of the round, and keeping opponent's card, as he keeps your own, for the entire round, to be seriously bizarre.

While exchanging cards is unheard of in ACBL, I have never in my life seen someone balk when an opponent asked to look at their CC. I play with a partner regularly at NABCs, and when he becomes declarer he always asks for a defender's CC so he can look at the section on defensive carding. They always hand it over gracefully.

[blackshoe]

I wasn't suggesting that players refuse to provide a card when asked, if they have one. I was talking about them wanting the darn thing back immediately you've looked up whatever you were looking for. That said... is "partner has it" or digging around in purse or pockets or under your butt or… and finally producing a crumpled piece of paper with illegible scribbles on it "balking"? If so, I have seen it.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2015-April-27, 14:20, said:

I wasn't suggesting that players refuse to provide a card when asked, if they have one. I was talking about them wanting the darn thing back immediately you've looked up whatever you were looking for. That said... is "partner has it" or digging around in purse or pockets or under your butt or… and finally producing a crumpled piece of paper with illegible scribbles on it "balking"? If so, I have seen it.

Yeah, me too in the ACBL. Especially the snatching back thing. Once there was a very fat man sitting with his card sticking out from under his crotch... No way was I ever asking to look at that card. And this is at a Nationals, where the standards should be higher.

About actually having the card... in the EBU, when the directing staff have the manpower a director goes all around the room(s) at the beginning of the event checking that each pair have two identical CCs. I think they are also checking to see that there is a reasonable amount filled in.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2015-April-27, 14:26, said:

About actually having the card... in the EBU, when the directing staff have the manpower a director goes all around the room(s) at the beginning of the event checking that each pair have two identical CCs. I think they are also checking to see that there is a reasonable amount filled in.

"Show me your papers"? Actually, that's a pretty good idea, though I've never seen it done here.

[gwnn]

lamford, on 2015-April-25, 04:05, said:

As an aside, I have noticed that around 70% of players select the higher honour in restricted choice situations. If they go over 67%, or below 33%, the declarer can do "better than suitplay" if he or she discerns this.

Sorry for the hijack but this is not true. In the common case of missing the Q, J, 3, and 2, all your opponent needs to do is to play either honour less often often than 6.22/6.78 of the time (the ratio of the probability of a specific 3-1 divided by that of a specific 2-2 break), which is between 8.3-91.7%, for the second-round finesse to be a favourite. Even humans can randomize adequately by that standard.