pair rating
Stig Holmquist
according to the masterpoints of the best player?
At my local club there is a master player, a professional, who often
plays with inferior players. They seldom win and at times come in
below average.
Why are pairs not rated by their average masterpoints or possibly by
some weighted average value, such as 2/3 of the higher +1/3 of the
lower player's point standing? I doubt that a silver LM +a novice can
do any better than two bronze players together.
Stig Holmquist
Tim Goodwin
<stigf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I doubt that a silver LM +a novice can
>do any better than two bronze players together.
I'll bet that for any two bronze life masters, I can find a silver
life master/novice partnerhsip that is better. That is, if you are
using masterpoints to determine what a novice is.
Tim
Jerry6421
>life master/novice partnerhsip that is better. That is, if you are
>using masterpoints to determine what a novice is.
Maybe if the novice is someone like Frances H but in general if the two Bronze
Masters are on their way up that might well not be true. I am sure there was
a time when some of the Polish world class pairs were both Bronze life masters.
Barry Margolin
Stig Holmquist <stigf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> A chain is no stronger than its weakest link. So Why are pairs rated
> according to the masterpoints of the best player?
Pairs aren't "rated", as far as I know. So I assume you're referring to
how they're assigned to flights or strats in tournaments.
Flighting is mostly a reaction to less experienced players being
intimidated by having to play against experts, as well as experienced
players having to "put up with" novices (it's hard to read the cards if
the opponents don't bid or play reasonably). These concerns are valid
even if just one of the opponents in a pair is at the specified level.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Level(3) Communicaions, Woburn, MA
Josprung
>a time when some of the Polish world class pairs were both Bronze life
>masters.
Actually, most of them aren't life masters at all. They lack the silver or
club points.
Danny
Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)
ACBL life masters, a lot of other NCBO's have a Life Master or equivalent
title and these players usually have LM status in their home country.
Henk
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.ui...@ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk
P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414
1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445
The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC)
Thomas Andrews
Probably it's simply the fact that there is no "right" formula, combined
with the following rules:
(1) Competing down is considered unsporting.
(2) Competing up is considered sporting and adventurous.
Taking the highest value, then, avoids the appearance of (1) in all cases.
=thomas
Mark Brader
> > A chain is no stronger than its weakest link. So Why are pairs rated
> > according to the masterpoints of the best player?
> Flighting [in tournaments] is mostly a reaction to less experienced
> players being intimidated by having to play against experts, as well
> concerns are valid even if just one of the opponents in a pair is
> at the specified level.
And anyway, at least in the ACBL, there are tournament events that
don't work as Stig says. In bracketed KOs, the bracketing is based
on the average<*> number of masterpoints of all the players on your
team. Okay, that's not pairs, but I've also played in pair games
that were stratified according to how many players on the pair
were above a certain cutoff number of points. This format was
known by the rather meaningless name of "stratified by experience".
I haven't seen it for a few years, though.
<*> In practice they actually use 4 times the average, which gives
the same result and is easier to compute since most teams in these
games have 4 players.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Don't try this at work."
m...@vex.net -- Dennis Ritchie
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Douglas Newlands
1. how people arrange their responses to the sequences
(1N)-2C-(P)-2N and (1N)-2D-(P)-2N when playing ASPTRO
(or ASTRO or ASPRO since it is the organisation of 4m5M and 5m4M hands
which interests me)
2. does anyone use the immediate overcalls of 2N,3C,3D, ....... as specific
two suiters or
is the traditional use of 2N to show strong 1 and 2 suiters still
prevalent? If that is your
situation, what do you use the jumps as?
Douglas
Stig Holmquist
wrote:
>Stig Holmquist wrote:
>
>> A chain is no stronger than its weakest link. So Why are pairs rated
>> according to the masterpoints of the best player?
>>
>> At my local club there is a master player, a professional, who often
>> plays with inferior players. They seldom win and at times come in
>> below average.
>>
>> Why are pairs not rated by their average masterpoints or possibly by
>> some weighted average value, such as 2/3 of the higher +1/3 of the
>> lower player's point standing? I doubt that a silver LM +a novice can
>> do any better than two bronze players together.
>>
>
>Probably it's simply the fact that there is no "right" formula, combined
>with the following rules:
>Thomas Andrews wrote:
> (1) Competing down is considered unsporting.
> (2) Competing up is considered sporting and adventurous.
>
>Taking the highest value, then, avoids the appearance of (1) in all cases.
>A silver LM player would not be alone when playing in alower stratum and would not be "competing" for points for himself
He has plenty of them. He would be playing to help a non-LM player
gain points. It is a pair contest not an individual one.
Stig Holmquist
>=thomas
Thomas Andrews
> On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 09:50:01 GMT, Thomas Andrews <tho...@best.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> ...
[ Misattributed ]
>>A silver LM player would not be alone when playing in alower stratum and would
>>not be "competing" for points for himself
>
> He has plenty of them. He would be playing to help a non-LM player
> gain points. It is a pair contest not an individual one.
>
> Stig Holmquist
>
Stig,
That line (A silver LM ...) occurs nowhere in my post.
=thomas
Combo
> according to the masterpoints of the best player?
>
> Why are pairs not rated by their average masterpoints or possibly by
> some weighted average value, such as 2/3 of the higher +1/3 of the
> lower player's point standing? I doubt that a silver LM +a novice can
> do any better than two bronze players together.
>
> Stig Holmquist
Hello from Moscow, Stig!
From purely MATH point of view the following rather simple formula
might be of use:
Score_of_Pair = 2/ (1/Score_of_Player1 + 1/Score_of_Player1),
Where by "Score" one can use Masterpoints or any other measure with
property "the more -- the better". Please note that factor "2" appears
due to final "Score" applies to TWO players. For 3 or more players one
should extend formula in brackets and change factor from 2 to 3 (or
higher).
What's the effect?
Consider a Player 1 (Novice) having, say, 10 MP. Players 2 has 100
MP.
Formula yields:
10 + 100 --> 18.2
Now let's change MP levels for some extent for both Players:
10 + 200 --> 19.0
10 + 500 --> 19.6
12 + 100 --> 21.4
15 + 100 --> 26.1
So, "playing strength" of a pair would not change much when "Expert"
is replaced by "Champion" (200 MP or 500 MP instead of 100 MP).
At the same time even slight change in "Novice" scoring leads to much
higher levels of Pair Score.
Best Regards,
Vitaly Novikov
Frances Hinden
I'm trying to decide whether to complimented or insulted....
It's true that I have a grand total of 1.2 (I think) ACBL
masterpoints, however in common with most of the world's bridge
players I play 99.999% of my bridge outside the ACBL. I am usually
not considered a novice at home.
Frances Hinden
1. I play as follows:
a) What I mean by ASPTRO is:
x=penalties
2C = hearts & another
2D = spades & another
anchor to longer/better major
2M = natural
The strength required depends slightly on your suits: 45 in the reds
can bid more freely than 4M with 5 clubs as you can pass the 2D relay.
b) In response to an ASPTRO overcall I play as follows:
(1N) - 2C -
2D = to play opposite a 5-card suit (opener bids 2H with 5H4C, 2S with
5S4H, 2NT with 4H5C), usually denies 3 hearts
2H = to play (either 2-2 in the reds or 3+ cards in hearts)
2S = to play
2NT = natural, invitational
3C = FG relay. Overcaller bids as follows:
3D: 5H + 4-card minor (3H asks, 3S=clubs, 3NT = diamonds)
3H: majors
3S: 4H5C
3NT: 4H5D
4C/D/H: 10+ cards in the two relevant suits
3D = high-card invitational values with 3-card heart support
3H = invitational, 4-card support
3S = nat FG
3NT = nat NF (often has a long minor)
4m = not sure we've discussed these
Similarly after (1N) - 2D, though responder can't sign off in 2H the
way she can sign off in 2S after a 2C ASPTRO overcall.
The order of the bids after the 3C enquiry is to allow all 54s to show
their distribution below 3NT.
Note we are usually defending against a weak or mini NT where game on
HCP is a serious possibility, hence (at least partly) the natural 2N
bid.
2a). 2NT = game forcing 2-suiter. Strong 1-suiter doubles first then
bids its suit. (A strong 1-suiter than doesn't think it can defeat
1NTx will bid immediately at some appropriate level).
b) 3C/D/H/S pre-emptive
mike
fhi...@orange.net (Frances Hinden) wrote:
> 1. I play as follows:
> a) What I mean by ASPTRO is:
> x=penalties
> 2C = hearts & another
> 2D = spades & another
> anchor to longer/better major
> 2M = natural
Isn't asptro when you anchor to the shorter major?
> The strength required depends slightly on your suits: 45 in the reds
> can bid more freely than 4M with 5 clubs as you can pass the 2D relay.
>
> b) In response to an ASPTRO overcall I play as follows:
> (1N) - 2C -
> 2D = to play opposite a 5-card suit (opener bids 2H with 5H4C, 2S with
> 5S4H, 2NT with 4H5C), usually denies 3 hearts
> 2H = to play (either 2-2 in the reds or 3+ cards in hearts)
I play 2H here as 4+ hearts or 3 hearts and an outside singleton. With
2-2 in the reds I would prefer a 5-2 diamond fit to a 4-2 heart fit,
if partner has 5 hearts he will correct 2D to 2H.
> 2S = to play
> 2NT = natural, invitational
> 3C = FG relay. Overcaller bids as follows:
> 3D: 5H + 4-card minor (3H asks, 3S=clubs, 3NT = diamonds)
> 3H: majors
> 3S: 4H5C
> 3NT: 4H5D
> 4C/D/H: 10+ cards in the two relevant suits
I like this a lot, I'd never considered using 3C in this way.
> 3D = high-card invitational values with 3-card heart support
> 3H = invitational, 4-card support
> 3S = nat FG
> 3NT = nat NF (often has a long minor)
> 4m = not sure we've discussed these
>
> Similarly after (1N) - 2D, though responder can't sign off in 2H the
> way she can sign off in 2S after a 2C ASPTRO overcall.
>
> The order of the bids after the 3C enquiry is to allow all 54s to show
> their distribution below 3NT.
>
> Note we are usually defending against a weak or mini NT where game on
> HCP is a serious possibility, hence (at least partly) the natural 2N
> bid.
>
> 2a). 2NT = game forcing 2-suiter. Strong 1-suiter doubles first then
> bids its suit. (A strong 1-suiter than doesn't think it can defeat
> 1NTx will bid immediately at some appropriate level).
I use 2NT as the minors (5-5), mainly because I can't remember ever
having had a GF 2 suiter in this position, and when I do I will
probably be greedy and try to extract a penalty first!
> b) 3C/D/H/S pre-emptive
I play these as pre-emptive as well.
Mike
Barry Margolin
m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
> And anyway, at least in the ACBL, there are tournament events that
> don't work as Stig says. In bracketed KOs, the bracketing is based
> on the average<*> number of masterpoints of all the players on your
> team.
Good point. As the number of members of a team increases, the likely
influence of any one member decreases. In a pair, one player can
"mastermind" and try to become declarer more than his fair share of the
time. But in a team of 4, the "expert" can't do anything to influence
what happens at the other table.
V.Y. Milman
Wow, if you mean the same Frances H as the rest of rgb contributors, then you are
way off the mark. And on a day when she won Swiss Pairs in Brighton ahead of
Tony Forrester, Andrew Robson, and many other fine players (the biggest congress
in Britain, for the non-EBU readers). Congratulations! Some novice, really...
Tell this to Cambridge folks, even now that she's been in London for good ten years
I think.
--
Victor Milman
Frances Hinden
> In message <d30df517.03081...@posting.google.com>
> fhi...@orange.net (Frances Hinden) wrote:
>
> > 1. I play as follows:
> > a) What I mean by ASPTRO is:
> > x=penalties
> > 2C = hearts & another
> > 2D = spades & another
> > anchor to longer/better major
> > 2M = natural
>
> Isn't asptro when you anchor to the shorter major?
Yes, sorry, too much bridge over the weekend, too hot, brain melted.
>
> > The strength required depends slightly on your suits: 45 in the reds
> > can bid more freely than 4M with 5 clubs as you can pass the 2D relay.
> >
> > b) In response to an ASPTRO overcall I play as follows:
> > (1N) - 2C -
> > 2D = to play opposite a 5-card suit (opener bids 2H with 5H4C, 2S with
> > 5S4H, 2NT with 4H5C), usually denies 3 hearts
> > 2H = to play (either 2-2 in the reds or 3+ cards in hearts)
>
> I play 2H here as 4+ hearts or 3 hearts and an outside singleton. With
> 2-2 in the reds I would prefer a 5-2 diamond fit to a 4-2 heart fit,
> if partner has 5 hearts he will correct 2D to 2H.
>
see above comment about gooey mess between ears.
but 2H doesn't have to have an outside singleton; with a 4324 I might
bid 2H at mps if I have enough cards to think they are both making.
Oh yes, according to my system file, so do I. Good job it didn't come
up...
Tim Goodwin
> m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
>
>> And anyway, at least in the ACBL, there are tournament events that
>> don't work as Stig says. In bracketed KOs, the bracketing is based
>> on the average<*> number of masterpoints of all the players on your
>> team.
This is not doen the same way throughout the ACBL, is it? I'm pretty
sure I've seen KOs bracketed by masterpoints held by the top two
players or by the top 4 players, rather than by average.
Tim
Tim Goodwin
wrote:
>jerr...@aol.com (Jerry6421) wrote in message news:<20030809210009...@mb-m22.aol.com>...
>> >I'll bet that for any two bronze life masters, I can find a silver
>> >life master/novice partnerhsip that is better. That is, if you are
>> >using masterpoints to determine what a novice is.
>>
>> Maybe if the novice is someone like Frances H but in general if the two Bronze
>> Masters are on their way up that might well not be true. I am sure there was
>> a time when some of the Polish world class pairs were both Bronze life masters.
>
>I'm trying to decide whether to complimented or insulted....
Complimented, I'm sure. Reread it and you will see.
David J. Grabiner
> In article <vjc68os...@corp.supernews.com>,
> m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
>
> > And anyway, at least in the ACBL, there are tournament events that
> > don't work as Stig says. In bracketed KOs, the bracketing is based
> > on the average<*> number of masterpoints of all the players on your
> > team.
>
> Good point. As the number of members of a team increases, the likely
> influence of any one member decreases. In a pair, one player can
> "mastermind" and try to become declarer more than his fair share of the
> time. But in a team of 4, the "expert" can't do anything to influence
> what happens at the other table.
However, with a team of six, the best player may be as much as 1/4 of
the team, and the worst player as little as 1/8. On a team with a
sponsor, the sponsor is likely to play only half the matches.
--
David Grabiner, grab...@alumni.princeton.edu, http://remarque.org/~grabiner
Baseball labor negotiations FAQ: http://remarque.org/~grabiner/laborfaq.html
Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street!
Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc.
Margaret Courtney
> according to the masterpoints of the best player?
>
Some pros have an extraordinary ability to drag you over the line.
Within 3 years of starting to play bridge (from scratch, you know
where you get told the suit ranks in the first lesson) I had
1) come 12th in the world mixed pairs (that was in my first year of
play)
2) come 3rd in the Australian Butler pairs (used to be their
international trials)
3) qualified with about 60% for the European Open Pairs final in
Sorrento
all playing with my ex-husband Michael Courtney. At the time I thought
I was quite a reasonable player (at least I managed to keep that to
myself). Relative to that company I was (and still am) utterly
hopeless. My favorite self delusion is that I thought I was a good
defender :-) Well I was until I had to defend with anyone else.
I wasn't a typical novice but after 6 years David Burn told me when he
was coaching me that I was a bad "good" bridge player which I think is
a fair description.
Micahel is an incredible player but he further has this talent for
dragging novices screaming and kicking over the line (I have seen him
do this with loads of people). And he isn't *that* hoggy in the
bidding.
Our chain was hugely stronger than our weakest link.
Mark Brader
>>> And anyway, at least in the ACBL, there are tournament events that
>>> don't work as Stig says. In bracketed KOs, the bracketing is based
>>> on the average<*> number of masterpoints of all the players on your
>>> team.
Tim Goodwin writes:
> This is not doen the same way throughout the ACBL, is it? I'm pretty
> sure I've seen KOs bracketed by masterpoints held by the top two
> players or by the top 4 players, rather than by average.
My experience with these games is limited to NABCs and the regional
here in Toronto. In recent years they have always asked for the total
points of all players, so effectively working with the average (see
footnote in previous posting), but I won't say that Tim's wrong.
--
Mark Brader | "Nothing is more sacrosanct than our professional ethics.
Toronto | Fortunately, I know a trick to get around them."
m...@vex.net | --Niles Crane, "Frasier" (Ranberg & Flett-Giordano)
John Crinnion
<huge snip>
>
> I wasn't a typical novice but after 6 years David Burn told me when he
> was coaching me that I was a bad "good" bridge player which I think is
> a fair description.
>
<snip>
OK. So, presumably, according to David Burn we have good & bad "good"
players and good & bad "bad" players.
Am I right in further assuming that the above categories translate,
respectivly, into strong & weak scientific players and strong and weak
intuitive players?
Ian Payn
John Crinnion wrote:
> MCou...@telecomplus.co.uk (Margaret Courtney) wrote in message news:<e351913f.03081...@posting.google.com>...
>
> <huge snip>
>
>
>>I wasn't a typical novice but after 6 years David Burn told me when he
>>was coaching me that I was a bad "good" bridge player which I think is
>>a fair description.
>>
>
>
> <snip>
>
> OK. So, presumably, according to David Burn we have good & bad "good"
> players and good & bad "bad" players.
++++And "complete bloody idiots". Which one isn't supposed to take
personally.
John Crinnion
Have you ever obtained the impression that 'scientific' players think
that the game belongs to them? To a point where non-scientific
players have no business at the same table as them? Or as members of
the same club?
Ian Payn
> Have you ever obtained the impression that 'scientific' players think
> that the game belongs to them?
++++No. Not really, I mean. And I don't really understand what you mean
by scientific. Where does one draw the line? I don't know about you, but
I'd have thought that knowing common suit combinations was pretty
vital for any sort of mild success at the table. Is that too scientific
for a true 'flair' player?
> To a point where non-scientific
> players have no business at the same table as them? Or as members of
> the same club?
++++I think this is a non-argument. You could level accusations of
unfriendliness and aloofness against nasal types with biros sticking out
of their shirt pockets as they rant about percentages and so forth, but
you could make an equal case against 'flair' or 'intuition' players as
they resolutely patronsied the scientists the four times out of ten that
the sixty percent line didn't work. "Could have dropped me Queen!" They
crow.
At this point I would like to point out that I have no axe to grind,
having a mind too packed with useless aracana to absorb mathematic
detail, and being totally bereft of any flair, style or intuition
whatsoever. "Why not give up?" I hear you cry.
Why indeed...
Douglas Newlands
(1N)-2N as minors because he never had the hand for the strong 2NT meaning.
Well look at this one
Teams Kx
D-N Jx
NS vul AJ10xx
Axxx
J9xx AQ10xx
xx AKQ10x
Qxxx -
Jxx KQx
xx
9xxx
Kxxx
xxx
At our table it went
N E S W
1D 2D P 2S
P 6S all pass
Partner wasn't happy but he doesn't have a lead to beat this contract.
The other room was where the atrocity happened. EW are playing DONT,
east is a well known player with a ton of masterpoints and has played in the state
team multiple times but ............
The auction went
N E S W
1N P P P
He said he couldn't remember how to handle this kind of hand using DONT and thought
he would just quietly take the vul 1NT a few off for a not too swing result.
I suppose it isn't the worst bid in the world but it must be a contender for worst call in the
world.
Dougie
Tim Goodwin
Tim
vida
this is why people don't play dont against a 12-14 NT.
What an auction on the first table anyway...
Paul Hightower
> There was a recent thread on asptro continuations and one contributor said that he played
> (1N)-2N as minors because he never had the hand for the strong 2NT meaning.
> Well look at this one
>
> Teams Kx
> D-N Jx
> NS vul AJ10xx
> Axxx
>
> J9xx AQ10xx
> xx AKQ10x
> Qxxx -
> Jxx KQx
> xx
> 9xxx
> Kxxx
> xxx
>
> At our table it went
>
> N E S W
> 1D 2D P 2S
> P 6S all pass
>
> Partner wasn't happy but he doesn't have a lead to beat this contract.
Just out of curiosity: Did North try to grab his two Aces, or did he
hold off on the clubs to protect his trump King? Did East make anyway
(two clubs, then three rounds of hearts pitching the club, perhaps?)
> The other room was where the atrocity happened. EW are playing DONT,
> east is a well known player with a ton of masterpoints and has played in the state
> team multiple times but ............
>
> The auction went
> N E S W
> 1N P P P
>
> He said he couldn't remember how to handle this kind of hand using DONT and thought
> he would just quietly take the vul 1NT a few off for a not too swing result.
Even playing penalty doubles, +100 is a terrible result. That's why
2NT must include powerful freak hands, not just minor two-suiters. At
mathpoints, you could shrug this off. At teams, any method that risks
stopping short of game (or forces you to guess which game) with the
East cards is absurd.
Adam Beneschan
> There was a recent thread on asptro continuations and one contributor said that he played
> (1N)-2N as minors because he never had the hand for the strong 2NT meaning.
> Well look at this one
>
> Teams Kx
> D-N Jx
> NS vul AJ10xx
> Axxx
>
> J9xx AQ10xx
> xx AKQ10x
> Qxxx -
> Jxx KQx
> xx
> 9xxx
> Kxxx
> xxx
>
> At our table it went
>
> N E S W
> 1D 2D P 2S
> P 6S all pass
>
> Partner wasn't happy but he doesn't have a lead to beat this contract.
Maybe I'm missing something, but why wouldn't a diamond or heart lead beat it?
-- Adam
Thomas Dehn
"Adam Beneschan" <ad...@irvine.com> wrote:
> Douglas Newlands <do...@deakin.edu.au> wrote:
> > Teams Kx
> > D-N Jx
> > NS vul AJ10xx
> > Axxx
> >
> > J9xx AQ10xx
> > xx AKQ10x
> > Qxxx -
> > Jxx KQx
> > xx
> > 9xxx
> > Kxxx
> > xxx
> >
> > At our table it went
> >
> > N E S W
> > 1D 2D P 2S
> > P 6S all pass
> >
> > Partner wasn't happy but he doesn't have a lead to beat this contract.
>
> Maybe I'm missing something, but why wouldn't a diamond or heart lead beat it?
You are missing something. Ruffed, CK, CQ. North is dead.
Thomas
Kieran Dyke
"Tim Goodwin" <ne...@oakhill.com> wrote in message
news:3f3cd422.507711660@nntp...
> What seems strange to me i sthat bothnorths chose to open 1NT.
Well, both norths. Except for one of them.
Tiggrr
Adam Beneschan
OK, I missed that. (Actually, I saw the CK, CQ, but missed what
happens on the next three tricks.)
-- Adam
Tim Goodwin
wrote:
>
>"Tim Goodwin" <ne...@oakhill.com> wrote in message
>news:3f3cd422.507711660@nntp...
>> What seems strange to me i sthat bothnorths chose to open 1NT.
>
>Well, both norths. Except for one of them.
Whoops. With all the talk of 1N-(2N), I read both auctions to start
with 1NT. Sorry.
Tim
Douglas Newlands
Paul Hightower wrote:
You have identified the satisfying line after a passive red lead from N.
Partner decided it was time to try underleading the KS. Seems truly bizarre - must talk
to him about it. But he's a good partner and everyone is allowed a bizarre one,
due to brain fade or a poorer class of weed or cows flying past, once in a while
without too much comment.
Dougie
John Crinnion
I was reminded of this thread in the course of playing the other
night.
North at one table was one of those players - they always seem to be
women - who think it incumbent on them to grab and unfold the
traveller to use the various results on it as kind of agenda items for
her to chair a discussion on how the hand should have been bid and
played.
Writing down the score was the lowest priority, and the consequential
build-up of delays had goaded N&S at the next table to a high degree
of vigilance, as in: "Director, you have called the move, and they are
starting a board!"
In the course of one such wretched post-mortem she said to my partner,
"If *I* had had just a few more points, I would certainly have doubled
you for penalties." In a tone that came very close to 'gotcha'. So I
thought of this thread, also of all the poker post-mortems that boil
down to nothing more than "If *I* had had a better hand than the
winner, *I* would have won *that* pot!" - and I resolved to think more
kindly of those bridge players who slap the next board down on top of
the previous board's traveller, and manage to plonk down card(s) from
the bidding box before said traveller has been extricated and returned
to its board.
Especially the ones who then seem mutely to accuse North of hesitation
as soon as she has sorted her cards for the new board. They are not
as rude as I used to think they were when I first encountered them!