Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Al Hollander
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 26 27 28 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
for European Championships probably better chance with England's Bridge Magazine or British Bridge World
Nov. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Paul, I do have a copy, and remember reading the Nail-Stucker book. Unfortunately, I have never seen either of Bianchi's books - only the monograph that Edgar Kaplan wrote about the system.

Otherwise i would not have waffled :)

the first entry in Bianchi's WBF bio shows a silver medal at the 1962 European Championship. http://www.eurobridge.org/teamchampRPperson/?qtournid=182 shows that Team Italy did include both Bianchi and Messina.

If people want, I could dust off magazines to see whether or not Leghorn was used in '62 and maybe earlier.
Nov. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Paul - I'm pretty sure that the Italian “Leghorn Diamond” came before the Nail system
Nov. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My fuzzy recall is that at least the ACBL outlawed encrypted signals soon after the Vinje book(s) became available - because of the Vinje encryption being known only to the defenders

That would imply that Bruce was given wrong information by the ACBL. Would not be the first time that legality of conventional treatment was conditionally interpreted depending upon which ACBL representative was asked.

The following document is dated 20 November 2018
IF bolding worked - that was me, not the document

http://web2.acbl.org/documentLibrary/about/181AttachmentD.pdf

Lead and Carding Agreements
Encrypted Signals are never allowed when leading, following suit or discarding. Otherwise:
1. Opening lead: Any method may be used on opening lead. (Leading low from doubletons
must be pre-alerted.)
2. First discard: Any method may be used on the first discard.
Nov. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
there is also a link to the 2019 System Notes on the Team Profiles page at https://usbf.org/2019-open-usbc-team-profiles/2019-open-usbc-dinkin-team-dinkin-shuster-etter-kolesnik

Sam - Thanks for making the notes available to all
Nov. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
as mentioned in #10 above - i thought of MR's #2
… just after reading MR's #2
Oct. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
based on some of the recent threads

1) does # of guaranteed days of play affect decision to attend
2) is likelihood of attendance affected by format
2a) RR + KO
2b) Pure KO with BYEs
2c) length of matches
3) Is venue a factor
4) (waffling about whether to include) seeding method
5) schedule of SUSBC relative to other USBCs
6) does it matter if even qualifies 1 or 2 teams to next world championship
7) does location of next world championship impact decision to play SUSBC
8) days of play
9) cost
10) other (i.e. will think of more as soon as i hit “add comment”
Oct. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
is there a way to identify these non-participants to find out which changes to non-Open USBCs might entice future attendance?
Oct. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
one concern i have always had with the 2:1 weighing is that the 2 is based on INDVIDUAL and the 1 is based on TEAM.

i.e. 2/3 of seeding points come from a combination of: acbl monsterpoints, team events where neither teammates nor partner(s) are on the SUSBC team - in fact may not even be eligible to play in the SUSBC because of either age or residency.

Granted - those other team events are noteworthy, but i'm just not sure if they should blindly translate to twice as important as RR result.

I am very adamant about the fact that i can't do anything other than waffle
Oct. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike, when this topic first arose, i questioned if there should also be SPs for performance in the World Championship Senior Team events.

That was shot down, but i don't recall the argument
Probably has something to do with having to age into being eligible, so rookies never had a chance to play in the WCs
But that could also apply to SPs from previous SUSBCs
Oct. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
was typing my response to David when this came in

treating RR as an event that earns SPs in a way that is analogous to Reisinger would be an approach consistent with my suggestion of altering the algorithm that uses both RR and SPs from the other stuff
Oct. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
regardless of which method is used to determine top 3 or 4 seeds, I think when top 3 get to choose the QF opponent, we should also consider the WBF approach where #1 also sets the SemiFinal bracket rather than a shuffle of 3/4.

I believe historically, if RR winner is outside top 2 places, it has the option to request a reshuffle.
That always seemed at best a token concession to the RR winner.

If RR winner is always #1 or #2 seed, this becomes moot.
Oct. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with the sentiment that RR should be meaningful.
Historically, I think the algorithm of VSR combined with a magical adjustment based upon RR has failed to do that.

I am sure others will argue that BOTH VSR & RR should factor into the KO Seeding, but maybe there is a way to adjust

Possibilities include but aren't limited to
a) RR Winner automatically gets #1 seed
What happens to other high RR finishers needs discussion

b) RR Winner gets no worse than #2 seed
again, this ignores other high RR finishes

c) Adjust the algorithm so that the RR plays a larger role

Surely we have enough data so that an analysis can be done of:
* impact of the RR factor on seeding compared to pure VSR
* VSR seeding of RR winner compared to VSR + RR factor
(pre shuffle)

Where is Henry Bethe when we really need him?
Oct. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
my one contact with Jan was at a Las Vegas National circa 1990.
between rounds i went out into the hall and Jan was whistling. I started whistling along, which got a nod of approval.

but i lost points when i confessed that i did not remember if the piece was from Brahms' Symphony #4 or Symphony #1
Sept. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
does WBF page show board # or how many boards have been played?

seems to me it was the latter, so when boards 17-32 in play, when a table is on #20, an up-to-date display would show scores thru 3

board # would be MUCH better

an addtional useful piece of information would have the display clarify the number of boards for the set

yes all of this info is available elsewhere, but commentators asked too often


(btw - this does not even come close to hitting my list of top 20 most important bbo vugraph improvements, which desperately needs to be expanded after the release of the latest ummm greatest software)
Sept. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
lower=lower is how UvU began
it is easy to remember, some use the mnemonic ‘corresponding major’ where = and -
it is theoretically flawed

1-(2N:minors)-3
opener has to pick a major even if:
* non-descript suit
* at bet tolerance

when 2 touching cues available, it is better to have low q = 4th suit and high q = fit

then opener can use the intermediate step as a punt when unwilling to guess.


i haven't seen this rationale extended to 1m-(2m)-2M where the easy common approach is low=low, or some remember as ‘corresponding minor" where = and =

if you remember agreements by memorization or mnemonics low=low wins at least by historical precedence

if instead you remember by a general rule that says lowest cue causes fewest forced guesses by opener, rather than a new menmonic like low=4th suit, then it doesn’t take much effort to rebuild the specifics at the table

Of course this diatribe does not cover all permutations.
As others have shown, when only 1 cue is available or the 2 possible suits are separated, then adjustments are needed.

i'll spare you some of the other solutions that i've seen.
Sept. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
why are you all looking at the trump suit in isolation

west has shown and east has raised, so west has 4/5
if you trust east's Q then west has 5

assuming declarer cannot handle 4-1 trump, then odds favor west holding doubleton - presumably declarer needs and plays for west to hold honor doubleton which seems to support the actual play of trump to the 10
Sept. 29
Al Hollander edited this comment Sept. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I might bet some of my own money that this just means live feed of only 16 tables, but still all being recorded.

At least i hope that is case
Sept. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David - the increased data set can also be cover positive reasons, not just a deterrent against insidious behavior.

e.g. historians, bridge writers, researchers, coaches, preparation against a pair, post mortem self-analysis, etc

i.e. it doesn't need to be insidious

those people might consider your #2 more important than #1, but the argument about relative importance there might be academic (unless a good operator can go back and update the record when there have been connectivity issues)

another possible case could flip the order so that #3 is most important. that metric depends upon why a viewer watches commentary in the first place. for instance, some spectators might choose to watch a particular commentator for: instruction, amusement, insight about the participants#

# best example = peter gill covering oz players!
Sept. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
thanks Brad

I always forget about that page once convention cards are submitted
Sept. 12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 26 27 28 29
.

Bottom Home Top