You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree 100% with a focus on winning tricks ( before the defence achieves their winning tricks goal ) and with those arguments supporting that approach. It also applies to defensive card play. You do the learner a great disservice by focusing on losers ahead of winners. Rank ( may involve promotion),“ Length ”( through exhausting the opponents of the suit ) and Position ( ie finesse etc ) are the same in NT or Trumps. Basic probability should also be mentioned. The various ways that trumps facilitate taking tricks because they outrank the other three suits are part of the magic of bridge and certainly, any new player can appreciate those ways if properly presented. Trick winning applies to the bidding as well. Bidding anticipates the play. The better you play the better you will bid. Bidding is gambling on trick totals so evaluating trick winning is paramount to becoming a better bidder and appreciating the inherent risk/reward principle which is the ground of the scoring and therefore the ground of the game, Clearly what the defence can or will win, or if on defence ,what declarer can or will win is important but again you are simply counting tricks. Just their tricks. Must win X before they win Y. All “ advanced ” techniques are driven by trick counting and are needlessly complicated or almost impossible if your primary focus is on losers. That is because your winning tricks will be determined by events that will occur as the hand evolves. If that, then this. It is not as if “ make your hand good at a trump contract ” leads to brilliant beginning declarers and indeed by masking what is actually going on it hinders them.
Therefore teach the winning tricks approach to beginners in both NT or Trumps.
June 16, 2019
Allan Graves edited this comment June 16, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A good general agreement for all partnerships is “ all doubles are non penalty until we find a fit. Then Doubles are penalty ” From that you make a list of exceptions. Ergo this double is penalty . Kit's logic is as good as any so I see no need to make an exception. Regarding “ non penalty doubles ” you should further differentiate into takeout , points, or conventional and further have some general definition regarding how many cards a non penalty double is “ expected” to have in the opponents suit.
June 15, 2019
Allan Graves edited this comment June 15, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Very well done
June 9, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is brilliant Kit
It is exactly how Ghandi approached many such issues.
May 7, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
tipping point is coming . also memphis nationals
April 29, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bryan and Brad et al are spot on
April 28, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The Blue Ribbon was a stand alone premier event. Day 1 was not impacted by another premier event That is what made it premier . When you now create an overlapping event that you consider premium you simply consider them parallel premier events and allow drop ins . This should not be an issue . Moreover it is simply bad policy for a tournament that wants to consider itself a top tournament to force teams that were successful enough to get to the quarter finals to now sit around for two days it is just bad PR
April 27, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
yes Joey was older than both Mike and I. Everything Mike said was true.
April 2, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Great show by the whole team. Not as much of an upset as you might think
April 2, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
sport (n.)
early 15c., “pleasant pastime,” shortening of disport “activity that offers amusement or relaxation; entertainment, fun” (c. 1300), also “a pastime or game; flirtation; pleasure taken in such activity” (late 14c.), from Anglo-French disport, Old French desport, deport “pleasure, enjoyment, delight; solace, consolation; favor, privilege,” related to desporter, deporter “to divert, amuse, please, play” (see sport (v.)), also compare disport (n.).
Game
1) : a physical or mental competition conducted according to rules with the participants in direct opposition to each other

The etymology of game is obscure . Can anyone research this better ?
Miriam Webster seems to define them similarly although in our common usage their is a difference
One difference for our purposes is the element of chance is less in the sport than in the game .

Mind sport seems ok for duplicate bridge
Card game for rubber bridge
Same skill sets , same game although clearly
The two activities are different as their objectives after determining a raw deal score are different .
Discussing these differences would be instructive .
March 28, 2019
Allan Graves edited this comment March 28, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Canadian Bridge is not for the fainthearted nor the cold blooded and slams on a finesse only refer to the last finesse.
March 26, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I disagree with. my great friend Boye, This is not in any way shape or form an attempt at equivalency of harm but what if a preschool principle readmitted a convicted paedophile and assured you they were rehabilitated? Would you enrol your child? The abuse of trust and lasting harm of the perpetrator is such that the community cannot take the chance of a re-offence. Collusive cheating should be a lifetime “ one and done ” sentence.
Rember collusive cheaters are con(fidence) men who are adept at developing a relationship with you, gaining your confidence and then breaking that trust to their advantage and your harm. The con- mans verbal assurances, although charismatic, are usually worthless See Madoff, Bernie . They can still play bridge, just not organized tournament bridge. The rest of their life is up to them and clearly not being able to play tournament bridge is not a life-altering hardship. Con-men can always find another con or heaven forbid, do something legitimate outside the bridge world. We cannot afford to indulge their likely re-offense . They lost the privilege of being able to play tournament bridge when they were caught.
March 26, 2019
Allan Graves edited this comment March 26, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Projects like this are critical to the survival of bridge in North America. The passenger pigeon was once a billion strong but after being hunted to 6 million it became extinct in a few years. The average age of a tournament player is 73 , The game is not being passed on effectively in the non tournament world and will be such a quaint novelty in a generation that it will no longer be relevant to the overwhelming majority of North Americans. There will no longer be the critical mass to sustain it. If you have enjoyed the bridge community over your lifetime please help in any way you can. Either teach some friends to play rubber bridge ( not duplicate, they can play that later if they want ) or contribute to projects such as Samantha's
Every little bit of effort, in any way you choose, no matter how insignificant it may appear, will help
March 15, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Double transfers have been around since the 1970 's. You have to bid 2C then 2 Major with invitaional hands . You can play it with hearts as well as spades and sort out the tradeoffs any way you want.
March 11, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It has happened constantly everywhere. Seriously .
And Yes the Hazel Wolpert case was egregous.
March 7, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Randy I did mention it , but good to repeat it.
March 7, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good points Randy . Most unfortunately ,of those 2441 clubs are currently “ full service ” (ie in a stable facility , open most of the time and with a strong development and player service program ) they are rapidly becoming an extremely poor investment because if I was to run a nice full service club with a. strong new players development program in a nice facility I have overhead and salaries and some form on increasing owner equity needed to justify my investment. Consequently I need to charge table fees and/or membership dues
They also do that by the proliferation of Sectionals and Regionals which add nothing to development but are as much driven by Masterpoint accumulation as they are by any “ love of the game gathering of the clan top competition ” . Every dollar spent at a regional or sectional is a dollar that does not go to a full service club and consequently is not a dollar spent on good ongoing daily service , and hence customer loyalty, and first class development. Any savvy business or marketing expert would see this immediately take whatever steps are necessary to make owning a full service club a good investment. That would be undoubtedly be job one. Jay pointed this out directly in his criticism of the ACBL governance model.On this matter his is an experienced voice that to be listened to.
March 7, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Everything needs to be on the table, so your suggestion warrants consideration. My opinion is that it would need to be taken over “ whole ” rather than dismantled. The ACBL has some valuable physical and intellectual assets that would be hard to replace on short notice should not be squandered.
March 7, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Terry , Thanks for responding. Not sure what your comment is referring to . Could you elaborate please ?
March 7, 2019
Allan Graves edited this comment March 7, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I understand why the Nationals opinion expressed by Jay has drawn discussion but the core of his presentation is the deterioration of the clubs and the failed governance model. . If bridge is going to survive it will be through healthy profitable clubs providing a good experience for all bridge players and all those non bridge players who have always wanted to learn. However no business person in their right mind would buy or start a bridge club under the current ACBL “ business ” model. It would be a ridiculous investment. Full service club owners are aging in the same way as the players and there is no one to replace them, same as the players. Secondly he was strongly critical of the ACBL governance structure . Let us discuss these issues as well.
March 7, 2019
Allan Graves edited this comment March 7, 2019
.

Bottom Home Top