Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Allan Graves
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
that make this a viable business. Now one could say that that is the business risk of a capitalist model but if you consider being part of the ACBL Masterpoints plan to be part of your business model then consider this.. The ACBL will award the identical Masterpoints sanction to a church game with no overhead who will then take your players because of lower table fees. Moreover these single session or few session clubs typically add nothing to the development base of the ACBL. In other words the ACBL competes against you and promotes unfair competition while simultaneously syphoning development revenue away from development centers into non developmental clubs. Now please, this is a broad statement with exceptions undoubtedly, so trolls please hold your trolling , but as a description of the ACBL and its relationship with clubs it is accurate.
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
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Club games are, or should be the backbone of organized bridge. they should be segregated as to peer group as much as possible. If a peer group game is not offered then destructive conventions such as suction , should be severely restricted. The argument that pairs need to practice destructive conventions or play against them for practice is nonsense. They are unfair unless it is within the top group. Unfair trumps everything else at the club level.
Feb. 12, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Better is a Polish originated approach. It is based on a hierarchy ; Default discard is negative and count. Next, If applicable , negative and Lavinthal, Next If applicable, Positive in suit discarded. Else nothing at all, just throwing a card. It is a surprisingly effective. Needs to be in tempo but that is the case with all discarding system that have not been banned in ACBL such as odd even discarding past first discard.
Feb. 12, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richie “ the Horse ” was famous for his horse racing acumen. He was one of the first to keep an extensive book of statistics on the horses and race tracks that went much deeper than the racing form. His serious bridge partnerships were equally well prepared with extensive system notes in print and audio that reflected the input of many of his partners. He was an excellent professional gambler and his bridge game reflected a very sophisticated grasp of risk/reward I learned a lot from him about that.He focused very well and got the most out of his game. . Like a character from a novel he lived most of his life in hotels. Bye Richie . Don't worry about the swimming poor temperature at the Pearly Gates , they don't have one ,but the windows open and the air is good.
Feb. 10, 2019
Allan Graves edited this comment Feb. 10, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Professor Puch's project is a terrific initiative which we all should wholeheartedly support. The benefits of playing bridge can be properly expressed and thoroughly researched by proper scientific methodology. The money she raises goes to this research . Grad student PHD projects on the benefits would be very helpful to marketing initiatives to every demographic that one would think bridge would appeal to. Let us show the world what a great and completely human game bridge is and teach them how to play it.
it is good and good for you.
Feb. 7, 2019
Allan Graves edited this comment Feb. 7, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So well deserved in every conceivable way.
Jan. 20, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Collusive cheating should be a lifetime ban for both players. No exceptions. It is too easy to cheat at bridge to take any chances whatsoever with repeat behaviour and making players play against known cheats is completely unreasonable. “ Rehabilitation ” is not only in the eye of the beholder but completely irrelevant.
Dec. 8, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is a big mistake to have flight C players in the same game as flight A players. It is never ever, good to do that. There is zero data to support that you learn when you are completely overmatched and indeed much data to suggest the opposite. There is also much collateral damage such as the game is decided by which A pair can jockey the most tops from the C pairs. This leads to unscrupulous gamesmanship from a few A players against the C players.
This is one reason why some games are having trouble holding on their better
There are many other similar factors that strongly support no C players against A players.
If you peruse posted online scores from any random club game you choose that has C players vs A players you will see many 30 % games. For those of you reading this who remember the old hand scored sheets that were posted on a 12 top 156 average, 30% is 93
That is absurd in a duplicate game. 93 was almost unheard of. Now it is common. That is not a fair competition and the result is that the weaker players will quit for obvious reasons and many stronger players who are simply looking for a good bridge game will also quit again for obvious reasons.
Dec. 8, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I posted a separate comment instead.
Dec. 8, 2018
Allan Graves edited this comment Dec. 8, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Congrats to the winners , well done
Nov. 28, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well done
Oct. 7, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Jack See my comment above . Declarative Interogative was old BT method adapted by KS .
It’s roots theoretically would begin withnthe Culbertson 4 /5 NT convention that maintained dialogue and control agreement and was an integral part of Culbertson and predated Blackwood . Excellent method for its time but BW obviously simpler and almost as good .
Sept. 19, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The DI used by the BT was undefined as to keycards . Turbo is a relatively modern advance rigidly defined as to key cards .
I played DI that was modified in a manner suggested by Kaplan in a late fifties in a Bridge World article . Non jump 4NT after suit agreement promised X number of Aces and at least 2nd round control of all unbid suits . Ergo failure to use DI denied the requirements for DI . X was usually 2 but could be 3 or 1 under some rigidly controlled circumstances . Responder to DI would sign off in agreed trump when off 2 aces . Would co operate below 5T off 1Ace by showing a feature or , rarely , last train . Could jump to slam off 1 Ace (;Good trump and or fit )Must bid 5NT with remaining aces or could Q between 5T and 6 T with remainder aces and striong grand slam interest ( jump to 6 of possible alternate trumps was a choice off 1 Ace ) In Addition I played super Gerber to 5 level from 4 level to take control with a slam drive and grand slam interest that could be solved by the response . I played this as early as the late sixties and with Mittelman from the late seventies . It was extremely effective as it maintained a co operative dialogue within the parameters of Ace and control certainty.Clearly modern Turbo is a similiar method to maintain dialogue with keycard certainty . The BT club started with 2/1 control resp to one club so they had theoretical certainty in those auctions but only in those auctions .I had impeccably ethical and brilliant teammates who were multiple international medalists . They played BT DI and Q bid theory for awhile and they had a number of small and grand slam disastersbecause they didn’t use the BT rule . Using the BT rule provides Ace certainty without the inconvenient fuss of either the method I used or modern turbo. I played tens thousands of boards with my version of Controlled DI . I deeply respect Mr Burn but I can assure the readers it is not possible to avoid disaster playing BT Q bids and old DI without the BT rule. Some Ace understanding is required . In addition some advanced intermediate skill was needed to recognize when 4NT was DI . I doubt the BT had ever to use bridge logic to determine what 4NT meant . Michael Becker’s story about “ let’s play straight Georgio “ and the old BT pair then having a small slam two Ace disaster to lose B.B. is quite ironic .
Sept. 19, 2018
Allan Graves edited this comment Sept. 19, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You make a good point about clear rules rather than optimal agreements. Say for example the auction goes 1D - 2D : inverted , then later 3NT , removed to 4D , then we would all agree that 4NT is regressive. However support in the posted question was first agreed at the 4 level and both partners are unlimited. You need a key card ask to at least facillitate the the grand slams . Mr. Clayton stated that 4NT is their only key card ask so that must take precedence. To bet that 4NT is a better contract than 5D at the expense of an easy slam auction, particularly a grand, is not good utility. In the inverted auction I offered, an unlimited slam going opener, or responder for that matter,had ample opportunity to start some kind of key card as before the 4NT in question. . The clear rule is that there is a key card road below and up to 4NT in the absence of a more sophisticated agreement, and that should dominate. Then the regressive situatations become more obviouis.
Sept. 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
First chance to ask for key cards after support in an unlimited auction is clearly Blackwood . If it had proceeded 4D instead of 3S no one would assume 4Nt was natural in the abscence of an agreement and this auction is identical ,
Sept. 3, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top