Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Allan Graves
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John . You keep using the word “we” as if you speak for some silent majority. Playing tournament bridge is not a right , it is a privilege . The participants have signed off on abiding by the decions of the ethical committee . A panel of the worlds absolute best agreeing that consistently successful bids and plays were illogical by a pair that otherwise played logically with the expected probability of success . That is the evidence that information had been transmitted .
Oct. 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As to the majority required presumably the number would be one that felt comfortable . The logic or lack thereof would usually be obvious to all so I would usually expect close to unanimous agreement assuming the panel were if the very highest caliber . That is of course an absolute requirement . It is a players committee of the worlds absolute best .No exceptions .
Oct. 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes exactly. My solution is only part of the overall approach but an important one . It is very difficult for cheaters to tread the “ tolerance ” tight rope without falling off . That is to say , knowing something and not using it . Moreover constantly having to factor that into ones analysis would lead to errors and mediocre play .Having said that the other methods of prevention , protection and detection are all necessary parts of the solution .
Oct. 13, 2016
Allan Graves edited this comment Oct. 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The proof is the consistent lack of logic supporting successful actions by a world class pair who normallly demonstrate consistently good logic . We are not talking about lucky plays by poor players . We are talking about the worlds best tournaments . Sorry I thought that was clear . Players of unimpeachable integrity would by definition put their love of the game before any self interest . I should have made that clear . The fact that nine players are involved in this decision would eliminate any possibility of error . As I said all other attempts to catch cheats and attempts to determine how they are doing it would continue . But the burden of proof is the lack of logic and the permission to abide by that is given at the outset . No non cheating pair would object to those conditions .
Oct. 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The evidence is the overwhelming lack of logic that is always successful. It would work and yes we do want it to.
Otherwise we are held hostage , knowing they are cheating, but unable to determine how.
You are worried about a scenario where someone is found guilty who is innocent. That would be impossible with a large sample. of illogical bids and plays.
Oct. 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A “ Supreme Court ” of ,say, nine blue chip world experts of unimpeachable integrity , that had the final word on whether there is cheating is the solution . After reviewing a large collection of hands that were illogical they would be able to say “ we don't know how you are cheating but we know you are cheating ” . Participants would sign off on agreeing to this oversight before play began . All rational protections against cheating would of course stay in place and continue to evolve . The argument for or against electronic bridge would continue . However the ultimate hammer of “ your bridge is illogical and you are no longer welcome in tournament bridge ” would be an effective solution and a powerful deterrent .
Oct. 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No problem Cameron . Just a question of semantics on second thought .For the record as to the main question I am against a selection committee and for team trials .
Oct. 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You did not understand my proposal because I did not edit it well . I am not in favor of selectors .( in fact nowhere did I use the term selector ) I I am in favor of an international teams committe that understands the fiduciary duty of managing the international expense money . In spite of a lot of good effort by a lot of good CBF people we have a poor record internationally given that we have had from time it time a number of talented players who have been sucessful in tough acbl tournaments . We should be studying in particular those other small countries like the Netherlands who have been very successful . It begins as I have stated by separating the conflicted CBF mission statement into two streams . Grassroots and international teams . Combining the two has not worked well. Is not working well now and never will work well . I repeat I am in favor of a process that at this time is based on providing an avenue where our best and committed players can compete against each other in a long , vigorous and concentrated event. It should be reviewed every few years . The grassroots is for celebrating bridge the, Canadian way and with an appreciation for the friendly rivalry of provincial competition that we engage in in all sorts of sports and activities . Please go to Canada games 2017 Winnipeg to see what u think Canadian mind sports . Bridge and chess at least should be , at least periphally , part of . I'm out .. For now lol
Oct. 1, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
They used it in 1968, 1972, 1974 for the Olypiad pair trials and 1976 . You simply applied for the 1978 Olypiad ( the first Rosenbloom . Canada had X spots and filled them by application I played in all of them beginning in 1972. so I had first hand knowledge Winning the BC team trials i n1972 and 1976 and the 1974 BC Pair trials ( Canada had X spots for pairs in those days and did it provincially in a stroke of genius probably inpired by Murray ) They were great fun and attracted wide and strong participation.( The first CNTC was 1980 ) They would be even better seperated from the international trials. Canada enjoys its friendly provincial rivalries . A well organized provincial progrm.in all 3 flights would bring the provinces bridge players together . You could use also incentivize local sectionals and regionals by allowing individual players to get seeding points . A provincial team could then add up their seeding points and perhaps get a bye thourgh a stage . All teams however would be welcome to enter . . The last CNTC had total participation of 239 players out of some 20 000 ACBl players. . The CBF has good people working hard but clearly it is not relevant to the average bridge player.
Go to this link to see my dream which is to have mindsports associaed witht the Canada summer games.
http://www.2017canadagames.ca/en/content/winnipeg-2017
We have to start somewhere. The game is dying . The clock has already struck 12
Sept. 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mr French you misrepresent my position unfairly. I said nothing about a selection committee but rather “Almost all applications would be accepted I would think” The point there which I thought was obvious was that flight C players for eg would be inappropriate. and routed to the provincial playdowns. I still think that not very many teams would apply but regardless all would be involved in whatever the process was. .
The key to my proposal is the seperation of the National competition grounded in a local base , empahisinzing local teams and partnerships to provide a fun and meaningful avenue for good bridge on all three flights. This obviously has to be separate from the International trials which is wide open geographically and a long hard expensive undertaking for serious participants. The CBF simply does not have the resources to fund that process. I should have said details to be worked out. One thing though the current CNTC format where a short round robin partly based on beating bad teams soundly is not a good method. Some of those teams are there because they want to participate in a Canadian championship. That is why it is important and will be successful to have a well thought out National championsip based on ten provincial champions.
I am sure your favourite team is delighted to have such a committed fan. I gaurantee you ,however, that none of them would agree with your statement and would be relieved to be removed from that pedestal.
Sept. 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mr Gowdy , We already have half a dozen right fielders. Any chance you could play out in left feild ?
Sept. 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
They no langer play that I am told.
Sept. 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Great hand . 1S promising 3 a very poor treatment IMO . You tell them how to go plus In a tight partscore battle with very little in return over the long run . Best to play You might have 3 or 4 min . Playing this way you have a 2.5 spade bid .
Sept. 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Are you referring to my suggestion to separate the national grassroots component of the CBF mission statement from the International team selection process ?
Sept. 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If a pair disputes the actual trick result then the process to resolve this must be clear and efficient .
For eg a requirement pairs remain for the entire ten minutes and some efficient way to find each other. The idea is not to punish people but rather to ensure the results are accurate . At some reasonable point the result is official . This point would be different IMO for a pair event than for a KO match . The famous Canada Germany travesty should never have occurred as well as the 2015 Spingold quarter final where Scwartz lost to Cayne by 1 imp even though Cayne player Lotan Fisher agreed he had misclaimed an extra trick . Regardless of the infamous committee ruling giving Cayne 2 imps for a 1 imp win . The official result should have been a tie and a short playoff for the match . The idea is that if at all possible determine what actually happened and then adjust things accordingly . However Changing procedures to include a score reconciliation period would remedy almost all of the foreseeable problems regardless of the event . If Boye and I had the habit of score reconciliation as the norm we would have spotted the false claim after we had imped the 15 board session .
Sept. 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With the mandatory 19th hole scoring reconciliation eithe Sabine and Roy or the polish pair would have found the error .
Sept. 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Lol I doubt Canadians would do that .and that scenario would not be allowed . Yellowknife is not in a province but I would modify my proposal to allow territory players to participate in their nearest province .
Sept. 30, 2016
Allan Graves edited this comment Sept. 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The grassroots event would attract a lot of interest . It would reinvigorate bridge on a local level across the country as provincial play down would include some incentives to participate locally throughout the year . To say that This or that province is the National champion would be a good and meaningful event. The trials would basically stay the same as far as I can see except many of the players who have little to no chance would much prefer to compete locally to be the provincial champion . The international trials would be for those who seriously wanted to do that. As things stand now participation in CBF activities is extremely low . You , for instance , could form a BC team and try and win the National championship and also play in the international trials on a different team of your choosing . As I said I would imagine no entry to international trials would be turned down. I think you misunderstood my proposal and for that I apologize .
Sept. 30, 2016
Allan Graves edited this comment Sept. 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
well at important tournaments if you don't keep score then you can't play. That would cut through that. The process would not be optional.
Sept. 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Head and shoulders ? Oh Please. No thinking Canadian bridge player considered the trials result an upset. There was no clear favourite .
The CNTC method of combining a grand national with a international trials is , has been , and always will be a poor method of selecting. In Canada, much better would be:
First for the “ Grassroots” component a Country wide team championship modeled after the Briar( Curling for the heathen reading this ) 1 team per province. Play a 10 province tournament along with the Canada summer games athletic competition which is provincial. They may even get some provincial money for it.
Secondly For the international team ; A completely different process.
those teams who want to be considered to be Canada's team simply apply. The committee that made those decisions would be beyond reproach and not involved as players. Almost all applications would be accepted I would think and the international team committee then sets things up that would result in a 4 team final each year. If more than 4 teams applied there could be a winnowing process that was convenient for the teams involved. These matches and the finals could be played at a bIg bridge club. . The final four would play long matches, over in 3 or 4 days. Maybe you could mandate 4 man teams with a selected pair from the last 4 teams. Any rational method based on my opening suggestion would be better for an international team.
The Briar model for the country wide championship would undoubtedly re invigorate bridge across Canada. For instance teams that played together and won in sectionals or regionals could get seeding points into the provincial final. you could have flight A and B. Therefore everyone could participate at the provincial level ,It would bring people together. . Clearly some provinces would have a much stronger team than some other provinces, but so what ? Selecting the provincial champion would have been good competition for those involved and the final ten provincial teams would have an excellent time together . It would be great for all Canadian bridge players wherever they lived.
Any good player who had the time and money required to play internationally for Canada ( The CBF is not wealthy so expenses are only partially covered. ) would simply be involved on a team of his choosing through the application process. Two completely different events.
Sept. 29, 2016
Allan Graves edited this comment Sept. 29, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top