Join Bridge Winners
All comments by David Levin
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Deleted (redundant with my above comment).
July 21, 2015
David Levin edited this comment July 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How's that you omitted “4013”?
July 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't see seeding, if it's done properly, as providing an “undeserved” advantage to those who are seeded.

In a typical tennis tournament (with single elimination), if the #1 or #2 seed wins the event, that player will have played at most one of the top two seeds. But, any other player might have faced both top seeds in order to win the event. This is certainly “advantageous” for the top two seeds, but it's an advantage they've earned due to their record.

The principle seems applicable to matchpoint pairs. Certainly it's “easier” to compete against X seeded pairs than against X+1 seeded pairs. But, the inability of a seeded pair to play against itself isn't the pair's fault, it's inherent to combative sport.
July 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If it were decided that the payment of WBF dues should be the responsibility of the National Organizations rather than the ACBL, I think that this change should come about through a transition plan that has been worked out by the National Organizations and the ACBL, rather than coming about by the ACBL's acting unilaterally.
July 21, 2015
David Levin edited this comment July 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“It's also not intuitive that failing to seed a late entry would discourage people from registering late. If being seeded makes it easier to win, then I object to the process of seeding.”

Todd, my understanding of seeding in pairs events is that it's designed to spread the better players throughout the sections and in both directions, so that any two pairs would face roughly the same number of better pairs and be competing directly against roughly the same number of better pairs.

If a late entry that would warrant being seeded cannot be seeded, this could result in its section's being disproportionately strong, which could put most of the pairs in that section at a disadvantage relative to the other sections.

I'm not familiar with the mechanics of pairs seeding, assuming that I correctly understand the purpose behind it.
July 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“He is surprised that many of the wealthy players who sponsor teams and individual bridge professionals do little if anything to sponsor the game (or, as he thinks of it, sport) and that some collective effort by many of these bridge sponsors could raise the profile of the game beyond its current low level.”

If the implication is that more of these wealthy players should “sponsor the game,” I have two questions: (1) How did this become their responsibility? (2) Doesn't their sponsoring teams and individuals “sponsor the game” to a considerable extent?
July 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If Item 152-74 is intended to speed things up, why would allowing “late” entry even be considered? If this item were put forward by a government, one might wonder whether the underlying purpose was to raise revenue.
July 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Suppose I am accustomed to getting in the entry line 15 minutes before an event's published start time (PSt) and the assignments' being posted 15 minutes after the PSt. If instead I have to get in line 30 minutes before the PSt and wait until the PSt for the assignments, I still have a 30-minute interval between when I get in line and when the assignments are posted. It's not clear to me that changing to the latter would provide substantive benefit.
July 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“How youth should be taught bidding is dependent, I think, upon what they have been taught about bridge before being taught about bidding.”

Definitely.

“Compared to what David is proposing, I suspect the bidding lessons we teach are a little more mechanical and a little less evaluative. <snip> I am not sure if that difference is good or is bad, but at least it has the general benefit of using the bidding’s estimate of values to reinforce what the youth have already been taught about components that contribute to trick taking and about the value of game bonuses.”

Perhaps for programs such as New England Youth Bridge, the method I'm proposing would best serve as another tool in the instructor's repertoire.
July 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“To me a bid can be ‘forcing’ or ‘non-forcing’, but not both (in reference to the semi-forcing 1N response to 1M).”

In the form of semi-forcing 1N response to 1M with which I'm familiar, opener passes only with a balanced minimum.
July 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
See also the following recent Bridge Winners articles and the comments therein:

posted June 27
http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/a-rationale-for-1-of-acbl-dues-going-to-the-wbf/

posted June 23
http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/funding-international-teams-funding-cheating/
July 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree, the instructor has to allow for different learning styles.
July 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I've always thought keyboards should come with automatically-faulty caps-lock.”

The caps-lock does seem to be in a pretty stupid place, apparently taken mindlessly from the mechanical typewriter.
July 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I believe that Ed's metaphor is based on usage of the word “shouting” to refer to all-caps.
July 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sam, for Deal 24, the auction is given differently in the two diagrams.
July 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry, I should have made clear that the confusing part for me was "doubleton spade".
July 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm confused by this sentence in the second paragraph on page 6: “The most dangerous situation is when West has a doubleton spade and you go the wrong way in clubs. ”
July 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Finally I find our ridicule of North's claim that he would have bid 4 a little ironic.”

Tom, being that it was in a comment rather than in the article, perhaps you missed the original poster's statement that North is an experienced director/player/teacher. I would assume that such a person would suspect from the auction, that 3N wasn't natural (lack of alerts notwithstanding). Yet, he waited until after his final pass to seek information about the opponents' bids. These actions seem inconsistent with an earnest intent to bid 4 if 3N had been alerted.
July 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Has the possibility been considered, to send the edited draft to all attendees of the proceeding and ask for comments. Among its benefits would be to avoid having to guess whether the person who uttered a given statement would want it published.
July 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This discussion brings to mind a question that might not bear on the issue at hand: should the Laws or supplementary documents make explicit whether a player is entitled to consider information about his/her teammates (such as their partnership agreements), which would be applicable when playing BAM or IMPs? (I haven't checked whether the Laws or supplementary documents already address this.)
July 16, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top