Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Eric Sieg
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I voted for need help in spades, but admittedly most of my more in depth conversations on Drury have been in strong club partnerships where the suit setting/slam try demanding a cue option doesn't make sense.
Feb. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Pretty sure 11HCP is my min for a game bid and made. Slam I remember 17 for sure as one that I bid to make (and avoided the temptation to XX), not sure if I've bid and made a slam on less than that.
Jan. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peg: It seems likely that this will reduce the appeal of regionals for some. However, I'm not sure that it necessarily follows that this will be bad for regionals. It seems like a natural progression could be:

1) REACH becomes more mainstream, with REACH events 4x per year
2) Some people who need gold points have an alternative way to get gold points and stop attending regionals
3) The regionals on the brink of dying, do so.
4) The regionals that don't die off now have less competition and absorb some players from the regionals that were killed.

While this process would reduce the total # of regionals in the ACBL, it seems like the quality/attendance of the regionals that remain could remain on par. It might also condense people who are interested in regionals for reasons other than “gold points for LM” increasing the strength of the field which might be a good thing.

I'm not sure I love the REACH idea, but it seems like there is potential there if managed correctly. I think it would be especially interesting if districts (especially those w/ a very high # of regionals) were incentivized to prune regionals with a higher % cut of the REACH proceeds if they do so.
Jan. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Don, I would happily wager a c-note that you are being overly pedantic. The spirit of Bahar's statement seems clear: almost everyone is near a school and could take part, yet participation is lower than he would like.
Jan. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think this is an interesting idea, will see how it goes. I just wish all the $$ stayed in the ACBL, preferably back to the districts, units, and clubs. Rather than “world bridge”, why not 40% to the district, 40% to the unit, and 20% to the club owners. Club owner allotment could be based on sessions by REACH members. Or if payouts to club owners gets problematic for whatever reason then paying it to the unit and district would be great as well. Not sure I understand why “world bridge” is the beneficiary of regional events that are run at clubs.
Jan. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How far are you going back to find the “top dollar for masterpoints”? Given the existence of gold rush pairs and bracket X KOs, the concept of cheapening gold points is certainly not a new one.
Jan. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One thing I DO like about this is the optional buy in. People who want the points can pay more, those who don't care don't have to pay extra. This seems a lot better than STACs where it costs extra whether or not you care about the chance to win extra silver.
Jan. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I like your suggestion Adam. Do you have any thoughts on how to modify it (if at all) when the opponents are playing a precision 2?
Jan. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not opening this 1C is flagrantly against system and partnership agreements. Evaluating this as 11-15 HCP hand would not only break agreements, but would also contradict every online hand evaluator that I'm aware of. K&R puts this as 18.9, DK as 17+.
Jan. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have always seen Jay's tools/website/etc as focused on helping the bridge world rather than on making profit. He obviously needs to have some sort of business entity and it being “for profit” is a no brainer since making a standard LLC is trivial and making a non profit entity is less so. If he made some profit off the endeavor to help balance the labor involved, that would be fine too.

A whole lot of things I think are disingenuous in the OP:

1) The common game doesn't require any sort of email/photo/etc signup. All you need is to know your ACBL #.

2) He is not “systematically collecting ACBL player numbers”, that information is trivially available already from a variety of sources including ACBL Live.

3) The 400k links thing seems designed to incite a reaction based on a high number rather than any real evaluation of how many links are available where.

4) There is complaining about “no bid” contracts without information on how much money is actually being made. I've never paid money to the common game. I don't believe the clubs that participate pay money. There are no ads being served when I go to the common game. Where exactly is all the $$ coming from?

While I usually enjoy your posts Nic, I think going after someone who has done a great job of providing tools for clubs and tournaments well ahead of the ACBL implementation does not reflect well on you. As he has a track record of success, it makes sense to enlist Jay's help in areas where it would be appropriate and I applaud the ACBL for doing so instead of insisting on developing everything internally.
Jan. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What's wrong with the ACBL benefiting financially?
Jan. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm on BBO every week or two and fall into the category of under 30 points. Heck, I think its about 6. Looking at masterpoints as a proxy for how active someone is online seems silly since that's just a tiny factor. I've played in maybe a half dozen tournaments on BBO and am in the 1000+ logins category.
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't believe so, just natural bidding
Jan. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
An interesting poll imo would be for those who bid a suit, whether they are bidding diamonds or hearts first
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Follow-up from previous poll where the vast majority chose to bid a semi forcing 1NT on their first turn: https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bidding-problem-2-n3mpcgdw0l/
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sure Don, but “never” is a really long time. If someone is caught blatantly cheating in their youth and then wants to come back 30-40 years later, perhaps to play for fun. Is the answer always going to be no? At what point can sins be forgiven? Fantoni/Nunes should never EVER be allowed back in in my opinion, even 40 years from now. However, I don't think all situations that can and should result in expulsion are as permanently unforgiveable as what they did.
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
expected length for 2 would be 4+ in both minors. Typically 9 cards in the minors, although on this auction partner could be 4144. The only agreed upon scenario where partner would bid 2 without 4+ diamonds would be with 1435 with a non minimum after 1 p 1 p, 2 could now be 1435 and plan to correct 2 back to 2 to show the exact shape and values.
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Wish there was a poll option for “I was neutral before and am now against it” and also then “I was neutral before and am now for it”
Jan. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner has seen me bid 3NT down 4 before and likely will again!
Jan. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I thought about that play as well leonard, but played a diamond since LHO having AQJ of spades is a possibility which makes it hard to guess to duck a spade to get partner in for another trump. I also thought I would feel silly losing to AQ on my left. I've similarly had a lot of luck leading small to the J in these situations where I thought it was likely RHO had the Q and they almost never insert it.
Jan. 11
.

Bottom Home Top