Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Eugene Hung
1 2 3 4 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 69 70 71 72
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Comment by Paul Elstein flagged as an offensive personal attack and removed. Please keep your comments polite and civil on Bridge Winners.
June 10, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This article has been flagged as a bidding problem and it will be removed. Please do not create articles that are bidding problems, but use the ‘create bidding problem’ feature instead.
June 10, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am closing this thread because there is now a new thread about new developments and this thread is becoming too large to read (and getting full of comments attempting to “pad” the number - something which we do not wish to encourage). Please use the new thread to continue discussion.
June 7, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This has been flagged by members of the community as an opening lead problem. Removing. Please repost as a problem, not an article.
May 31, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Comment by Rick Roeder flagged by the community for containing inappropriate remarks and removed. Remember this is a public forum, not a private conversation.
May 31, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My point is that the mindset that “a qualifying team should not able to change its composition for the championships because that would jeopardize the integrity of the trials”, is not a logical mindset to have. There are plenty of existing provisions for cases where a qualifying team has to be modified and nobody really feels it was unjust. As long as a significant majority of the qualifying team can continue, they continue (and usually, a replacement is found who is as good or better).

I don't see modifying a qualified team as a disaster, but I do agree that it's not something we should want to encourage. If that were the only concern, then yes, we should definitely not allow people to enter multiple trials. However, there are conflicting objectives at play. The argument others are making is that by allowing more people to enter, the overall event is better, and participation is improved because now one doesn't have to restrict oneself to merely one event. These benefits might make such a multiple-entry policy reasonable to implement even though it increases the “risk” that a player or pair might have to drop out. I don't know if I believe the benefits are worth it, but I do believe the downside risk of “jeopardizing the integrity of the trials process via a dropout” is exaggerated.

I also find the arguments that say “choice” is the important difference in the attitude towards replacements, to be flawed. Imagine if a qualifying player chose to go skiing, and then ran into a tree. The player had a “choice” not to ski and risk letting his team down, but he chose to take the risk and, through a combination of bad luck and bad skiing, became incapable of representing his country. Should we, the other trial participants, then feel cheated if the skier's team goes to the championship without that player? Or substitute skiing with some other potentially dangerous activity that the player wanted to do – that player had the “choice” to avoid the activity, but the net result is the same. Now compare the dangerous activity with the “choice” of entering another trials for an event held at the same time of the event you already qualified for. Not even the best players are good enough to guarantee winning any Trial at the national level. All they are doing is entering with the hope of winning – some with more hope than others, but none with a guarantee. If, unfortunately, one happens to win multiple events, they'll resolve it, and one team will have to reconfigure – but the people who lost to the reconfiguring team should not feel cheated out of a title. If you played well enough against the shorthanded team, then you'll get chosen to replace them. If you're not chosen, then you didn't play well enough.
May 30, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Danny, how would you feel if Michael loses in the Seniors, goes home, and then suffers a stroke after reading a ridiculous cardplay analysis on Bridge Winners, making him physically incapable of playing in the Mixed Championship? Would you feel cheated because the team that ends up representing the USA in China wasn't the same team that qualified in the trials, and might have been beaten by your team?

In my opinion, having someone win a trials and then not participate in the championship is not a desirable outcome, but you can't prevent it from happening, even if you barred people from trying to qualify for multiple championships that occur at the same time. And if it does occur, it does not invalidate the trial result unless the winners become completely incapable of fielding a team afterwards. I don't know how far we should go to prevent this from happening (because improving strength of field and popularity of event are conflicting objectives), but I feel having a slightly different team in the final event does not invalidate the entire trial.
May 30, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Comment by Finn Kolesnik flagged by the community for containing inappropriate remarks and removed. Remember this is a public forum, not a private conversation.
May 30, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Comment flagged by the community as containing a contemporary political reference and removed. Please, no references or discussion of contemporary politics on this site unless it directly impacts bridge.
May 29, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Comment by Robert Greene flagged by the community and removed because many people found it offensive.
May 25, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
More verbal sparring? So much for asking nicely. As of now, I declare this subthread effectively closed. Any further replies here WILL be removed and you may lose your posting privileges as well.
May 8, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am going to step in here in my role as moderator and point out that there has been a concerted effort by many members of the community to change one man's mind. If you think you can do better – please don't. It's quite clear he isn't changing it. I will ask ALL participants in this subthread to please take this specific discussion to private messages, because it's generating far more heat than light.
May 8, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Post flagged by the community as a bidding problem and removed. The post can be represented as a bidding problem since all options are bids (even “something else”). Please do not post this as an article.
May 6, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Comment by Lars Andersson flagged by the community as containing a reference to contemporary political figures, and removed. Bridge Winners is a politics-free site; please do not mention such people in any way unless it is absolutely necessary and relevant to bridge.
May 5, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Fixed.
May 5, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Comment by Peter Jan Plooy flagged by the community for containing an irrelevant contemporary political reference and has been removed.
May 1, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Comment by Jurgen Rennenkampf flagged by the community as offensive and provocative. It has been removed. Please keep your criticisms constructive and polite here, or they will be removed.
April 28, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This article has been flagged by the community as containing references to contemporary politics, which are not allowed on our site. It will be removed. Feel free to restate your argument without the references to contemporary politics.
April 27, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Comment by Sabrina Miles flagged by the community as containing a political reference in violation of our Community Guidelines and removed.
April 25, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Comment by Gregory Nowak flagged by the community as abusive and not constructive, and removed. Please keep comments polite and constructive on our site.
April 25, 2019
1 2 3 4 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 69 70 71 72
.

Bottom Home Top