Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Gavin Wolpert
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 38 39 40 41
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It would have little to no affect on me financially if they changed the Swiss rule. Almost all regional bridge I play is 4 handed. What would have an affect on me indirectly is if they changed the KO payouts to be as % played. This would cause pros to lose jobs and eventually fewer clients in general.

They changed the KO payouts a few years ago to be based on strength of field. That is what killed the masterpoints for lower brackets and now that you bring it up was probably the root of the problem for knockout attendance.

I am not arguing for them to change the swiss rule, only agreeing with Josh from experience that the rule costs entry sales and in some cases with too many swisses on the schedule, tournament attendance.
Sept. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Revamping the masterpoint system to attract attendance is a big idea. Surely we can do better than complaining what others are commenting about without adding anything constructive to the discussion.
Sept. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jeff, Yes it really is that fragile. At a minimum it would cause a lot (hundreds of weeks work) of 5th/6th person jobs to be lost and on the other end the reduced success would cause people to quit. What product would a consumer be ok with paying the same amount and getting half as many as they used to?

I’m not arguing for more points for my clients. I haven’t played a Swiss more than 4 handed in years. When I’m 6 handed we just don’t play the Swiss. I was just agreeing with Josh that the Swiss masterpoints structure costs the ACBL money and nothing is gained from the policy.

I don’t want to campaign for more points at all, I argued your point about reducing points for KOs because I believe it is a horrible idea for the game with no upside.
Sept. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It may have been a programming error that I am thinking of Mackenzie. Or perhaps a programming error in my brain.

Jeff that is all good and fine if the payout structure was designed properly to scale from the get go. We are now in a place where people are used to getting full awards for knockouts. Changing them to be paid as a % would destroy pro bridge and therefore cause a steep decline in sessions played and room nights purchased. What is to be gained from it? The perception that a masterpoint holding is slightly more equitable yet still mostly worthless for ranking skill level?

The goal now needs to be to right the ship, not sink it.
Sept. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The reasons the pro tour didn't attract me was simple. The money wasn't good enough. Bridge pros make a very good predictable living being hired to play on teams. Taking a week of expenses to play in a tournament that may not produce any income vs getting a fixed fee to show up is a no brainer.

Its a chicken and egg problem. Unless there is guaranteed money, paid expenses, big enough prizes, you won't draw high level pros. Without high level pros, you won't draw spectator interest. Without spectator interest there is no sponsorship. Without sponsorship you can't afford big prizes / covered expenses.

What we need is a competitive online bridge space so that BBO and their competitors are motivated to market their products through sponsorship. That will not happen any time soon due to the the exclusive masterpoint deal signed between ACBL and BBO.
Sept. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That may be true about the late 70's, but it must have reverted between then and the early 2000's. 5-10 years ago they were awarding full overall awards to everyone on swiss teams and changed it to be based on % of matches played.
Sept. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It changed within the last 5-10 years. It would be sensible if masterpoints actually equated skill. It is not sensible when they are only used to attract players.
Sept. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with most of what you said Josh, especially the part about club players not wanting to pay more.

The way things stand right now, we have a serious problem in regional knockouts of not having enough top teams to fill the top bracket. This leads to 2nd bracket players (aka bracket 15 players in Gatlinburg) being forced into matches against world class opposition. Some of this would be fixed by reducing the total number of tournaments, though I believe this alone will lead to us revisiting this problem in the future.

We need a subset of “destination regionals” to rethink their schedules to attract top teams with good multi-day events, a schedule which allows for high level team play every day and one which keeps all the top teams on the same new multi-day event cycle. We need to bring prestige back into regional events. We also need the new events to work all the way down the flights for example a long swiss to get people into brackets for multi-tiered events.

The masterpoint structure does not allow for event innovation. Giving more flexibility to awards for events longer than 2 days and more emphasis on match awards will allow event organizers to create new fun events to attract people to their tournaments. I for one am bored of 2-day knockouts, 1 day swisses and single session consolation events.

This problem all began when they stopped giving full awards for swiss teams. It meant tournaments were forced to run all knockouts in order to attract pro teams. This in turn meant all tournaments split their fields over two separate cycles of knockouts. It also made all tournaments the same and the format quickly became stale. Changing it back would be good, but not enough IMO.
Sept. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No specific rule about suit strength. Lets say you bid 6 of a minor and your trumps are AKxx opposite xxxx. If trumps break 4-1 then you have two sure losers. That happens almost 1/3 of the time.

AKQx
KQx
xxxx
Kx

xxx
Axx
AKxx
AQx


On a hand like this, you have 3 sure spade tricks, 3 sure heart tricks, 3 sure club tricks and 2 sure diamond tricks for 11. In both 6NT and 6D you can score a 12th trick in diamonds provided they break 3-2. In Diamonds if they break 4-1 you are down with 2 sure trump losers. In NT you have a backup plan of getting your 12th trick in spades.

If you take the same hand and change the queen of clubs to the Queen of diamonds:

AKQx
KQx
xxxx
Kx

xxx
Axx
AKQx
Axx

Now you have 3 sure spades, 3 sure hearts, 3 sure diamonds, 2 sure clubs for 11. In diamonds you can score your 12th trick by simply ruffing a club. In NT if the diamonds break 4-1 you are reduced to needing the spades to break.

These hands are very subtle. You won't get them all right. Sometimes you will end up in the wrong one and it won't matter. You just need to be aware.
Aug. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is can be important to find a minor suit fit. Good 4-4 fits often play a trick better than NT. One extra ruff in either hand makes you an extra trick. At matchpoints (pairs) you have an extra incentive to play NT.

Our NT system is designed around finding major suit fits because 4H-4S and 3NT are much easier to make than 5C. When it becomes a slam hand our system has neglected the minors and you need to recover the minors.
Aug. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We are experiencing some problems related to updating our back end. Sorry for the trouble.

I've moved your post off of the front page to the site feedback forum where posts like this belong.
Aug. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think this is a really tough problem. I chose 3D in the poll but only if I could bit it in tempo. My dream is 3M from partner over 3D.

I don't think people bid 3C on xxxxx vul very often so I rate to go down in 3NT. My second choice is pass.
Aug. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nik,

As far as precedent, they ended up applying the penalty at the end of it all. Thankfully I didn't cost my wife a national title.

If you cannot see the difference between a 3rd party placing a device on someone's person without them knowing it and someone knowingly putting their phone in their pocket then IMO you are blinded by your penalty.

As far as the ipad being connected, yes it was connected but it was in silent mode. The only way the device could have made a sound was through the find my iphone lost mode trigger. I found a way!

If the phone that was in your teammates pocket wasn't their phone then I could totally see equating the two situations.
Aug. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This was me and Jenny.

We had breakfast in the morning and I was playing in a 10 & 3 pair game while she was in the national event at 1. She was at the buffet while I was at the table and I had to leave to play. Rather than leave the iPad on the table I slipped it into her purse and didn't think to tell her.

When I finished playing and came back to my room I was looking for the iPad and didn't remember that I put it in her purse in the morning. I couldn't find it so I hit find my iPhone to play a sound. It didn't sound so I put it into lost mode. She had absolutely no idea it was in her purse.

I am not interested in debating whether or not they should have given my wife a penalty for having a device in her purse in lost mode that she didn't know was there. Just wanted to correct the statement about it being a phone and add in the rest of the facts the directors were told before they decided to not penalize.
July 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't believe this is a bug. The skip button is not a vote, therefore it continues to show in your feed. If you abstain instead you will not see the problem again.
July 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wonder if this poll set the record for most different responses with more than 1 vote.
May 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We have had lots of these reports from people using android devices with outdated operating systems. We do not plan on supporting old versions of android.
April 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If anyone else experiences this problem please let us know.
April 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In a short test I used about 1MB per minute answering problems.
April 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is currently no support for in-app social login. For now we will need to make you a password to use to log in to the app. It's on our to-do list.

You should change the password at the following link: http://bridgewinners.com/accounts/password/change/
April 23
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 38 39 40 41
.

Bottom Home Top