Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Jan Martel
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 72 73 74 75
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Chris & I often disagree :-), but in this case, I want to second what he said - I've had a little experience negotiating with hotels (for a much smaller event of course), and when I ask about separating rooms from space, they either say no or ask an astronomical price for the space. They have ballrooms to fill hotel rooms, not as an independent source of income. Lately it's been easier to reduce the requirement to spend on food and beverage, but they do want that also. ACBL is a big user of hotel space (if you count Regionals as well as NABCs), so of course they should have some clout, but probably not enough to change the model hotels are used to.
I don't know anything about the convention center model, but I think that there the “connected” hotels pay some of the cost in exchange for - guess what - a promise that they'll sell rooms.
16 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I remember many years ago someone (sorry I've forgotten who, but it might have been the late Peter Pender) suggested we should have one NABC a year that just had a major KO event, in addition to the three big NABCs. Maybe that would be a possible option.
To some extent, at least for US players, the annual Open USBC is that tournament, but of course it is very different from an NABC because it isn't open to players who are not US citizens or residents.
16 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You and I figure out a great cheating scheme. We use it and do extremely well, winning some major titles. People raise questions. We're told that we're under investigation. We decide that we don't want to be investigated, so we announce - formally - that we will never play together again. I think that's what 3bi2 is talking about.
Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not for me
Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
ACBL removed the 2015 Spingold title (and second) from the teams that had players who were convicted of collusive cheating. Unfortunately, they didn't remove all traces. If you look at the Atlanta Daily Bulletin list of Spingold winners <http://cdn.acbl.org/nabc/2018/02/bulletins/db4.pdf> on page 11, you find 2015: 1. vacated; 2. vacated. But if you look at individual players' NABC records, they still include the 2015 Spingold.
Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I actually don't see the limited time as a reason to have a 3rd/4th playoff. I don't know what prompted that decision, perhaps they didn't want the possibility of 6 pairs dropping into the Mixed Pairs Final, which was limited to 26 pairs.
Oct. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There are only so many days in a week. In Sanya 4 years ago, the WBF added days to the Mixed events and cut the Rosenblum and Open Pairs. This year, they put the days back into the Rosenblum (and McConnell & Rand) and the Open, Women's & Senior Pairs, which meant reducing the number of days in the Mixed.

I'm pretty sure no one would want the tournament to run more than 17 days, and I don't know how they could have full length events in all categories without either having the Mixed conflict with the other events or lengthening the tournament. Neither of those options is attractive.
Oct. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you have screens, you're mainly with one opponent, but the other (and your partner) are still there on the other side of the screen.
Oct. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, you're still at a table with your partner and opponents, so the social aspects of “real” bridge remain.
Oct. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm confused by the number of stanzas also, but I think I understand the underlying rule, which applies only for eligibility to earn WBF masterpoints and placing points, not the title and medal. As I understand it, you have to have played 1/3 of the total boards played by your team through the stage where you lose (or the finals if you win it all) and also 1/3 of the boards in the segment for which you are earning masterpoints. So to earn the masterpoints for winning an event, you have to play 1/3 of all of the boards your team played, including 1/3 of the final. To earn masterpoints for finishing second, you have to play 1/3 of the boards through the semifinal and also 1/3 of the boards in the semifinal. Etc.
So it feels as if to earn masterpoints for winning the Mixed, you would have to play 1/3 of the 10 Swiss matches (and they round that down to 3 matches) plus 1/3 of the 16 segments played in the KO (I think that's where the 5 comes from) including 1/3 of the boards in the final - there are 4 segments in the final, and I don't know whether they round that down to 1 or up to 2.
Oct. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't know any more than that they said there wasn't enough business to justify the cost of personnel.
Oct. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There were refreshment stands outside the playing area the first 3 days of the tournament, but they did so little business that the hotel refused to have them there.
Oct. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There’s a link to hand records at the very bottom of each results page, but the ones I tried all gave a 404 error. I’ll ask about it tomorrow.
Sept. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm sure you're right that it wouldn't be a good National event, but the one time a club tried it (long ago), it was fun to play in! I think we got to play EHAA one of the sessions :-)
Sept. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
team of 2 pairs is an even more “fun” event if instead of totaling the results, you get the better result - that way there's some interesting strategy involved - one pair can play conservatively and the other aggressively, they can play different no-trump ranges, strong club vs not, etc etc.
Sept. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think that there were 2 teams in the Post-Rosenblum/McConnell/Rand teams on Tuesday, and they did play. I don't know where the results are :-).
The problem was that if people played in the “consolation” events, they couldn't play in the pairs.
Sept. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Although I sympathize with your point, your facts are wrong. The qualifying stages were always scheduled for 2 days. What was changed in the Senior & Women’s events was how many teams played in the first round of the KO stage. The original schedule called for 32 teams in the first KO stage. With 31 teams entered in the Seniors, the first KO stage was 16 teams. With 17 teams in the Women’s, the first KO stage was 8 teams.
Sept. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Ed - “qualify” means make the A division of the next stage. Everyone gets to play all of the days of the pairs, but the pairs that did better in the 3-day qualifying make the A Semifinal and the rest play in the B Semifinal.
The drop in rules are a little complicated, but essentially each team in the Rosenblum is entitled to have 3 pairs drop into the Open pairs on the day after the team loses in the Rosenblum. The 3 pairs can all be players on the eliminated team, or can be a pair with one player from the eliminated team and one other player. As I read the statement I posted above, at most 3 pairs from the B Semifinal will qualify for the A Final; the remaining 49 pairs will be the pairs from losing Semifinal Rosenblum teams who drop in plus teams who finished high in the A Semifinal.
Sept. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is a good reason to have a specified number of pairs in the final - you want to be able to run a movement where everyone plays against everyone else and everyone plays all of the boards. I'm not a movement expert, but I'm pretty sure that the numbers they've selected for the finals are in order to achieve that. I think the Semifinal numbers also mean that everyone will play everyone else and all of the boards, which makes it more fair than if you don't play everyone and everyone doesn't play the same boards.
Sept. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, the original Conditions of Contest did specifically say that the numbers of pairs to advance would have to be determined on site after the number of entries was known.
And it is difficult with drop-ins, because they don't know until the last minute how many pairs will actually play on any day - there were some pairs who were eligible to drop in today and had registered to do so, but decided not to this morning.
Sept. 26
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 72 73 74 75
.

Bottom Home Top