Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Jan Martel
1 2 3 4 ... 45 46 47 48
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This sort of formula with a cap is what is used by WBF in (as far as I know) all events that have a complete Round Robin followed by a KO. It is always interpreted as first you figure out the carryover (5/8*47 in this case) and then if it's more than the cap (here the lower of 12 or the number of boards played against each other in the Round Robin), the carryover is the cap.
USBF also uses carryover sometimes (in the Senior USBC for example) and the only difference between what we do and what WBF does is that we set the cap at something other than an even number of IMPs in matches before the final, in order to avoid ties.
I've never heard of an interpretation where the percentage is applied to the cap instead of the IMP score.
15 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@David: The primary difficulty with defending against multi is that there is no anchor suit, therefore no cue bid. You need to define when a bid of a Major is a cue bid, or stopper asker or something like that and when it shows the suit, and that is often not at all obvious from “meta agreements.”
It isn't that DBL of 2 isn't penalty that's the problem, it's that there is no defined suit of which it is takeout. The “Option 1” people deal with that issue by defining it as takeout of spades. The “Option 2” people deal with it by defining it as a balanced or semi-balanced hand in a specific point count range - essentially a weak NT. That's easier for people like me who are familiar with playing weak NT so have a feeling for how auctions develop after one hand has shown a weak NT, but nothing else.
21 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good question - in fact we used to have some sections of the defense that said “this doesn't apply when the defense has to be memorized” or something like that. We were able to remove them when WBF started allowing written defenses to multi.
21 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Once upon a time, I was the Vugraph operator at a table where the question of whether the opponents could use their own written defense to a bid (maybe Multi, maybe something else) came up. The director was summoned and didn't know the answer. He went away to consult. Many long minutes later, the players turned to me and asked if they could use their own written defenses. I said yes and play proceeded. Later the director returned to confirm that I had been correct :-). Nowadays I think (hope) directors are better informed.
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The first time I encountered multi, in a very long-ago Reisinger when we played against Steve Weinstein & Fred Stewart, they said something like “if it comes up, you can just look at your hands and say what your bids mean” :-).
That probably isn't the way to play high-level bridge, but it did solve the unfamiliarity problem and also was the start of long-term and very positive friendships with both of them.
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We often get laughs at the fact that our written defense to multi is 11 pages long and we keep finding holes that need to be filled. One reason the defense is so long is that we have tried very hard (whether successfully or not I cannot say) to make it easy to find the meaning of different bids. So, for instance, instead of having rules that apply to (2)-DBL-(P)-2M, we have one section for 2 and one section for 2 - they are almost identical and “waste” some pages, but we hope it makes it easier to figure out what you're doing in the middle of an auction. We also include a Table of Contents.
Having said that, and despite the effort we make a major effort to have a user-friendly defense, we always tell people who ask for it that they should use it only if they go over it and practice with it in advance, because they're going to have problems using it if they aren't familiar with it. That is also a problem with the ACBL defense, no matter how clearly it is presented.
Once when I was playing multi and handed the old Yellow booklet to the opponents and thought they had clearly agreed on which defense they were using, it turned out one of them was using Option 1 and one was using Option 2. After that, I printed each of the defenses on a separate piece of paper and hand them only the one they tell me they are going to use.
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Tim: Written defenses are allowed by WBF against multi, as well as against any Brown Sticker bids being played. The proponents must furnish a viable defense to Brown Sticker bids and that defense becomes part of their convention card (which means it can be referred to by the opponents). Opponents may use their own written defense, which also becomes part of the proponents (whom WBF refers to as opponents in the regulation) convention card:
“A pair may prepare written defences against the ‘Brown Sticker’ elements of any system. Such defences will have to be given to the opponents (two clearly legible copies) at an appropriate time and place prior to the start of that segment, to be specified in the Conditions of Contest. Written defences against Brown Sticker conventions are deemed to be part of the opponents’ system card.” http://www.worldbridge.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/WBFSystemsPolicy.pdf bottom of page 6.
@Jim & Ed: The WBF rules are clear that the written defense has to be provided to the proponents. I couldn't find a similar requirement in the ACBL Conditions of Contest, but might have missed it. I don't see anything that would bar the use of a defense that is not written though (except perhaps that general agreements are supposed to be described on the convention card).
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The wonderful people at BBO tell me that they did in fact record last month's match and the video is available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gwy_2iu2FB4
They hope to be able to record this month's match as well, but this type of Vugraph is still being developed, so an actual person has to set things up and also set up the recording.
April 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'll see if there's any way we can record and post the audio, if it isn't included on the BBO archive.
April 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, it is. If a team is reduced to fewer than 4 players because some or all of the players qualified for the Bermuda Bowl, it can withdraw and receive a full refund of the entry fee. It a team loses players because they qualified for the Bermuda Bowl, it can of course replace them.
April 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There isn't video of this event (the players are playing online, from home), so I don't think youtube makes sense, does it? You can see the record of play and at the table comments on the BBO Vugraph archive at http://www.bridgebase.com/vugraph_archives/vugraph_archives.php. I'm not sure whether those records include the voice commentary, however.
April 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think eliminating the Open Flight would make the other flights less attractive - one of the nice things (I hope) for players in lower flights who get a chance to go to the NABC is that they play for a few days in the same room as the “big boys & girls” and have a chance to socialize with some of the people whom they previously only knew by name and from seeing them on Vugraph. Surely we don't want to lose that, do we?
April 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Phil - I thought the proposal was that anyone who has won once at the National level or 3 times at the District level would be barred. I actually meet both of those criteria, although I don't play any more, so am not actually protesting on my own behalf, just using myself as an example.
April 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You aren't seriously suggesting that I should be forever barred from the GNT because I won it at the National level once, are you? I can't tell you how wrong that feels to me!

Back in the dawn of time, when I won the GNP (now the NAOP), I was unhappy not to be allowed to defend without having to qualify (I think ACBL changed that the next year); are you seriously suggesting I wouldn't even be allowed to try to defend a title?
April 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Plus having it start on Wednesday already makes the Summer NABC a very long tournament!
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Reading this poll made me a little sad. Looking back over my bridge life, the two wins that have meant the most to me (apart from my first Sectional, Regional & National wins, which of course will always stand out because they were the first) are the GNP and GNT. They wouldn't have meant nearly as much to me if those events had been limited. Even in years when I didn't win, I always enjoyed playing in those events because of the great competition.

I know that one of the reasons I won the GNT was because Peggy Kaplan and her teammates beat the Florida team in the first or second KO round; obviously Peggy didn't win that event, but I'll bet it's on her “all time favorite” list too - she beat a team of superstars in a long match; what can be better than that?

I would be saddened if up and coming bridge players preferred to win a limited event rather than having the opportunity to play in an unlimited one, and I am glad that the answers to this poll suggest that most BridgeWinners readers, at least, don't feel that way.
April 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree that the reasons weren't wonderful, but I voted for that answer anyway :-).
April 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've sent these issues to the DICs for decision, so am closing discussion. I have also added this whole issue to my list of things to discuss for the future (probably it's only going to be relevant in the 2-team years).
April 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've sent these issues to the DICs for decision, so am closing discussion. I have also added this whole issue to my list of things to discuss for the future (probably it's only going to be relevant in the 2-team years).
April 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've sent these issues to the DICs for decision, so am closing discussion. I have also added this whole issue to my list of things to discuss for the future (probably it's only going to be relevant in the 2-team years).
April 13
1 2 3 4 ... 45 46 47 48
.

Bottom Home Top