Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Jim Perkins
1 2 3 4 ... 55 56 57 58
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
<<I don't see why the ACBL should generate all this work so that one team can be subsidized by others.>>

There was this sleepy little game called poker that was almost dead as the good players won money from the bad so fast that the bad players thought, “What's the use?”

Then, thanks to an online mega-poker-site called Poker Stars, a small timer (who, legend has it, was himself insolvent due to his poker habit) put a satellite entry on an already maxed out or past due or both credit card. He won an entry into the World Series of Poker Main Event, where prudence would advise selling the entry for something just a bit short of its $10K face value and at least getting himself back to solvency.

He didn't. He entered. He won.

And thus was born the “Moneymaker effect” that propelled poker to unprecedented popularity for over a decade.

While Bridge is not Poker, and the GNTs are not the WSOP Main Event, I think the story sufficiently answers the question anyway.
19 minutes ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have to admit that at the table I would be with the plurality here, but in a bidding quiz I am with a respected minority.
April 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
<<far less appealing than it used to be>>

Yes I miss all the F bombs, cigarette smoke and fist fights in the parking lot.
April 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well it is actually true that most ACBL members have very few MasterPoints (certainly relative to the BW crowd) and perhaps even less skill than indicated by that metric.

So most of the people that actually do play bridge are indeed above average across the whole population of ACBL members.

Not that I care about minutae.
April 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not it.
April 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can tell you what is done at the BHBC level. Not sure it works well because like so many manuals it doesn't get reviewed, but there is a director's log document on the computer's desktop. Just today another director told me about a player that had been warned about profane language and that it was in the log.
April 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you Danny.
April 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@ Dave: A while back our local Secretary Bird was complaining about a non-alerted 2 - 2 (GF) auction.

The ACBL says 2 over 2 is never alertable. But I don't think they mean it. Suppose 2 is a transfer to s? Should that not be alerted?
April 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Playing a strong club system yesterday:

P - (P) - 1 - (P)
2NT - (P) - 3NT - (All P),

“What is 2NT?” “It shows 14 or more HCP. . . . I guess.”

Partner found another A.
April 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have heard them called self-splinters, but what Andy describes sounds to me like the pair either had no agreements or forgot the agreements they had. Starting perhaps as early as 2.

No sense worrying about getting fixed by this sort of thing. It evens out in the end. Or I should say it unevens out in the end.
April 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@ Danny: See Yehudit's comments upthread. Were we misinformed? We were told that our defenses were limited to option 1 or option 2. We have devised our own methods for dealing with bids (Flannery, precision 2D, etc.) that show suits that are always other than the suit named.

Why shouldn't we be allowed to use them against multi without the necessity of carrying around written defenses?

* Essentially thar defense is that x shows an appropriate level of balanced strength, min bid of a shown or strongly implied suit (2H/2D Flannery, for example) is TO of that suit, min bid of a 4 card suit is to play (2S/2D Flannery) and NT bids = TO for minors.

Over multi we wanted to play x= balanced strength, 2H or 2S = three suited TO of that suit, 2NT = minors and 3 min = natural. We were informed by a member of the C&C committee that we must choose option 1 or option 2 or provided written explanation of our methods.
April 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Once again we are confusing the difficulty of teaching new players how to play bridge with the impossibility of teaching new players how to play expert bridge.

Get them to play. Some of them will eventually become expert.
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I had a somewhat similar situation at BHBC Andy. Although there there was a known suit. I ruled no alert needed.

The reason behind the no alert above 3NT rule is that the alert is more likely to alert partner than OPPs.
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The National CoC have two provisions that arguably address alternates: First in a section that appears to be addressed to a team adding players or substituting players, there is the provision that the alternate must have played at least half the boards in the district final

Second in a more general provision, there is the statement that a district may name a district champion in any manner it chooses (subject of course to master point limits for flights, etc.).
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The question of alternate representation is not addressed in the District Level conditions of contest. Hold on while I check national level.
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would instantly settle for a new match.
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I do want to say this. Both the District and the ACBL are involved. The OPPs are certainly worthy. Our team was quite strong.

At this point, I regret somewhat making this a public issue.

I am just grateful that our appeal is being heard.
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We were told about it at the end of the Swiss. In fact we protested verbally that they had miscalculated carryover with a different team. Which leads me to believe that my supposition as to the 8.75 (below) is not correct either.
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Barbara: I reverse engineered the 8.75. Apparently that is 62.5% of 14. 14 = 1 IMP per board (except we actually played 15 boards, but we started out with 7 board matches until 1 team dropped out).

Oy. I am beginning to hate bridge.
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One assumes this is irony. Obviously, it may or may not be good, but team P is in no mood for it this morning.
April 24
1 2 3 4 ... 55 56 57 58
.

Bottom Home Top