Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Jonathan Steinberg
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.
When you stay at a FIVE star hotel, everything within is more expensive than at 3 or 4 star establishments. To be expected. That said, there is a high end food court (Block 16 Urban Food Hall), the “Secret Pizza” place, and if all else fails, just step outside. I've been told “Miracle Mile Shops” across the street near Planet Hollywood has some very good shopping and restaurants to choose from.

We are in the heart of the strip, not on the outskirts. I'm arriving late tonight and looking forward to a fabulous 11 days in Vegas (starting with seeing Cirque Du Soleil's Beatles LOVE tomorrow evening). Lots to do in Vegas!
July 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For what it is worth, Reston finished with 1,972 tables, down 225 tables (10.24%) from 2018. Sad omen of our times since Reston Town Center is among the better sites for a tournament.

Many complaints that there were too many Regionals this week and little protection or no guidance from the ACBL. It is not going to be easy to reverse the downward trend.
July 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There are multiple issues that Steve has raised. IMHO, the ACBL MUST do a better job in helping Tournament Chairs plan schedules that maximize the chances for success. Input from TDs such as Chris Miller above are very helpful.

1) STOP having new 2 day KOs starting every day. It is ridiculous and only guarantees the kind of problem we had here in Reston for the Wed/Thursday KO. This is not difficult. Day one is a new KO, Day two is Bracketed Swiss (Open Swiss, Compact KO, take your pick but it is a ONE day team event). Day 3 a new two day KO… and so on and so forth. Obviously a site like Gatlinburg is large enough to have new KOs every day,

2) The original rationale for the “Soloway” style RR format to reduce the field to 4 teams to play KO style in Day 2 was specifically designed to solve the problem of not enough teams who want to play in the top bracket. It is not necessary for lower brackets.

Let a KO be a KO. If you fail to advance, you have choices. Play in the “Losers Swiss”, take a session off, go sightseeing, have a nice dinner. Some call the Soloway format a “cash grab”. You are forced to pay and play even when you have no chance to Q and/or no desire play off for 3/4th and a minimal amount of masterpoints.

Far better to have normal two day KOs starting every second day and one day Swiss events in between. The “Soloway” style should be reserved for Bracket One when they do not have 9+ teams who qualify.

3) If you do have a Soloway Style KO, at least the team that wins on Day one should have the choice of who to play among teams 3 & 4 who Q. Here in Reston (District 6), it is RANDOM DRAW among teams 3 & 4 as to who plays teams One and Two. Absolutely NO reward for placing first among the qualifiers.

4) ACBL masterpoint award formulas have been a joke for several years. For a long time I was told that the flawed ACBL Score program was too fragile to make any changes. Every year I am told ACBL Board Committees are working on it!

5) Sadly attendance here in Reston appears to be down 5-15%. Will get more accurate numbers in the next day or so. The biggest drop off is in the KO events. Perhaps players are voting with their feet regarding the Soloway style format and new KOs starting every day.

Happy July 4th to all my American friends. May Kawhi Leonard choose Toronto and the Raptors!
July 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry to disillusion you, Michael but I have played in at least three 3-way KO finals. There are multiple scenarios, usually when a TD screws up somehow (teams in wrong bracket) to reach that point.

But the last one – at the Toronto Regional this year was deliberate. Some new double elimination one day KO event, a few brackets. The losers enter a Swiss after Round one, the winners continue.

Round one reduced the top bracket KO field from 9 to 6 teams. Round two went from 6 to 3. Regardless, we definitely had a 3 team round robin KO final.

In ALL three examples, the scoring was identical. If a team won two matches, they won the event. Total Imps determined 2nd and 3rd.

If all three teams went 1 and 1, the usual ACBL formula applied. Add up your total imps and the highest plus score is first, lowest imp score third, middle team second.

End of story (Ha, Ha).
June 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray, the world miscalculates, puts scores on the wrong side of the ledger, gets the vulnerability wrong, not sure if a contract was down 1 or 2 or even made!

That is why teams COMPARE scores and imp differences with the other team before turning in an official result. Really, not a difficult thing to do even in short time sensitive Swiss matches and even simpler in a long KO match!
June 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray… you play a long match. When it is finished you compare scores and verify with the losing team. The margin was 17 impos. The losing team went home. The winning team turned in a score of plus 25!

Several days later the losing team discovered that the score posted was incorrect. The “winning” team quickly agreed. Several DAYS later.

Those are the facts. Draw your own conclusions.

Perhaps you can call that “caught and corrected”. In my mind if you wallow in mud, it sticks! Or do you prefer to be willfully blind?

Several years ago, I played in a two session Regional Swiss during an NABC. Comparing scores we asked how teammates failed in 3NT. He claimed if the the spades break I have 9 tricks; otherwise, down 1. The two professional opponents both said, not breaking, down 1 and folded their cards. The suit was 3-3!

My team “caught and corrected” the error before the next match. My furious teammate went back to the other table where both pros quickly agreed and said my team had made 3NT. A corrected score was reported.

I duly filed a Player Memo/Recorder form on the incident. Several days later, one of the offending pros came up to me whining “Why did you complain to the ACBL Recorder? You got the win!”
June 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Russ, just saying that the ACBL “deeply regrets the confusion” doesn't cut it. Does the ACBL Special Events Department actually READ the proposed CoC before rubber stamping them? Where was the VP scale that was going to be used mentioned?

The ethical issues surrounding the “winning” team are beyond the scope of this thread. But multiple other issues are valid.

Even Mike C agree that there is a discrepancy between the ACBL KO Team Conditions and the D. 22 GNT CoC. What is the ACBL's position?

The ACBL is the governing body that runs the GNT Finals at the Summer NABC. Should they not have the final decision in any disputes that would affect the GNT Finals? Does the ACBL not recognize the losing's team right to go to Binding Arbitration? If not, why not?

The GNT D. 22 CoC have not changed in several years and by all reports have never been followed. Only the “winning” team claims to have known the formula for the final day. The “losing” team that WON BOTH MATCHES and the 3rd place team with no reason to be dishonest, both claim otherwise.

No one disagrees that no VP scale was posted on site. That the “losing” team was told they had won. That the “winning” team turned in an incorrect score from one of their final day two matches. That the decision to change the results was made AFTER the event had ended and players had gone home!

Is this not an ACBL problem? It is a cop out and a very sad one for those of us who believe that fair play, justice and ethics should always prevail.

Only in the ACBL fantasy land of masterpoints and legalistic mumble jumbo does winning both matches in a 3 way final mean losing. And an organization that just doesn't care.
June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike, from reading the above it appears (to me at least) that your original position of “pedantically” ;) upholding a literal reading of the CoC (despite never having been followed before, not clearly communicated to the players, and no VP scale posted on site) has evolved into recognizing the injustices that were perpetuated and recognizing the need to “do what is just and fair in making a decision consistent with the spirit of these CoC.”

For that I applaud you and share your hope that there is still time “to DO THE RIGHT THING!”
June 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This comment has been marked as inappropriate by the moderator(s).
June 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Very well said, John! It pains me to say this but a sense of justice, ethics & basic fairness appears to be in short supply among ACBL Board members and management in Horn Lake.

They call it a D. 22 issue. There are more important bigger issues in the ACBL. I was asked this evening why I don't move on. They look for the fine print and can reach any conclusion they wish. They choose to believe “A” but not “B”.

I would love to be proven wrong and see the ACBL take a stand for the integrity of the GNT event and the game.
June 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike, the word pedantic comes to mind as I peruse your never ending posts filled with worldly intimate knowledge of the CoC.

I prefer to look at the BIG picture, examine all the variables, and do what is just and fair. This is a no brainer.

Had the CoC ever been followed (NEVER) or prominently posted (clearly, not) or a VP scale posted onsite for all to see (as is customary), it would be different. But none of the above were done or even close to having been properly communicated to the players.

Not even the ACBL nor D. 22 should be able to change the rules, form of scoring, retract what the players were told AFTER the event is over. Truly mind boggling.

To repeat (since everyone else is):

“If one team scores more IMPs than the other, they win the match.”

“Nobody in the history of the bridge world has lost a 3-way KO when they went 2-0. Nobody. Ever.”

“We played youse guys head-to-head and won by 3 IMPs. But the rules say we tied. The only explanation for the result is that it emanated from California.”

and in Mark Raphaelson words:

“So we can pontificate if this was the correct ruling based on the COC all day, but to many of us, it doesn't matter. We all know the true winner of the event, and until that is corrected, this thread may continue, rehashing the same points over and over again.”
June 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In that case John K should have followed his rules in previous years and not ignored them. He should have made it clear that 2019 would be scored under different rules… indeed rules that had never been used before in the history of bridge. He didn't.

No apology required.
June 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Utter nonsense Mike. The CoC were the same for several years but it was never scored by VP. I doubt if it was ever meant to be and it sure as hell wasn't. History and precedent.

Nor can you change the scoring method mid-stream or GASP after the players went home. You can't tell a team that it is W/L and they have won and then change the result and scoring method after the players have gone home!

Mike, you & Ray can repeat yourselves until we reach 5000 repetitive comments (and I suspect you will since Eugene told me I am unable to close the thread.. only Bridge Winners can do that). Ray can keep saying a win is a tie or any fallacious statements he wishes to spout.

But the fact remain:

“If one team scores more IMPs than the other, they win the match.”

“Nobody in the history of the bridge world has lost a 3-way KO when they went 2-0. Nobody. Ever.”

“We played youse guys head-to-head and won by 3 IMPs. But the rules say we tied. The only explanation for the result is that it emanated from California.”

and in Mark Raphaelson words:

“So we can pontificate if this was the correct ruling based on the COC all day, but to many of us, it doesn't matter. We all know the true winner of the event, and until that is corrected, this thread may continue, rehashing the same points over and over again.”
June 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael, when the D. 22 CoC have NEVER been followed to the letter… when NOBODY in North America can recall playing a 3 way KO final or GNT final where imps converted to VPs were used, how can you state it was in effect on May 25-26.

NO VP scale posted on site. Changes to the VP scale used after the fact… someone (probably Ray?) pointed out everyone makes errors but corrects them… true but if the “correction” is after everyone has gone home!!!

Only the “winning” team claims to have known the CoC (the “losing” team and 3rd place team beg to differ); the “winning” teams turns in a score of plus 25 (when it was really plus 17) after the other team has gone home. No explanation has ever been given.

But perhaps these secondary non relevant issues are being investigated by other bodies. Or not.
June 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David, How much slack? 12 days?

It is now 5:20 PM Memphis/Horn Lake time Monday after work hours. Still no results posted. The link to results would follow the info link. Still blank

May 25-26, 2019 San Juan Capistrano CA Info 22 0 GNT/NAP GNT District Fi…
June 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
ELLIS, yes it was sent to “YOU” along with multiple other people. NOT a private e-mail by any stretch of the imagination.

RAY, A better question might be: Who made the decision that a formal e-mail from the D. 22 Board explaining the results of an ACBL event should be confidential or private?

RICHARD, YES, you are correct. While I omitted all the recipients and their e-mails (I'm told one does not post personal e-mails on BW), it was sent to multiple individuals – I think to all the members of all 3 teams and probably D. 22 Board members, some ACBL folks, etc. And, YES, one should not edit but rather post the entire D. 22 response.

Obviously it was forwarded to me by one of the parties involved who received it. Best to be made public by someone who does not have a dog in the fight.
June 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ellis, why would I ever ask for your permission to publicize a public decision by a District Board? Mike C asked earlier in this post "Or this thread Jonathan created to discuss the ruling is just Open Season License to Bitch Time?

I will repeat my response.

Mike, given the unprecedented D. 22 GNT fiasco where the winners are named and posted… then removed… then there are NO results for almost two weeks… the huge publicity and opinions… are you suggesting that the decision of D. 22 as to its GNT Winners should be confidential, not open to the public and hidden in some safe under lock & key?

This thread was created to inform the bridge community of the D. 22 decision. If it leads to (IMHO) well justified criticism of both the ACBL and the D. 22 decision, so be it.

Maybe the powers that be will learn something and do better in the future. One can always hope.
June 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good Monday morning from Greenville, SC where their outstanding Regional is about to begin.

I just checked ACBL Tournament Results web site and found the May 25-26 D. 22 GNT Finals listed with links to tournament flyer but still NO RESULTS posted.

Could the D. 22 decision have been a mistaken communication? An accidental click on the send button? Are the results still not officially recognized by the ACBL? No masterpoint awards?

One cam always dream.

Back to the bridge table…
June 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At one time, there was… but it has been out of whack for decades. Today you have very small Districts both geographically and membership wise that should clearly be merged. Less than 3,000 members! Other Districts have 10,000+ (D. 9 Florida must be over 15,000).

Yet EVERY attempt to restructure/reduce the size of the Board has been defeated. Even an excellent modest proposal to reduce from 25 to 19 many years ago failed. Just as the current proposals to restructure the ACBL Governance model has no chance to reach fruition.

The retirement at the end of this year of progressive reformers such as Jay Whipple and Russ Jones leaves little room for optimism.

The 25 member Board of Directors governance model has been a failure. One might laugh today but it took more than a decade and multiple defeats before the ACBL Board belatedly raised the Senior age from 55 to 60, grandfathering all those in between!

The $800,000+ Bahar financial debacle (a product of the ACBL Board of Directors) was just the latest in a long list of examples. Has anyone taken responsibility? Has the Board apologized or even acknowledged its mistakes?

Only excuses and finger pointing. Yet a majority of the elected 25 politicians will never give up their perks or power.
June 10
Jonathan Steinberg edited this comment June 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One major problem is Tournament Chairs scheduling new KOs every day when attendance isn't strong enough. It creates so many problems. Better to start new KOs every second day with a Swiss, Bracketed Swiss or Compact KO on the days in between.

I am not a fan of Soloway style KOs. They were originally designed for Bracket One ONLY when there were not enough teams strong enough to conduct a normal 9+ team KO.

No reason to use Soloway format when you have enough teams to run a normal KO. If you Q, great. If not you have options (take evening off, play in Losers Swiss) but now you are forced to play at least two sessions even if you have no hope of qualifying at the half. Some call it a cash grab.

Some guidance from the ACBL would be helpful to Tournament Chairs. Suggested schedules for tournaments of a certain size would be a great start. What works and what doesn't. The ACBL has info from all over the country. Why not use it to improve tournament schedules?
June 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 38 39 40 41
.

Bottom Home Top