Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Marty Deneroff
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Richard,
It is certainly considered best practice, and with arguably good reasons, not to disclose WHY someone is terminated from a job (if for cause. It is not common practice, or sensible practice, to eliminate a customer facing person and not notify those customers that the person is gone and how their needs will be met going forward.

It is also not common practice to lay off a long term employee without making some kind of acknowledgement of their long and valuable service.

These things are true even in the most bottom line oriented for-profit businesses. it should be even stronger in a not-for-profit whose purpose is fundamentally keeping the membership happy and growing it.
May 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On reflection, I think the general idea of discriminatory pricing (market segmentation, to use the economics 101 term)at NABCs would be so abhorrent to many players that any extra revenue it would theoretically generate would be wiped out by people who choose to boycott.

I think the heart of the matter is to take a hard look at actual costs and make the pricing be representative of those costs. The first step in this si to separate out the room rates from all other costs. Then players can stay at the host hotel or elsewhere and nobody will have an reason to push one option over the other. The entry fees should be set by taking the costs of ballroom rentals and all other services and dividing them by the number of expected participants (with some adjustment to amortise previous incorrect guesses about attendance). If BoD gets free or subsidized rooms, that should also be included in the entry fees. Obviously, we can layer any form of discriminatory pricing desired on top of his to encourage any goals the organization might wish to subsidize (ie reduced prices for new members).

A few months prior, this analysis should be disseminated to the membership so everyone sees what their entry fees cover. This will help discourage the powers that be from wasteful practices. It would be interesting to see the reaction if the analysis includes line items like ‘$10/session to cover legal judgement for firing CEO without cause’. Perhaps enough to have the BoD clean up their act a bit.
April 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I asked a ACBL National Director about this (not this hand, but when it happened to me at a NABC several years ago). He said this is considered an illegal psyche of a convention, and that it is illegal to have an agreement that 2NT can have less than invitational values. If there is no such agreement and you do it anyway, you can do it once. After that it is considered a Concealed Agreement.
April 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is a very practical idea. It would probably be fairly effective, but would cause a lot of grumbling.
I think it is unclear whether it would bring in enough new income to matter though. The number of participants in the expensive category may be insufficient unless the surcharges for these groups is even larger than described.
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Price discrimination in the US is perfectly legal so long as it isn't discriminating based on a protected class (i.e. ethnicity or sexual orientation).
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jeff, Your ‘Trophy to every participant’ idea is certainly untrue. GR pays MP awards to the same percentage of participants as all pair events. In fact, if you look at what actually happens, it is relatively uncommon to see non-LMs winning the top places in these events, despite the fact that many stop entering these things once they make LM. But you are somewhat correct that GR makes it easier to make LM (but so do bracketed team events).
April 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The notion of making money from this is silly. The notion of enforcing the rule is not. And, in fact, the predominant problem is not that there is only one copy of the card available, it is that there is NO CARD AT ALL (hence nothing to copy). And what really happens if you call the director about this infraction is either nothing at all, or the pair is told to fill out a card and must play SAYC until that is done. No penalty, and no enforcement of playing SAYC.

I for one fail to understand why this particular rule is so laxly enforced, especially since it leads to all sorts of opportunities for UI / MI that could be avoided.
April 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tim, GR events are neither social events nor gold point giveaways. Only those who place in the overalls get gold. If you study the stats, you will notice that most of teh people who are in the overalls are already LMs.
The people who play in any duplicte event liek competition, but do not like playing in a field where they have no chance to win. The GR gives these players an environment where they still have to play there best 9and have some luck) to do well, but they get a reward foer doing this that they will never get in an open event unless they have truly exceptional luck. For many (most?) once they learn enough so they place consistently, they stp playing in GR and move up to something harder, because they want a challenge. (Personally, the first time I won a GR event was the last time I played in one). For others, the 750 limit is needed to tell them it is time to move on, but I don't think that is the major reason people move up to open games.
April 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve, Some would and some wouldn't. I have been going to at least one NABC a year, usually more, since I came back to bridge in 2008 (had about 50 MP at the time). And I typically used to play in at least one NABC event each time, but mostly in regional events until recently. But I would have greatly preferred if there were more National events for limited levels. Granted, maybe I am not typical, but I am also not extremely atypical in this regard. Many people travel to go to NABCs to play only in regional events. They enjoy the excitement, playing against people from all over, bigger and tougher fields (the fields are better at the regional events at NABCs than they are at most regionals, in my experience.) But I think many would also like having a National-rated 750 event or something similar. I personally would like to see a 2500 level event at every NABC, instead of once a year.

BTW, they generally now have a GR event every day at the NABCs (except the last day). But it is the same 2 session GR as at Regionals, with no recognition to winners except the fine print in the daily bulletin.
April 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Daniel, I agree with your first point but not your second. I found the people much friendlier in higher level events than in Gold Rush, provided you are a serious player and don't cause disruption. Too many GR folks are overly focussed on making LM and think that supercedes being friendly or even having manners.
April 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ten years ago I played in the national 199er pairs event (2 sessions). There was only around 14 tables, which was shocking to me, especially since the 1 session 299er pairs had three or four sections every day.
Nevertheless, my partner and I loved it and would have come back for more if there were suitable events. Alas, the only other one like that was the National 299er pairs, and we were over 300 the next time that came around. From there, the next thing like it is the Red Ribbon and the micro-Spingold, both at the time having a 1500 limit (2500 for last three years).

So we opted to try the LM pairs at the fall national. This was, of course, way over our heads (but a great learning experience). But even those with a taste for these learning experiences also would also like a way to play in a challenging event where you stand some chance, at least once in a while.

So I kind of agree with Jeff - There ought to be National Gold Rush pairs and teams, with substantiall point awards, publicity, and glory for the winners.
April 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
IMO, that is the way to go.
April 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Pretty sure the BoD has the potential to be personally sued for deciding to breach a contract. Of course, ACBL likely has D&O insurance which may provide them a fig leaf. Bt I doubt Bahar will pursue this further, so unlikely the BoD will experience any personal hit from this (although they should, IMO!).

And if they have any sense of responsibility, they should resign.
April 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Technically, you must call the director. In my experience, what the director will do is have you leave the table so your parner can explain. The director should caustion your partnr that he may not take advantage of the knowledge that you don't know your agreement. That should be the end of it.
March 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
North is 5-5 or 5-6 in the minors and is trying to decide whether to go for the risky but matchpoint-desirable 2NT or the safer minor suit contract.
March 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In what practcal way is online different from screens? If there isn't any, as it appears to me, we have a set of rules that should apply.
March 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I bid 2 per system and wait to see what partner has to say about her hand. Heading for 4 but may go slamming if partner now bids 3
Feb. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My understanding is the above is illegal convention in ACBL. You are allowed to open 1NT with a singleton, but are not allowed to have a convention to identify the fact that you have done so.
Feb. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you have the power to make whatever ruling you want, and nobody can overturn it, it is ‘legal’, as you make the law. The question is whether your club is actually playing bridge or a new game you invented. The second, and far more relevant, question is whether the people who play in the club are happy with your new game and will continue to come to you to play it.
Feb. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1. Convention cards may or may not exist at all in a club game. You will be hard pressed to find a club director (or even a TD) who will truly enforce a requirement for a CC.
2. Saying this is meaningless. Players in any Open game can enter regardless of what they know or don't know. At a club you will find a large percentage of players who know only SA and / or 2/1GF. What the charts say is irrelevant. The players in question are also not aware these charts exist, and wouldn't care anyway.
Feb. 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
.

Bottom Home Top