Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Mike Ma
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have also repeated myself a million times on this point. If you want, think of the first day as like an open swiss, and you are rewarded for doing well, which is equivalent to MP based on the bracket placement you end up. If you want, make the reward contingent on playing the SF. As I have said before, the logistics details can be figured out by the board. The board should identify if and what the problem is right now. Decide which scheme has the potential to overcome those problems without creating new problems.
July 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray, I have repeated myself one million times. You can't reward someone for just entering the event, which is what it would be if you give points to the 5th wheel for just agreeing to play in the top bracket. Here, you have a first day swiss, and you can be rewarded well for coming in the top 4 (the tougher the field, the more the reward). That will discourage tanking to get into lower bracket. If what would have been a lower bracket team gets into the top bracket, that team is rewarded even if it loses in the SF (whether there is a playoff for 3rd or not) because if the performance on the first day. All the objections so far are just silly.
July 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray, what the hell are you doing? I am talking about a format where you have to qualify for the higher bracket, not just enroll in it. You keep setting up strawmen or reduce things to absurdity. This is so unlike you.
July 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Seriously folks, first all you have to do is to make the MP reward of getting into a higher bracket worth their while.

Plus, if you think players are going to be so unethical, why even bother. Let's just allow cheating.
July 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dave, my style is to have 31H promising 2.
July 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It sure is interesting to see so many opt for the slam killer 2NT opening as the bid to make to get to slam.
July 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you are worried about 6, why not 6?
July 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think 3 promises 6. What is responder supposed to do with 5=1=3=4 with xxxx? So over 3, opener is going to bid 3NT.

1 - 1
3 - 3
3NT - 4 (slam interest)
4NT - 5
5 - 5
6
July 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is easy to adjust MP award so that getting into SF of one bracket is not that different from winning the bracket below. Besides, what is the difference between dumping to play lower to what is the complaint now, that teams refuse to play up? At least, the top bracket KO won't get cancelled because of lack of teams as currently it can and does happen.
July 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray, mine, others, Steve's, are rudimentary proposals, with a central idea. Why should we (i.e., people not on the board) work out the details. It is up to the board, which has a global view, to decide if any proposal has merit and figure out how to work things out. If the present situation is not broken, then it is fine to not do anything. But according to BW people, it is broken, so the fact that it is unchanged since 2008 only makes it more reasonable to usher in a new format.

BTW, how many times do I have to explain that the MP awards is based on the beginning of the Swiss, not after. Do you have an objection to that? If so, say what it is instead of keep saying that the second bracket will earn more MP than first.
July 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray, once again, the payout of each bracket should be determined at the beginning of the Swiss, not after. Why is that concept so difficult to swallow?
July 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve, I assumed 2 was transfer, not natural, in my model auction. It is not TO. 2 is TO. Anyway, the point is one should look at the system over (1NT) - X - (2x) and see what if anything needs to be changed, as opposed to figuring out an entire new scheme from scratch.
July 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard, it is true that in the overcall and X situation, our side has shown the balance of points unless opener has a weak shapely hand. However, it may be even in the opening 1NT - X case, one plays P as forcing. I am specifically thinking of http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/taming-the-weak-notrump-part-2/ . The fact that we have already shown BOP actually makes the treatment there even more straightforward. The one difference between the two sequences is that the Kaplan-Weinstein scheme only plays P as forcing to 2 bid. Because our side is known to have the BOP, P should be forcing to something higher.
July 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kevin S, when you overcall a m, advancer's M does not show a misfit. Furthermore, your suit does not care about fit when you are playing in another trump suit.
July 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Does this question not apply if it went (1NT) - X - (2)? If so, why do we need to play something different?
July 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
KO is the only game where you don't care what others besides your team and opponents are doing. For me, that is what Bridge is about. Unfortunately, you hardly ever get to play one on one KO match now even in a KO tournament.
July 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
S has 3 tricks in her hand. All she needs is the Jx with N to set 4 (based on W having a Michaels hand). Even Tx would do if is 4-5-2-2 around the table. It is not a difficult X. The only question is if S thinks it is necessary to X.
July 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was not commenting on your stratified swiss proposal. I was commenting on your misunderstanding and objections to my and similar proposal by others.
July 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My proposal never said teams were bracketed the first day. The first day is to qualify for second day brackets. The only bracketing that needs to be done the first day is if the number of teams is too huge, making the Swiss results totally random. Eliminating GLM teams that don't qualify for the top bracket is not essential to the scheme, but may appeal to some people's idea of fairness.
July 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Re Swiss Qualifying KO, first there is no A, B,C. There is Bracket 1, 2, 3 etc on. Basically for most teams they are qualifying for which bracket, not for second day. If a GLM fails to get into second day Bracket 1, they have already lost, and playing in the lower brackets is a punishment, not a reward. How would the client(s) feel to be competing in Bracket 3 after hiring a GLM team? And, based on an alternative but similar suggestion by Marty Harris, it is possible to allow GLM teams to only qualify for Bracket 1, so if they fail, they are knocked out.

Of course, there are other logistic issues, but nothing insurmountable.
July 14
.

Bottom Home Top