Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Monty Page
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 51 52 53 54
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree that 4H was an overbid, but I think the bigger problem was that North's failure to splinter in clubs told South that his club King was working. What was South supposed to do? North bid game opposite a possible six count, but South has a full opener. North could even be better than 18-19 balanced, he could have a 5422 hand that he felt was unsuitable for either a 2NT or a 2C opening. I don't know what South should do over 4H, but passing seems out of the question.
20 hours ago
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At our club, J9xxx and 10 points at unfavorable vulnerability is considered quite reasonable. Some will even stretch that. Those players have thousands of master points to demonstrate that their judgement is sound.
22 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No.
Feb. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A positive in hearts is the one positive bid that never gets in opener's way. Relaxing the requirements for that positive only makes a lot of sense.
Feb. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I play almost exclusively match points, and I prefer Standard American (even though it is no longer standard). I also strongly prefer Weak NoTrumps. We do play some things that are definitely non-standard though …

I imagine that when we play in National events, my wife and I may well be the only pair playing a form of SA. It isn't our bidding methods that make us outclassed, it's our card play, and sometimes our bidding judgement.
Feb. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard, I used to play regularly with a woman who would wait until everyone had picked up their bidding cards and returned them to the box, and then ask for a review of the auction. She must have done this on at least 1/3 of the hands.
Feb. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The biggest advantage of transfers is the ability to generate more sequences of bids. That does not change as the NoTrump range changes.
Feb. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Vugraphs for other formats would be more interesting if one could follow either a pair, or follow one deal, with updates on the results from other tables. But for now, team matches are the only watchable format. And if we're hoping that non players will tune in to see what bridge is all about, well, like you Randy, they'll just switch channels as soon as someone tanks for more than 30 seconds.
Feb. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I imagine that most don't play 2/1 GF because they learned SA back in the Dark Ages. For myself, I can play 2/1 GF, but I feel that it is not optimal for match points, so I prefer not to play it. I know, swimming against the tide …
Feb. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not all players worship at the altar of 2/1 GF. In tournaments the vast majority do play it, but I'd guess that at our club fewer than half do.
Feb. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Accurate as compared to my knowledge of the players. Admittedly, that is a small sample. My point is that we can study this until Hell freezes over, or we can just use what already exists, and maybe fiddle with it as we go.
Feb. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think our club is fairly representative. About 25% of the members attend the sectionals hosted by our club. I'd guess about 10% attend other sectionals and regionals (we're lucky, here in Florida there are a LOT of tournaments). A not insignificant percentage also play in one or two other clubs in the area. Basically, the tournament attendees are reasonably accurately rated (Champion Power Ratings), and the non attendees are rated relative to the tournament players who play at the club. Maybe not perfect, but good enough. Looking at the Power ratings of those 50 or so players that I know very well, the ratings seem quite reasonable for both groups. Based on that observation, there doesn't seem to be any reason to segregate the bridge playing population into separate groups.

Champion's Power Ratings are easy to understand, already implemented, and seem to be pretty accurate. Of course, we could spend the next 20 years or so trying to create the perfect rating system, or we could just go with one of the two similar systems that are already running (England's NGS being the other), and maybe tune it somewhat on the fly after it is in use.
Feb. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I spent my career as an algorithm developer in the defense industry. One thing that many here don't seem to appreciate is that the first rollout of any rating system will never be perfect. There is a continual process of refining, testing, adjusting, and fixing. In fact, it is likely that perfection can never be achieved. There is however a real danger that nothing will ever get rolled out if the developers spend too much time trying to achieve that unachievable perfection.

There is an excellent parallel in the beginnings of the Ford Motor Company. Henry Ford drove his first company into bankruptcy because he was never satisfied with his cars, he kept trying to improve them before putting them in the marketplace. He was on his way to the same result with his second company for exactly the same reasons when his investors forced him out (the second company is now known as Cadillac). His third company (Ford Motor Company) only succeeded because his largest investor supplied a Vice President who insisted that they start actually selling cars, even if they were not perfect. We all know how that turned out.
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No, sharing isn't a problem with 4 board rounds, but not sharing isn't a problem either. We haven't found any significant time problems, usually about 3 hours and 15 minutes.
Feb. 10
Monty Page edited this comment Feb. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We have the ten year history of England's National Grading System to look at. From what I've read, the ratings pages on their website are the most oft visited pages. Ratings don't seem to be chasing their club players away, on the contrary, they must be intrigued by them.
Feb. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The advantage is no sharing. We've played this movement often, with no problems at all.
Feb. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think you're right.
Feb. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'll explain it, it's not hard.

For 6 tables, there will be 12 two board rounds. Put a byestand between each pair of tables. We just use an extra chair next to every North player. Call the byestands tables 1 1/2, 2 1/2, 3 1/2, etc.

Lay out the boards as follows : 1-2 on table 1, 3-4 on table 1 1/2, 5-6 on table 2, … , 23-24 on table 6 1/2.

After each round, E/W moves up one table, and the boards move UP 1/2 table. The E/W pairs circle the room twice, and the boards go around once. No skips, no sharing, and as a bonus, the private scores of both N/S and E/W have the boards played in order (ascending for N/S, descending for E/W), so it's very easy for the players to tell if they've got the wrong boards.

You'll have to make the movement file. ACBLScore will complain when you make the file because pairs play each other twice, but it's OK. If you're not up to making the file, let me have your e-mail address, and I'll send it to you. To do the arrow switch (if you want), you'll need to make a second file. I never made that file, because we're forbidden to do arrow switches (don't ask).

It also works for 4 tables - 8 three board rounds.
Feb. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would not count on ACBLScore calculating the movement balance correctly. I would count on Jeannie (by Ian McKinnon) doing it correctly.
Feb. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Clay movement. Perfect 2 winner 24 board movement for 6 tables. All play all, everyone plays every board, no sharing. 6 stationary pairs. Two (of 12) rounds can be arrow-switched to convert to a one winner movement.

It also works for 4 tables, although the 4 table Howell is also a perfect movement.
Feb. 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 51 52 53 54
.

Bottom Home Top