Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Peg Kaplan
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 439 440 441 442
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Craig, it's kind of like pornography. You know it when you see it.

And “in tempo” means you don't think for some time prior to your opponent leading trump toward dummy when you have xx in the suit.

It's not a “litigious declarer.” It's someone calling the director when an opponent has taken an action that has no real meaning other than an illegal attempt to influence declarer's play.
14 minutes ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael, as I had mentioned on another thread relating to this one, I do not think full carryover is wise. If a team is likely to face another, starting out minus 100, then there is a reasonable chance that they may not try their hardest playing against another team. I sure wouldn't want to start out the day minus 100.

Either a small carryover - or my preference, none (at least for this type of event).
14 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dave - 4NT is a fine choice - as long as partner doesn't take that to be a NT natural invitation with extras. If it were CLEAR that's what 4NT would be, it would be my choice. But since I was concerned partner might pass 4NT, that is why I chose as I did.
15 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike, double digits may not sound like many IMPS to you. But to a number of our competitors in Flight B, it was quite disconcerting. I know because I both spoke with people and have emails from some detailing their concerns.

Though I personally did not like the concept at all, really my deepest concern was that the change for Flight B was announced months after the original COC and flyer had been posted on our website. Teams had been formed; plans had been made.

This is part of why I earlier made the statement that I think 30 days is not near enough advance time for any District to announce their COC.

(BTW, for any of those who think that a double digit handicap is not of significance have likely never experienced the “joy” of losing to a team by less than an IMP…)
15 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm with Bruce. Hoping I have the Right Stuff for slam - so - I bid it. Avoids disaster (assuming that we can't make 6!)
16 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Perhaps I have “no idea what I am claiming.”

But - I have a copy of the COC that you requested I post on our website. I am copying these sections verbatim (see below.)

Perhaps I am misunderstanding how this was to be calculated. But the last statement in your COC “For teams averaging more than 1,000MPs less than their opponents the handicap will be double digits” seems to be more than 2 IMPS to me.

*******************

There is a wide disparity in experience across Flight B. Providing a handicap offers less experienced teams gives a better chance of reaching the KO stage during the qualifying Swiss.

The ACBL approved a 150% handicap for the 28-board KO phase.
The masterpoint average will be calculated based on the April 6, 2019 run.


KO Semifinal and Final handicaps

D14 has applied to increase the handicap for the KO semifinal and final to 150%. For teams averaging more than 1,000MPs less than their opponents the handicap will be double digits.
16 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Rick, I agree with most of what you have written. Yet I think that 6 and 8 need to have longer timelines. Thirty days prior to the event not near enough.

My suggestion is that the ACBL should receive the COC no later than 4 months prior to the event. And then the COC for each District shall be posted no later then 3 months prior.

This year our coordinator posted COC and a flyer in January - then changed them in April for one flight in particular. A number of the players in this flight were quite upset, for different reasons. One of them is that they would have selected different teammates had they been aware of the new COC (which included a 24 imps handicap, with no handicap at all specified previously). A variety of reasons why people ought to have the COC available more in advance. And I don't see why providing that should be difficult.

I also think that the ACBL should, overall, have a few more guidelines as to what is OK - and what not. I profess to not be terrifically familiar with what would be allowed currently …. Yet it seems to me that under our current policies, our Districts could have various policies that many of us would think are not in keeping with the spirit and the goals of the GNT.

I'm fine with a fair amount of latitude for each District. We are quite distinct from one another. But today it seems close to an “anything goes” - and some things ought not to be allowed to go!
19 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think I've ever had red boards (lucky me). That being said, I know I have seen boards where it is difficult to determine the vulnerability. In my view, particularly with more of us being older rather than younger, I think that having boards where determining the vulnerability is facile ought always be the standard!
19 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Geesh, David! Yet another example of people/companies at their worst.
22 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“The CoC are adjusted from year-to-year before the official start of the event on September 1 and are published on the district web-site. Each team captain is advised before the start of the district final to go to the web-site and review the CoC as they are expected to comply.”

A quote from Ted. In my mind, quite critical.

IF D22 had CURRENT and clear COC posted on their website, then it would be easy for all participants to look them up and be aware of what they are. In today's world, would be facile for anyone to read, download and keep a copy.

But, as far as I am aware, this was not the case in D22. COC from the year prior were up. And of all the over 1,000 comments now, no one has stated that a copy of the current COC PRIOR to the event itself was posted. (We all see the “updated May 31st” COC - but after the event has concluded, a bit bizarre to state that this is informative for those competing in the event.)

Some people might not have even wanted to compete in the event, depending upon what the COC were. Some might have caught a flaw that rendered the COC illegal - or - any number of issues.

HAD the COC been disclosed in a timely manner, then the number of copies of the COC at the playing site would have been vastly less critical - at least in my mind.

I think I need not state again how incredulous I am that this important event could have been run without full disclosure to players as to what the rules for it were. And that does seem exactly what occurred (along with the “aid” of players being told that they had won when later exactly the opposite was told to them)….
June 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray, I agree that having two is better than zero.

But there were 38 teams that entered this event. I'm not sure exactly how many players that meant for their GNT - and - let's assume that every single player doesn't need a copy.

Yet, would it be unreasonable for every captain to have a copy of the COC - at least, if they wished to get one? Particularly when a current one prior to and during the event wasn't available?

Sorry, but given how many people and teams competed in this event, to me the lack of providing competitors with how the game is to be played and scored is far more dramatic than the difference between 2 copies for 38 teams versus none. (Especially in my mind when, to this day, it's really not clear what the COC for District 22 actually were!)

Would be kinda fun if someone could provide the 2018-2019 COC - especially the ones that existed prior to the conclusion of the event.
June 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“For all most of us (who weren't there) know, two copies of the updated CoC were on the director's table. While I'm not certain of that, the person responsible for arranging the event and drafting the CoC said he provided two copies and his wife corroborated that on this site. This statement was accepted by the D22 BoD after some investigation. I consider those circumstances more plausible than the earlier possibly hyperbolic claim, “we asked for it 5 times and were not given” that many seem to have accepted as gospel.”

Ray. In our district, every year we post COC both on our website and reference it in flyers. We actually had a modest brouhaha in our District when our hard working GNT coordinator decided to alter the COC in April, after having had them posted along with a flyer in January. Ultimately, in part due to a number of people being quite upset about this, the COC returned to the January version.

I have to admit, I am mind boggled that you seem to think that two copies of the COC AT the tournament site are all that should be needed to inform competitors.

What if some people do not wish to participate if they find the COC to be untenable for what they think is appropriate? Are they supposed to have to drive several hours to the playing site to find out “Gee; I guess we don't want to play after all..”??

And - weren't there quite a number of teams in all flights at this event? You think two copies should be sufficient for all participants to be aware of how the event is to be run? I would not.

As for District 22's so-called “investigation” - as far as I could determine, there really was none mentioned. Am I incorrect? From statements on Bridgewinners, members of 2 of the 3 finalists stated that they did not receive COC after requesting. Yet, you continually claim that the wife of the coordinator must be correct and the participants from those two teams not… And that there is no possibility that a couple people picked up the COC so in fact after a short period, they might not have been on the desk, despite good intentions.

In my mind, it is one thing to argue about what should have been done, what might have been done, etc. It is quite another to claim that almost no disclosure is required for a national ABCL event.

And yes; in my mind, having an older set of COC - which may bear no relation to the 2018-2019 COC - and a “revised” set AFTER THE FACT is pretty much no disclosure in my mind.
June 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is something I still find incredibly curious.

If you go to District 22's website, STILL there are two COC's listed there. One is the 2017-2018 COC. The other is the new and improved (“updated” is the District's language) - and the “updated” COC date is AFTER the event had concluded. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't know how COC that are essentially “after the fact” enlighten anyone.

I did look through the 2017-2018 COC. I couldn't find anything that referred to VP scoring for the event. (Note; I have some mild dyslexia, so it may be that it is there and I missed it or turned it upside down. My apologies if it is my error.)

In any case, whether I am correct or not, it seems exceedingly strange that competitors were supposed to be well informed by COC for 2018-2019 EITHER from COC the previous year OR COC after the fact this year.

Ray - why do you seem to have no problem with this failure to disclose by District 22? And - why are you so certain that the 2 copies of the current COC (still not appearing on their website) were, with certainty, available for all throughout the event this year?

You question many of us for wondering about specifics that do not add up to us. To what do you ascribe your certainty on these issues?
June 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Art, perhaps the VP chart would not have influenced play. But surely it would have influenced the players to be certain to raise the issue of hands where they felt rulings needed to be made!

I can't imagine requesting rulings after being told I had won AND didn't realize scoring was not as we had thought.
June 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Eric, a number of times in life, I've had to say to people: “We have no good choices. All of our choices are poor; we can only chose the least poor of our options.” So it seems to me in this case.

I am not sure what the “least poor” is here. Perhaps it is as you and some others have described - to let both teams play with the understanding that only one of the two from that district could survive past the Swiss. Maybe others have better “least poor” solutions.

Yet all that being said, I remain troubled too that those rendering a decision as to how this should be handled didn't express apologies. Almost all of us think that from start to finish, this GNT event was a disaster and players were not treated as they should have been.

One cannot undo what occurred. But - “we apologize to you” can - and should - be expressed.
June 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I see. Well; in that case, I am “on your side,” Richard. At least as the bridge world stands today, I would think that in most scenarios, if you're looking for wealth, running a bridge club is not it.

I did make my statement, though, as some may not have a need to earn a great deal. And thus their efforts are based upon their love of the game, the desire to keep it alive and thriving - etc., etc.
June 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Eric, I am having difficulty understanding your reasoning as to why you think that the specifics of the VP scale (or, for that matter, any scoring format other than win loss, for the reasons mentioned many times!) would not really matter.

I would think that most/many of us would vary our choices based upon the form of scoring (and yes, different VP scales).

I know I myself have played in events where the scoring form was unclear to me (club games; not tournaments) and I was not happy about that. (I might add that I clearly can be a doofus, but I think others felt the description was unclear, too.)

Playing in an event where you're unsure what actions to take as scoring has not been clarified just shouldn't occur - at least not as far as I am concerned!
June 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard, I could be wrong - but … I though this statement by Jeff B:

“what will it take to get our brightest players, and our most talented entrepreneurs interested in starting clubs, teaching our next generation of players, growing our membership?”

did not refer to entrepreneurs IN GENERAL but individuals with entrepreneurial abilities who wished to have a bridge club.

I think that most would have to agree that if you're looking to get rich, a bridge club ain't the way to do it!

One could have other motives to create and run a bridge club than attaining financial wealth.
June 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike, given that not only the members of the team who were told they had won - and now are told that they didn't - but the team who knew they had NOT won vouched for much (all?) of what the (formerly) winning team had asserted … I personally think that there should have been far more detail about what was examined and found - and why the League ultimately came to the decisions that they did.

Why did the League take the word of one GNT coordinator over multiple players who disputed what he stated?

Why no mention of the fact that many players asserted the event had been scored by win-loss in previous years, despite the wording in the then COC, so that many THIS year thought was going to be the same? Why was it that no weight was given to the fact that only the “winning” team thought the scoring was as it later was asserted to be, and that the other two teams did not think so?

Why was the behavior of the DIC not relevant to a decision?

I think that the players are owed explanations of all this.

If they said that they needed more time to investigate and talk to people, that would be reasonable. But these decisions with close to no explanation still makes no sense to me.

Our players deserve better. I think that this harms all of us in ways that are not good - though clearly, those playing in the event that day were harmed far more.
June 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray - there were far more than 2 teams at the event. So - we might say that given the COC weren't on the District's website, that more copies should have been available the playing site.

Members of the Schafer team stated that they asked for the COC and didn't get them.

I wasn't there, so I don't know for certain what happened. But - from comments that both teams that didn't win according to current pronouncements made, it seems that access to the actual COC was not very good (if available at all).

Are the players being (inaccurate - lying - confused - you fill in the blank)? - or might something have happened to those two copies in between the time when the coordinator's wife put them on the table and the event concluded?

I dunno. But I'd surely wish to investigate more about it.
June 11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 439 440 441 442
.

Bottom Home Top