Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ping Hu
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm not sure “no agreement” is adequate when opponents ask to explain the call. In F2F tournament, when opponent asked for explanation, player suppose to explain all the calls' meaning even they are natural.

I think opponent is entitled to know a call in your system is forcing, signoff or invitational even it is natural. In BBO speedball not everyone has time to look over opponent CC to see their entire system. Even two CC are identical different partnership might have different treatment for certain calls. They may not have any specific agreement on a specific call, but there could be some meta agreements.
Sept. 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There are two issues here. First one is alert. Alert should be made when you made a conventional bid per ACBL policy. I don't think there is disagreement with it.

The second issue is what player should answer when opponent asks for a bid. This is what OP tried to discuss. Should you said what your bid means by you, or what you partner think it should means. I think either of them could have a problem. We might need a technical solution here. BBO used to have a Full-disclosure CC that you could define the meaning of every bids. My ideal solution is every pair should have such a CC with all there agreement defined. If a call is not defined, it is presumed natural. When such a CC is used, opponents could see their entire system. There is no need to ask questions.
Sept. 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think ACBL should come up a revised rules for its online games. It should be more like the rules with screens since partner could not see what you tell opponents. It is clearly you need to disclose any partnership agreement. For those calls there is no agreement, it is debatable you should tell what your bid means or what your partner think it means.

If you tell what your partner think it means, it is like in F2F game you try to explain a partner bid that you have no agreement. You could potentially give misinformation.

I have involved in drafting some rules for online matches on BBO. We decided on require player to disclose what their bid means but adding “not discussed with partner”. Even so there is still a problem what if a call is psychic. Am I suppose to say it is a psychic when asked? There is no perfect solution.
Sept. 26, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We are talking about BBO speedball game, not ACBL F2F tournament. How could you not to know what your own bid means? If you have no agreement with your partner, you could add comment that this call is not discussed with partner. You still should know the meaning of your own bid.
Sept. 26, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tom, is your NLM game a separate event? What is its size? TCG might exclude certain NLM games if the size is too small (it needs statistics). However these are technical problem that could be solved. You could e-mail me some games and I could check what information is available.

As for ACBLscore, I think you could set up a handicapped game and score it both ways (handicap or not). Players could get the higher of MP awards based on two methods. You could let ACBLscore to setup handicap (which would be based on masterpoint) or set up handicap yourself. If you think all your NLM players are about the same level, you could use TCG data for open players to set up handicap for them only and treat all NLM players the same.
Sept. 19, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you use Commongames, you could try to use its handicap score.
Sept. 18, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
6 pairs will form 3 teams and play a complete round robin. You could divide the match to two halves to make it easy.

The following is the steps ACBL uses to run 3-way matches. Each team starts at their home table. You could place 6 boards at each table (assuming you plan play 24 boards for the session).
1. Each team EW player moves to the higher table/team(1->2, 2->3, 3->1) to start 1st round. Shuffle and play.
2. At the end of 1st round, EW players bring the boards back to their home table, then go to the 3rd team table to play round 2 (do not shuffle the boards).
3. After round 2, EW players go back to their home table to compare scores. This complete the first half of match.
4. Repeat above for 2nd half of match.
Aug. 20, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Randy,
The web link from my OP has fees for all ACBL special games. GNT table fee is less than half of NAP, but with same rating (for MP awards).
Aug. 17, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Randy,

I agree with you GNT is an expansive event to play. I first played it in 2011 when I was still a flight C player. I won district NAP and GNT that year and that was my first time playing in NABC.

GNT was more expensive at that time because we had to pay our entry fees every day we played in NABC final (unlike NAP). After that I raised this issue with ACBL as well as MP pay out for the final was slow. In later review ACBL increased the MP pay out for GNT final and waived entry fees for first 2-3 days.

However my OP was not intended to have more players to play in GNT event. Most players who play in club NAP game do not go to district final either. I just want to point out club could held GNT game like NAP game to give player more masterpoints.

There could be some other factors prohibit players to play team team as I suspect in the next post I just made a minute ago. If we could identify the real problem, we could find a solution.
Aug. 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would like to hear from more club owners. I attended district final for both NAP and GNT every year. I don't recall GNT table size is smaller than NAP. The club NAP game has a lot of attendance.

Maybe this is just a general problem of team vs pair?
Aug. 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The job description for Executive Director has been published in multiple Atlanta NABC Daily bulletin since Aug. 2.
http://cdn.acbl.org/nabc/2018/02/bulletins/db7.pdf
See page 13.
Aug. 8, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Don - I know. This probably more reflects current bridge activities. Otherwise some managers will be very busy while others are idle.
July 24, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Karen,

Zoning is a great idea. In fact ACBL has already divided their operation to different zones. It is logical to organize something similar. See the link below.
http://web2.acbl.org/fieldoperations/Map.jpg
July 24, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Go to Special Events.
July 6, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would replace human TD with a robot TD. Just load a pair's full disclosure agreement into a program and check if their explanation matching it or not. Let the robot assign a penalty.
June 20, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would like to add that in between mini-bridge and bidding, I play a game of BridgeIt. This is a game I found from Kitty Cooper's teaching manual.

In this game player does not expose his hand like mini-bridge. Instead, each player write down his HCP and shape (4432 etc). Each player could look at everyone else's HCP and shape and take turns to bid a contract. This help students to learn about bidding's procedure (from lower to higher) and look for trump fit as well as how high they should bid (based on some knowledge from mini-bridge). It also make the introduction of my simple strong club open bidding system easier once they know what information to look for. This is in contrast to my class where I taught Standard American. You need to go through opener's rebid and responder's rebid that took a lot of time to learn and master.
June 17, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I also teach 4th-7th grade student to learn bridge. I started with mini-bridge that start with basic 4-3-2-1 counts. Then I give them a sheet to keep track how many HCP they had vs how many tricks they took. This leads to the concept of 25 HCP for game. In the process, they also learnt concept of balanced and unbalanced hand and looking for 8 card trump fit.

For teaching bidding, initially I started with ACBL's textbook. After two years I found it was not very effective. Last semester I tried a new approach. I used a simple strong club system. Good hand open 1C (17+), responder 1D is 0-7. Any other bids are natural and shows 8+, now they are in game forcing (17+8). After 1C-1D everything is natural and they just try to find best partial if they could not find enough HCP for game.

Now all other openings are limited, so responder has a better chance to judge if there is a chance for game than opening from Standard American.
June 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Kevin, it is in the process of being certified by ACBL. If you are interested, PM me and I could give you a copy.
June 7, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What about we increase MP awards for team event?
June 6, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was in Chicago Duplicate Club last Sunday. This club also used duplicated boards for their Swiss team for quite a while. They played 6 boards per round for 4 rounds. Their general set-up is to use set 1-6 and 7-12 during round 1, 13-18 and 19-24 for round 2, 25-30 and 31-36 for round 3. In round 4, they announced pairing and ask the two teams to find a set of boards to find a set of boards both did not play. They also had an extra set in case there is a need to use it. The reason for this arrangement is they don't have a lot of sets of pre-duplicated board.

For last Sunday we also used my software BridgeTD (mentioned by David White early) to run the game with ACBLscore and Bridgemate. This allowed players to enter their names into Bridgemate and upload to ACBLscore directly. Game results were also calculated by program and upload into ACBLscore directly just like pair games. The only thing that had to be manually done is to input the board number for each table in the program that got to send to Bridgemate. This is special because of the way this club wanted to run it. If you run Swiss with same boards per round like Bud did, the program will take care of everything.

Last Sunday's game there were 13 teams. So there were 3 way tables that used the extra set of board (different from other pre-duplicated boards). Two sets of pre-duplicated boards were used for other 5 head to head matches. For round 1, 3 matches used board 1-6, 2 used 7-12. Round 2 and 3 were similar. All boards were collected after each rounds and put on a table. At round 4 director announced pairing and asked the two teams to go and find a set of board both did not play. Then we went around to find what boards were played on each table and put them into the program.

Everything went smoothly last Sunday except at the end of round 2 one team found they entered a wrong score. We simply corrected it in BridgeTD and updated ACBLscore before doing next round pairing.

The score is almost instantly available in ACBLscore once the last table entered into Bridgemate. Even we had a slow table the game still finished on time.
June 6, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top