Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Richard Jeng
1 2 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When I was around that age, I enjoyed reading any bridge book (I remember reading “25 Conventions You Should Know” and enjoying both the Menagerie and Abbot series), The Bridge World, and many years worth of Bulletins. However, in this day and age it might also be effective to let him play around with BBO through Bridge Master.
July 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
From a fairness perspective, how would one prevent a team or pair from the same school from tossing? That's no easy question to answer, and it ultimately relies on inherent integrity regardless. Measuring and quantifying quality is no mundane task.

The pair finals should be stratified as well. It was originally proposed as 0-100, but I believe it will be more in line with the stratification of this event.
April 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I must preface this by saying I have won an earlier travel package and played in this pairs event on Sunday.

Sean has already mostly touched upon the flaws of the “no stake” argument among other things, but I would like to mention two points.

1) (Redacted due to updated definition of can't win)

1.5) Pairs and Teams Packages are separate for the “can't win” condition. A school has the opportunity to win up to two packages total: one from the teams event and one from either the pairs or the participation event.

2) One aspect of this pairs event was to promote collegiate bridge among schools that didn't have enough members to form a team. As the numbers show, there was actually a significant drop in participation comparing the teams event to the pairs event. I am sure that the ACBL Ed Foundation or other institutions are carefully tracking participation to see the future of Collegiates and these events. There are obviously a number of factors that could be attributed to this drop in participation, but what's important is that at the end of the day this is a collegiate event for collegiate players. Outside of the actual championship at the Summer NABC, these qualifiers events are the only official opportunity to play against collegiate players from around the country. This might be a jaded perspective, but I would not want to be put into an event that was essentially labeled as “unqualified” or “nonwinning”. Note that this would be different than a consolation event.

What Sean has said sums this up succinctly.

>Why should players be denied an opportunity just because they were lucky and skillful enough to do well in a past event?

A bit unrelated but since I do not see another results thread:

Much thanks to Trisha, Michael, Stephanie, and everyone else at ACBL who made this event possible and congrats to Sean and Morgan for posting two big sessions to win!
April 15
Richard Jeng edited this comment April 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Congrats, Beans! Well-deserved accomplishment.
March 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Casebooks can be found here:

https://nabc.acbl.org/past-nabcs/#casebooks

The most recent one is San Diego, 2017 Fall NABC.
Feb. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Scroll all the way down on the results page.

Open Butler scores: http://db.eurobridge.org/repository/competitions/18Ostend/microsite/ButlerOT.htm
June 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When would you ever have only 3 diamonds and still rebid 2? The shape of the hand is already limited to 4432.
April 28, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If responder was willing to bid 5 over 5, a better choice of action would have been a direct 5 bid.
April 17, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Pass by North seems like an ill-advised action. The opponents are guaranteed at least an 8 card major fit, so bidding 2 weak (if available) or raising clubs (preemptively if available) seems like the best route to take with the North hand.
April 10, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you.

So at what point does the 3rd seat opening become a pysch?

Since there is no clear defined 3rd seat bid, could I open a yarborough and it not be considered a psych?
March 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the Open+ Chart, it states under Disallowed Opening Bids:

“A Natural or Quasi-Natural 1-level opening bid in first or second seat that could contain less than Near-Average Strength.”

So by logic, 3rd/4th hands could contain quasi-natural opening bids that have less than near-average strength.

However, later on in the example section for restrictions it states:

“(Quasi-)Natural opening bids at the 1 level must, by Agreement, have at least 8 HCP or meet the Rule of 17”

So, can 3rd/4th hands contain less than near average strength? The first statements leans towards allowing it, while the second just doesn't allow for any hands opened below the definition of Near-Average Strength.
March 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Replace “YOUR_ACBL_NUMBER” with your actual number.
March 8, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
http://www.acbl.org/about-acbl/administration/board-of-directors/meeting-motions-and-minutes/

All I had to was type in “audit committee acbl” into google.

It seems that Al Levy is the chair.
March 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XF5IJ4Nf6ZlxRAOyyAooHGewuyLUJ4hLYtrxHtYhrLw/edit#gid=107888979

Excel sheet with more detailed results as well as lineups.
March 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
100%. See below for what Sylvia said, which brings a great viewpoint.
Feb. 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A simple raise to 4 should surely suffice. North is almost always marked with heart shortness, and the Q98x can definitely present some finessable positions. Given that however, the three low diamonds are definitely a problem, but I don't think a direct raise to 5 is out of the question.
Feb. 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
5 may have been intended as exclusion, and through that, the 2 missing aces can easily be found. In a vacuum, NS should not be in slam.

4NT in this context should just be “I can take 10 tricks, and my vulnerable game is worth than I expect to earn defending 4SX.” 6 is a realization that if S can take 10 tricks on his own, and looking at KJx and Qxx in the majors, there definitely is some slam here, given that it is very likely S has long, solid diamonds.
Feb. 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Correct, it seems the discovery play can only benefit.
Feb. 10, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was assuming after South exited with the j.
Feb. 9, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In 5 declarer will have to play A and a low and hope that South doesn't unblock the J.
Feb. 9, 2018
1 2 3
.

Bottom Home Top