Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Richard Willey
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wish, once again, that the ACBL wouldn't keep drifting from their core competency….
May 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> We have a large rubber bridge club where I live. They
> have no interest in playing duplicate. They want to bid
> and play their hands with very few conventional bids.
> Blackwood is accepted.

1. Where might this strange beast be?
2. How old is the player base?
3. How do you find new members?
May 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Coulda, woulda, shoulda…

If there is one thing that the ACBL has demonstrated over the years, it's that it is grossly incompetent at managing anything to do with technology.

Saying that the ACBL could have “easily” taken over E-Bridge is like saying

“The ACBL could have easily replaced ACBLScore”

or

“The ACBL could have easily migrated off the AS400”

or

“The ACBL could have easily gotten the CRM system up and running”

The organization is constitutionally incapable of doing anything other than bicker over masterpoint allocations.
May 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
From my own perspective, I think that a lot of regulations on bidding do a lot more harm than good. In particular I think that regulations around non artificial 1NT openings (by which I mean a non forcing 1NT opening that shows a willingness to play 1NT as a contract) are inane. Current ACBL regulations that ban

Opening 1NT with hands holding less than 10 HCPs
Opening 1NT with a small singleton

are exemplars of these sorts of regulations.

If these methods are viable (by which I mean that people get good scores playing them) then there is no reason that these openings should not thrive Alternatively, if these methods turn out to be flawed, well, folks will figure this out as well. But this notion that we need to protects pairs against simple, non artificial bids is ludicrous.
May 21
Richard Willey edited this comment May 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If folks are actually interested in some of the technical issues around this, google the expression “buffer bloat”
May 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It feels like there is some concerted effort to try and create a lifestyle brand around bridge.

(Strikes me as really weird, but stranger things happen)
May 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In my experience, many people who are playing online bridge are multi tasking.

There is other stuff going on in the background (could be dinner on the stove, could be a cat trying to catch your attention, could be a TV show, could be the doorbell ringing

And, depending on what happens, this can have a big impact on tempo

The same does not hold true (or at least not nearly as much) in the F2F game
May 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> but my friends, who happen to be experts,
> do not operate. Neither should you.

Experts directly benefit when the pairs that they play against adopt low variance strategies.

Conversely, if you expect that the opposing team is stronger than you, there's significant benefit from adopting methods that significantly drive up the variance without costing much in terms of the expected value.

Kit Woolsey addresses this nicely in his book on IMPS years back and included several good examples.
May 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Neal

Thanks for pointing this out.

It would be very interesting to see direct before / after comparison regarding the fee structures for online sectionals versus traditional “brick and mortar” type events.
May 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> I must pay the 3.5 dollars a table

Have you confirmed that the ACBL is charging a table fee on top of the aforementioned revenue split?
May 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hank raises a good point. (Especially in light of BBO's purge of hand records this last week)

Any type of anti-cheating task force that the ACBL puts together is going to want to have access to comprehensive hands records. The organization should probably insist that BBO provides some kind of permanent storage for events. (Or alternatively, is able to provide hand records to the ACBL for them to store permanently)
May 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Your best chance at getting doubled is to bid an immediate 7NT

I would probably just bid 1 with this hand, planning to compete to at least 3
May 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
From what I can tell, a bunch of non ACBL groups are setting up successful team tournaments…

I don't think that the question is “Will regionals stay on BBO or just go back to F2F”, but rather do people who prefer team events discover that they can get along quite well without the ACBL. And, if the ACBL cedes this portion of the market to third parties, this makes it more and more likely.
May 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you for posting this.

It looks pretty reasonable for the most part.

One quick thought: The writeup includes the following

“Team Games at this time are difficult, KO could be done using Preregistration and at least one additional TD, suggest pairs only for the first year. Swiss at this time is impossible.”

From my own perspective, Team Games (particular Swiss Teams) are an important style of play. It would be nice if the ACBL and BBO could each some kind of agreement by which the ACBL would pre-commit to payments in ordr to have BBO prioritize add this type of functionality.

For example, currently the BBO / ACBL / Sponsor revenue split runs

25 / 25 / 50

The ACBL might, instead, propose

60 / 20 / 20

for the first two years after appropriate support for Team Games and Swiss teams gets introduced.
May 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
FWIW, the BBO issue that concerns me is that that current management is

1. Running “Support Your Game” charity tournaments at dramatically inflated prices
2. Using the proceeds to support other companies under their corporate umbrella

Specifically, BBO's current management also owns Le Bridgeur magazine and …

https://blog.bridgebase.com/2020/04/22/new-help-bridge-with-the-syg-daylong-support-your-game/
May 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Silly question:

Are any of the new owners of BBO actual bridge players?
Do any of them actually use the service?
Are any of them software developers?

Or, alternatively, are they a bunch of people with some money who re trying to generate a return on their investment?

FWIW, I don't see anything wrong with wanting to make a good ROI, but it feels as if they may have overpaid and it feels as if they goal is trying to turn bridge / BBO into some kinda of lifestyle brand
May 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1N - 2
2 - 4

on this end
May 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> Drew you offer a difficult hand where there is no good solution.

Well, here's one option

Bid what you want and then ignore whatever penalty that the ACBL assigns. (By which I mean, create your own personal score for the event that ignores the ACBL score adjustment)

The ACBL scoring adjustments really only matters if you care about masterpoints and its not like they're ever going to refuse to take your money / block you from playing in events.

Given how rarely the sort of hand is going to come up, this seems like a perfectly viable solution.
May 17
Richard Willey edited this comment May 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That should probably read “Profound and systematic racism in organized bridge within the United States” rather than racism in the ACBL.
May 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> Making 4 or 5 on the board doesn't change the result much.

Originally, your claim was that you were damaged because of poor disclosure

Now you seem to be saying that you were damaged because the opponents reached a better contract…

No offense, but at the end of the day, it really sounds like you just don't like the opponent's bidding and you're trying to use a director's call to punish them.

This feels consistent with earlier posting that you've made explaining that you feel a “duty” to “protect” beginner's against bad bidding…
May 15
.

Bottom Home Top