Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Robb Gordon
1 2 3 4 ... 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ... 32 33 34 35
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Reality is surprisingly subjective…”

I guess Moynihan was wrong - you CAN have your own facts.
July 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't understand. Isn't that what we have been in a “Gold Rush” to do for the last several years?
July 28, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One of the things playing 5 or 6 does is it makes it easier for people to play 3 sessions per day. Those 3 sessions pay 3 entry fees. One of the effects of reducing the MP is more 4 person teams and they will mostly play only 2 sessions. How is that going to look for revenue?
July 28, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am a Grand LM (like Peg) and a non-pro (like Peg). She has more MPs than I but other than that I think we have a similar perspective.

I also have education in the field of Economics although like bridge, it is not my profession.

So I would like to say something about a couple of comments here with everybody knowing where I am coming from.

Greg Humphries said “I think people have a very distorted view of what constitutes “fair”. To me, “fair” means “everyone has the same opportunity”, not “everyone has the same outcome”.”
I think this argument is specious here, as it is when bandied about in “income inequality” discussions. It is well and good to say that not everybody is entitled to $20 Million per year like MLB stars. But to say there is equality of opportunity in baseball would be a joke, and talent is only one part of it. This is not germane but what is would be the other angle. There are certain areas where we DO believe in equality of outcome. I think few Americans (or most people) would disagree with a statement that “everybody is entitled to adequate nutrition to survive”. We mostly believe in a safety net.

How does this apply to bridge? Well if you really believe that everyone should have the same opportunity then perhaps Peg and I should make a date for a 199er game. Again, we believe in a “safety net” for less experienced players. Again, hypothetically at least, this does not depend on talent or skill. You could have a 199er who has immense talent and skill, perhaps a lifetime rubber bridge player or a brilliant “junior” who is a better player than I but he gets to play in the novice game and I am “stuck” with the big boys.

This brings me to my second point – Mr. Bower says “The more-than-4 teams are invariably pros in the top bracket. There is a reason the rank and file is railing against the privileges of the rich and famous.”

Now personally, I LIKE playing against these teams. When I was a kid they didn’t have any of these things. When I entered a KO (which were rare at Regionals) I got to play the #1 seed on day 1. It was a blast and I improved as a player. I was in a no-lose situation. Everybody expected me to lose so if I did it was no big deal. But on the rare occasions that I won, it was HUGE. Well now I play with the “big boys” and I win my fair share of matches and events. I can only thank those past experiences (combined with a lot of money bridge) for the skills I do have.

But I also want to talk about those privileges. I think everybody would agree that pros and their clients play, on average more tournaments than the rest of us, and more sessions at those tournaments they do play.

In our modern air and hotel world we would call those people “elite” and give them special privileges like upgrades
In the GNT “Championship” flight this year there are about 3 “pro” teams out of the 20 or so districts sending teams. But Flights A, B, and C get free entries, but not the Championship because we don’t want to subsidize the “pros”. Because of this policy I will never enter another GNT. Not because of the money, but because of the “fairness”.

At NABC’s typically the high level events have the worst playing space.

Now we have people who want to drop out of the WBF because that is for “Pros”.

I don’t think any of these people (the “pros”) are demanding “elite” status or special treatment. But we sure don’t want to be sent home from a regional because we are “too good”. We just want to be treated as well (or badly) as everybody else, whether or not we earn a living from this great game.
July 28, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The NABC schedule was pretty static until the late ‘80s. The 2 day BAM (Men’s and Women's at the time) were in the spring. The Mixed was, like now, in the summer. What was different about that was that it was the first event on the schedule and lent a “social” atmosphere to the whole NABC rather than being shoved into the middle of the tournament to compete with other events. In other words Steve, it used to be as you would like.
July 28, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Jody - that is a very interesting question. The packet the board members receive says who proposed each motion and there are discussion points that provide insight into the reasoning. I am baffled as to why these get stricken before the motions are posted, but I guess management thinks we are lucky they even let us see the motions.:(
July 26, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My other comment is that it is outrageous to send the top bracket in a KO home because it is “too small”. Change the brackets! If needed, give the weaker teams handicaps. If they don't like it, too bad. But to tell somebody who just drove 100 miles that there is no event for them is inexcusable.
July 26, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Regionals with too many events is epidemic. You can hardly find a regional that doesn't have bracketed KOs, Senior Pairs, Gold Rush and a pair game/Swiss. Most regionals can't sufficiently support that and you end up with an A/X pairs with 5 tables. It has to stop. Tournament chairs these days will seemingly add an event on a whim. I long for the days of Regional Open Pairs with 150 tables.
July 26, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What a sad state bridge is in when New York City, home to some of the best players in the world, can't come up with enough teams to hold the oldest and most prestigious team event on the Regional schedule.
July 26, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good point Gary. I won't opine on the advisability or the legality of recusal here. But this issue raises an important question - who does the league counsel represent? Presumably he/she gets paid (yes, I know the current LC is Peter Rank, but my question is generic). Does he/she represent management, the BOD, or the general membership? To whom does he/she owe fiduciary duty?
July 24, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Violations of Procedure:

Law 74C6: “Showing an obvious lack of further interest in a
deal (as by folding one’s cards).”

That applies to the conceding pair. Not sure how it translates to accepting such a concession.
July 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
While this rule clearly is not aimed at the volunteer, it can have that effect. Know that in any organization 10% of the people do 90% of the work. If the other 90% truly appreciated this, then they would do some of the work themselves. I give back to bridge because of what the game has given to me. If we happen to help people who do not appreciate us along the way, so be it. Don't let it get you down.
July 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think those in opposition to the point reduction are right. It makes more sense in Swiss where a weak player can “avoid” tough opps. In KO generally one must play at least half of the semi and final so it isn't the same thing.

But I have a hard time getting excited about it. Over the years, the ACBL has played more stupid masterpoint tricks than you can imagine - both ways, but generally in the direction of giving more and easier MPs. The biggest joke is gold points.

Gold points were brought in in 1969 for one reason. People were becoming LMs by going to Nationals (that's what they called them then) and playing in side games that paid half red. Gold points could only be won by a section top or overall placement in a multi-session event with no upper MP limit.

Now we have “gold rush”. 'Nuff said.
July 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks Don. Unfortunately I can't make Chicago. I hope a BOG member proposes a motion to mandate earlier release of the motions, and unabridged (excuse the pun).
July 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Now that the motions are out, I would make one further point. The motions as published are not what the BOD members receive. Missing are the proposer(s) of the motion and the “discussion” in which the proposer(s) explains the rationale for the proposal. Why these are removed, I have no idea.
July 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sounds like an official ACBL Star Chamber
July 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is a lot in this post and I am going to just make two small points -

1. Like it or not, bridge professionalism is not like any other sports professionalism. When you can get sponsors to start putting up millions in prize money for pro tournaments, maybe that will change. I am not holding my breath.

2. More importantly, nobody is making you play in “Flight B”. Except for events like Bracketed KO's, the LM pairs and the Blue Ribbon or Platinum Pairs at NABC's you can always play “up”. Just march up to the director selling and buy your Swiss/Pairs entry in Flight A. I would encourage it. It will make you a better player, I promise.
July 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am amazed that this is such a big deal. Our NABC's are notorious (you might say laughingstock) for their late starts on the first day. Foreign tourneys are generally pre-registered. To do that in ACBL land will be a cultural shift. It isn't too much to have these deadlines. I am sure enforcement would be gentle at the beginning but the first time somebody gets charged or barred will be a learning experience. Nic's suggestion about “instant” seeding works great for seeding by MPs but NABC+ pair events are not seeded by masterpoints. They are seeded subjectively by committee and unfortunately a good seeding formula has not been developed to automate it. This motion came out of the BOG in New Orleans and I think it is an excellent idea. As far as I know it only applies to NABC+ events.
July 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I must confess that I am startled by the direction of this as I thought it was settled many years ago, however I will consult the Laws Commission for a sanity check.

I think that when Edgar Kaplan wrote in the Bridge World about “consequent and subsequent” the standard applied only to the non-offender. The principle was that if a non-offender was put in a position where they could achieve as good a result as a consequence of an infraction, they were entitled to adjustment. This included inferior play on the non-offender's part as long as it wasn't careless, reckless, wild or gambling (subjective standards that would be relative to that non-offender's bridge ability).

However if a non-offender was put in a position where they could not get back to where they would have been (for an example a save based on UI that can go for 500 against a vul. game but sloppy defense got the non-offenders only 300) then they get an adjustment regard;ess.

Nowhere in any of these discussions was any kind of sympathetic adjustment to an offender.

John Adams said “To say a revoke is at all probable would mean you need to consider that possibility even if there was no revoke in 5♥, and that is blatantly wrong.”

I agree that in considering an adjustment the chances of a revoke that didn't happen are sufficiently infinitesimal that the revoke would not be considered. However a revoke DID happen. Yes the director was called. This was entirely proper, actually mandatory depending on how one reads the law. To declare that the revoke was a consequence of a director call is speculative at best. My contention is that there WAS a revoke so ipso facto a revoke becomes more than a trivial possibility when considering an adjustment.
July 19, 2015
Robb Gordon edited this comment July 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry Barry, but I think that you have it exactly backwards. The ‘failure to play bridge“ aspect should be used for the non-offenders to determine whether an infraction has led to damage. For example let’s say that UI causes the offender to pull a double of 4H to 4S. Fortunately for the non-offenders both contracts are booked for down 1, but the non-offenders allow 4S to make because of their revoke. Now the non-offenders get to keep their score because it was their revoke, rather than the infraction that damaged them. However, suppose that 4H was cold. Now the revoke makes no difference since they had no chance to regain equity through ”playing bridge“ so the score should still be adjusted.

In your example, I would rule 4Hx making. The director/committee has no right to give the offender the benefit of the doubt and must give him the ”most unfavorable result that was at
all probable" according to Law 12C1e.
July 19, 2015
1 2 3 4 ... 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ... 32 33 34 35
.

Bottom Home Top