Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Robb Gordon
1 2 3 4 ... 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ... 41 42 43 44
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the San Francisco Nationals in 1981, two teams played each other in round 8 of the NA Swiss 1st Qualifying. They both had 4 wins (it was win-loss the first day at that time). 4.5 wins was a guaranteed Q. Mysteriously they passed out all the boards. They didn't make a secret of it. The conditions changed for 1982 - can't remember if they went to VPs (which wouldn't prevent this) or an anti-collusion rule.
Dec. 27, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Suppose a team is 14-1 going into the last week. They have locked up home field through the playoffs. The team they are playing is pretty weak but they had a soft schedule (till now) and will make the playoffs if they just beat this team, to whom they are 10 point underdogs. In doing so they will knock out a team that is really good but has a poorish record due to early season injuries (but are back at full strength). The 14-1 guys are going to play one of these teams in the first round. How hard should they try to win (no ties rule or not)?
Dec. 27, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is very sad and a shock to me. May he rest in peace.
Dec. 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Better thanks Ellis.
Dec. 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is there a District where I can REQUIRE the opps to play suction?
Dec. 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think that unless there is something specified on the card this goes beyond a normal 3rd seat frisky weak 2.
Dec. 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have a huge problem with what the director did. BEFORE the start of the session he should refund their entry fee and if possible sell them an entry to the “right” event. If the latter isn't possible he/she should offer them the choice of a refund or to try their luck. I would discipline a director for doing what this director did. BUT I never assume I have the whole story so I would want to know both sides.
Dec. 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's a fellow grammar fascist - I love it!
Dec. 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The regional in Toronto known as the Canadian Nationals used to have the optional 9th match. @Bob Walter - you may well be right. I made it to the barometer and my memory of the other two “hexes” might be off.
Dec. 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Originally in Swiss Teams the field was divided (at point of entry sale) and “top half” teams played “bottom half” teams the first round. This was before flights, strats, and victory points.
Dec. 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Meyer, I remember that Lancaster had a regional every November. The feature event was a “Triple Hex” pairs. I think it was a (standard at the time) 2 session open pairs with a qualifying and consolation but also a “super final” section made up of only section tops from the first session that played a barometer event. I played once (I lived a fair distance away from Lancaster in Michigan or Ohio) and qualified for the barometer. We were in contention in the last round but the opps bid a skinny game that was cold and we ended 4th I think. It was a fun exciting event. Of course that is when there was only one event per day and the open pair was huge.
Dec. 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dale, it would seem to me that the security issue would be less with Barometer. Please elaborate. About the swinging - no argument. Nothing wrong with swinging if you are in contention and need to - swinging for the heck of it when you are out of the money (barometer or not) is unsporting and probably unethical.
Dec. 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree that this was one of the major flaws in the policy.
Dec. 10, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I did see this. I didn't see one that referred to any motion or definitive action (including Reno) nor did I see any comment carrying beyond the GNT/LM. Not saying they didn't happen. You are a member of C&C and presumably you were there, but I can only see what the league chooses to publish.
Dec. 10, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I kept looking through C&C minutes and couldn't find this. Please point me to the right document.

If I am mistaken, I stand corrected as far as the management portion of the discussion goes. But I do think for something like this that C&C needs “enhancement” as I pointed out.
Dec. 10, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have had the opportunity to follow the controversy surrounding the Player of the Year (and possibly Player of the Decade) awards.

My first reaction was that it was unfair to award 0 points for the “lesser” win but then I learned that this was clearly disclosed to the participants.

Another issue that arose is a policy that teams that lose in the round of 32 in the major KO events receive a smaller masterpoint award for 17/32 if they had a first round bye.

The latter issue was decided by a Board of Directors vote at their summer meeting in 2014. The rule states that a bye shall not count as part of the “two win” requirement for overall awards. On the face of it, this makes sense – how can you get an award for something you never did? But looking more deeply it is clearly unfair to the affected team. They didn’t ask for a bye. Had there been no bye there was probably less than a 1% chance that they would lose their first round match. Yet they are second-class citizens for masterpoint award purposes. I would hope that the BOD reconsiders this policy.

Drop-ins have been allowed for some time in the WBF. Two things that make this work for the WBF – there is NO carryover from day to day and there is a fixed number of pairs qualifying for a pairs event, therefore drop-ins displace pairs that would otherwise qualify.

The disadvantages of these two conditions are obvious.

Fortunately the ACBL has more flexibility as far as displacement goes. But how do you assign carryover to a drop-in? The current policy is that the drop-in pair is placed in the 67th percentile for carryover purposes. There is no reason to think that this is fair. I would submit that if there was such a drop-in allowed it should be with 0 carryover (or equal to the last qualifier).

The Board of Directors has wisely acted to suspend the drop-in policy but this fiasco has once again demonstrated that when the process governing these events is guided by management those ugly unintended consequences come gushing forth.

We need to have a committee study this issue and make recommendations. This committee should be populated by a board member, several members of C&C, a National TD or two, and a couple of players who participate in events such as the Blue Ribbon Pairs, but are not active in committees normally.

Unfortunately this is not how ACBL operates, particularly under the current management regime, but perhaps this will be a wake-up call to the BOD to take back control of bridge issues from management.

Finally, I am sure there are some who wonder why pros that have 6 figure incomes from the game and a million masterpoints care about this stuff, which will neither affect their livelihood nor will have a significant impact on their overall masterpoints.

I am far from this echelon myself, but I am fortunate to count many of these people as friends. Above all they are competitors. There are very few things that these people have to prove to themselves or others. Among the few things that are meaningful to them, POTY and POTD stand out as a way of measuring themselves against their peers, also great players and great competitors.

I am delighted that our top professionals are not so jaded as to not care about such things, and I would want to do everything to encourage them to continue in these competitions by making them as fair and equitable as possible.
Dec. 10, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am a bit confused by the benefit of holding BOD meetings in Horn Lake. Most of the employees that attend these meetings would be at the NABC anyway (maybe a few extra hotel nights) and the BOD members have to be transported somewhere and stay somewhere.
Nov. 16, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I really prefer a PAYING client lol.
Nov. 8, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My brother, my friend, my (former) roommate - live long and prosper. Belated (Oct. 31) Happy Birthday!
Nov. 3, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I voted for the 5D plus PP but what I REALLY wanted to vote for was a final contract of 5C - what west would have bid had everything been explained.
Oct. 8, 2016
1 2 3 4 ... 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ... 41 42 43 44
.

Bottom Home Top