Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Robb Gordon
1 2 3 4 ... 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 ... 35 36 37 38
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
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David, thank you for your response. I am sure there are people who only wish to complain - that exists in any group.

Whether the view that recruitment of working-age people are necessary to the long term health of the ACBL is difficult to determine - there is no data to rely upon. I do know this. Ever since I began playing bridge in my teens to today, I have always been one of the youngest players in any tournament (I am now about to turn 59). Intuitively this would seem unhealthy for an organization interested in the long term.

I don't know whether it is necessary to attract working-age people BUT it seems like the youth/retiree formula is problematic at best. What happens to the “youth” when they become working age? My anecdotal experience suggests that a few of them who are quite gifted become full-time professional players. The majority of them stop playing. Will they come back? Time will tell. But do we have the time?

Now this is a very important issue facing the league, but far from the only one. Unlike some of the people posting here, I feel that our current BOD contains many conscientious, dedicated, and talented people. Unfortunately, I think management has cowed the majority of BOD members, reminding them of past BOD “micromanagement” (an accusation not without foundation). However it isn't micromanagement to set goals for an organization and to hold management responsible for achieving those goals. I see little evidence that this is taking place at this time, and this is something I would like to change. Ideally the present board members will realize the need for this. If this does not take place, then we need a grass roots effort to replace those BOD members who are not properly acting as our fiduciaries.

The structure of the ACBL makes this difficult. The members do not elect the BOD. The members elect Unit officers and board members. Those unit boards elect BOD members. This indirect election makes it harder sometimes to oust a non-productive board member. Harder, but not impossible.
July 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David, I can't speak for anybody else, but I don't seek the Chicago motions so I can “bash” ACBL. I seek them so that I may contact BOD members who might be interested in my opinions and express them. Whether those BOD members are interested in my opinion or not is, of course, their choice, but I only want the ACBL to be better for all of us.
July 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Whether one agrees with the ruling or not should depend, for starters on whether an infraction occurred. In order for there to be an infraction UI would have to be transmitted. In this case the UI itself would not be the infraction but the actions of the partner must be measured for careful avoidance of any advantage gained through the UI. If you decide (as I would have based on the facts shown) that there was no UI, then there is NO basis for adjustment.

However, to find the ruling “offensive” as did the OP, one would have to think the committee was corrupt or incompetent. I think neither is the case so the word isn't appropriate. People are very quick to make armchair criticism of committee rulings. That isn't going to change but I would hope that they would do so respectfully.
July 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Your story reminds me of the first time I played against Zia. It was a 7 board Swiss Match. None of his clever ploys worked and we happened to be in what Zia would call “Heat 1” - we could do no wrong. I think we won the match about 30-0 or so. At the end of the 7 boards Zia stood up and said “There is a disease at this table”.
July 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is a point about volunteer army vs. draft. Personally I think a draft would make our leaders more circumspect about getting involved in war as long as the draft was universal. But I don't begrudge a person who feels an obligation to serve his/her country regardless of the politics of a particular war. I certainly don't begrudge a person who is trapped because he/she was enlisted when the war started. You don't get to “quit” the army when you feel like it.

This all reminds me of a line from “Draft Dodger Rag” by Phil Ochs - “And if you ever get a war without blood and gore I'll be the first to go”.
July 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I had the interesting experience as a teen of working for the Omar Sharif Bridge Circus in the early '70s. It was probably the best publicity the game received since the heyday of Goren.
July 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think it is a fantastic idea and would work to support it. Sadly, during the Vietnam war our soldiers returning home were shunned and reviled as if they created the war. We don't and won't make that mistake again. It is the politicians who should be shunned and reviled (many of them anyway).
July 9, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not enough info to vote. Obviously to get to the “damage” and “logical alternative” stages one first has to establish whether or not unauthorized information existed. Knowing nothing else, my gut feeling is that an “experienced” player of some ability playing in a pickup partnership with a less experienced player would tend not to bid 3S so I would lean toward finding that there was UI. But I would certainly investigate further before making that finding.
July 4, 2015
1 2 3 4 ... 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 ... 35 36 37 38
.

Bottom Home Top