Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Robb Gordon
1 2 3 4 ... 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 ... 35 36 37 38
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have a “market” order.
March 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Henry when we were kids, we walked barefoot to our bridge tournaments in the snow - uphill both ways. There was generally only one National championship contested at a time (except for Men's and Women's). This is a brave (not so) new world where you get to pick your championship event. Like with regional events I expect the calendar to continue to expand until everybody can win their own NABC. But none of this takes away from Bobby and Stevie who must be without question the dominant entry in any pairs event.
March 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think those who believe the ACBL will reject this idea in the interest of maximizing revenue are mistaken. First of all, all one has to do is miss one deadline and it won't happen again. Second, if a pair is shut out will they go home? Or more likely will they buy a last minute entry to a secondary event where advance purchase isn't needed. No the main issues are implementation costs and chronic ineptitude in regards to any new technology development.
March 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree. 30 minutes should be fine. There should be terminals on site a la WBF so there are no lines. If that isn't feasible make it one hour.
March 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
First of all (as you know) you are ALWAYS allowed to appeal. Appeals generally won't be heard in matters of Law, but I can't find a “standard” system defined anywhere in the Laws. While I don't agree that it is standard, and I do think you might have gotten a fuller explanation, I would not be shocked by this lead. Lots of random players make leads like this because they don't know any better.
March 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And if they did decide that that does not exonerate the offenders who deserve the worst of it no matter what.
March 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Your opponents have weird agreements which they fail to alert and mis-explain when asked. I am not sure what I would give your side but they would be down + a procedural penalty.
March 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Kevin, Larry, Ed, Adam” - and Robb?
March 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Drifting off topic but Sathya Bettadapura raises an interesting point. Until 1987 (I think) there were no concurrent NABC+ events except open/men's and women's. In fact the IMP pairs in 1987 (starting the 3rd day of the Spingold) was the first. Now the schedule is full of NABC events conflicting. Should any of them (except the indisputably most prestigious) count as NABC+?

I think so but perhaps we should vary the schedule so the same events don't conflict every year.
March 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
yes
March 13, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I will be attending this meeting. I would speculate that many people who have interest will make a point to do so. Yes, Thursday wasn't ideal, but when would be>? There are various committee meetings every morning at least till the second weekend.
March 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As somebody who has followed this issue with great interest, I find this post to be invaluable. This is the first light shed on this project that comes from somebody with expertise who has no horse in the race. I really appreciate it Greg and hope that you continue to inform us. I will be at the meeting next Thursday and expect to learn a lot there.
March 6, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What Josh says is true. Historically the people who restrict systems tend to be administrators who are trying to protect weaker players.
March 5, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is a good use for drones, Barry.
March 5, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I stand corrected Richard :)
March 5, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The history of method restrictions in North America is rather sordid. There were a few people who dictated rules for everybody. One example - when I learned to play a weak 2 bid had to be between 6-12 HCP. Yes HCP. You could use a subset of this range but you could not go outside. If you opened 2S on AJT987 x xx xxxx you would receive an average minus maximum.

We have evolved to the point that we now have a committee (C&C) that makes recommendations to the BOD about systems and conventions and the BOD generally adopts what is recommended.

About 35 years ago when flighting was getting started I suggested a 3 flight event based on methods. Flight C was no methods (call it SAYC although I think it was even less than that); Flight B was the normal stuff, and Flight A was “anything goes” (including forcing pass). Believe it or not they tried it at the NABC as a regional-rated 2 session event. The flight A was a VERY small (I am thinking 6 tables) turnout. They had a great time but the ACBL, focused on attendance never tried it again.

The general formula for these days I think is that the fewer boards you play against an opponent, generally the fewer methods (particularly destructive) should be allowed.

Unfortunately they do get hung up on familiarity rather than playability. Things like transfer responses and 2D opening
or overcall of 1NT to be weak with one major ought to be general chart by now.

One contention made in this thread that I do not agree with - restricting conventions does NOT IMO reduce interest in playing bridge. I have never heard a new player say “I am quitting because I can't play Moscito in my club”. Conversely new players do leave because of complexity.

Yes we should have venues to experiment. Yes, constructive methods should be allowed. But keep it in perspective.
March 5, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The root of the problem is this:

From the HOF Charter -

5. Election Procedures

B. Voting for Nominees
ACBL Management shall send the electors a ballot package which shall include a cover letter, instructions
on how to vote, a ballot, an up-to-date biography for each nominee, a list of Hall of Fame members, and a
performance chart showing the NABC and WBF performance history of each nominee (See Appendix I).
The maximum number of votes an elector may cast depends on the number of candidates. The electors shall
vote for a maximum of two (2) if there are 5 or 6 nominees, three (3) if there are 7, 8 or 9 nominees, four (4)
if there are 10, 11 or 12 nominees, and five (5) if there are 13, 14, or 15 nominees.

C. Election Procedures
Voting will be conducted on a straight voting method, i.e., no weighting. Any candidate receiving 50% or more
of the ballots cast will be inducted into the Hall of Fame.

__________________

The problem as I see it is that not every slate of candidates is equal. Here we have a group that could easily all be seen as HOF members. Certainly there are current members of the HOF whose qualifications (and I am not talking about the BW or VZ awards) are inferior to any and all of this year's nominees. Why is the voting so limited? Why not allow as many votes as an elector chooses but then require a “super-majority” to be elected? In a year like this there would be more successful candidates. In a year where the field was relatively weak, there would be few to no successful candidates.

March 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was also an elector and there was a reason I said “top three” and not “top four” even though we voted for up to four. As you said, it is a difficult call. This is why I think there should be women's and open with women eligible for both.
March 3, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I cannot speak about the history of HOF voting but let's look at ALL this year's nominees:

1. BOYD, PETER
2. BRAMLEY, BART
3. DEAS, LYNN
4. PALMER, BETH
5. RADIN, JUDI
6. ROSENBERG, MICHAEL
7. WEINSTEIN, HOWARD
8. WOLD, EDDIE

More than many years I think you could make a GOOD case for every one of these nominees. The fact that only one of them was voted in supports that since obviously the votes were split amongst the other 7 candidates.

As much as I admire these women, and as much as I think they might have had great success in open competition, given the records I would have a hard time placing any of them in the top 3.

Perhaps as long as there is women's bridge (something I rather oppose) there should be separate ballots for women. Then it should be possible for a woman to be elected to both the open HOF and the women's HOF just as it is possible today for a woman to choose which event to enter.

March 3, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I chose “other” because E-W should have called the director sooner AND the director should have ruled differently. E-W were given misinformation. The correct (as it turns out) explanation of 2D would be “we don't have an agreement” although they didn't know it.

Law 21B3 states “When it is too late to change a call and the
Director judges that the offending side gained an advantage from the irregularity, he awards an adjusted score.”

Clearly the offending side gained an advantage.
Feb. 11, 2015
1 2 3 4 ... 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 ... 35 36 37 38
.

Bottom Home Top