Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Sabine Auken
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We do not know the legal ramifications and possibly this recent EBL announcement was an inevitable consequence of the lost CAS case. Trying to take a positive stance let’s look at the possibilities this opens up for all the teams, federations, and players involved, those who have been awarded titles and medals with players on their team that have been found guilty of cheating by the bridge authorities.

They have the option to renounce those unearned titles and medals. All players that have joined the #saynotocheats movement will have a chance to let their actions speak by choosing carefully which tournaments they are going to attend, foregoing the ones whose organizers are not helping to clean up our game.
Oct. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Michael thank you for correcting the timeline. I wonder what happened to Peter's memory. Maybe Barnet and you had the same accent back then and that confused him. :)
Oct. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I hope in my article I gave credit to both Debbie and Michael and I definitely didn't mean to leave any of the rest of the team out either. To pull off this success I feel certain everybody must have contributed. Unfortunately, because of (unsuccessfully) playing myself and other reasons I did not get to watch much of the actual bridge played. But @David since you apparently did, may I please encourage you to show us some of the hands where Debbie played lights out. I, for one, would love to see them.
Oct. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Melanie, from a private conversation with Debbie and Michael I know how proud both of them were of your performance and attitude. Please accept my full admiration and congratulations.
Oct. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Awesome performance. Many congratulations to all the heroes of our game!
Oct. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am not sure I understand how this could be construed as gamesmanship. It is one of the legal options provided to you when you call the director.
Oct. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Martin, if you tell us what alternatives the DBV had at their disposal, I will gladly give you my opinion.
Sept. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Debbie, I did not hear of any update regarding play requirements. As far as I can see the relevant website did not get updated either http://www.wbfmasterpoints.com/MPRules.asp Also it says on that site “If the total number of hands played is not divisible by three, the exact number of hands required must be specified in the Conditions of Contest relating to the tournament” The semi-final e.g. will be played over 56 boards. That is not divisible by three. Yet I cannot find any specifications in the Supplemental Conditions of Contest for this event.

As to the seeding I had heard that it was based on a team's TOTAL number of WBF masterpoints (meaning you get a better seeding, if you are 3 pairs instead of 2). I found that hard to believe, so wanted to hear whether anybody had any insight. Since then our team's seeding (we are only 4 players) has moved up some spots. So maybe it has been changed. I do not understand how this cannot be regulated in the Conditions of Contest.
Sept. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Regarding brackets in the KO-pase of the Rosenblum and Mixed Teams the Supplemental Conditions of Contest http://www.worldbridge.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Orlando2018_SupplementalConditionsofContest-1.pdf state this:

“The top 16 teams at the end of the Swiss, choose their opponent from among the bottom 32, then the rest of the bracket is automatically assigned using the original seeding of the left-over teams.”

I don't seem to be able to find anything indicating how the original seeding is performed. Does anyone have any insight into this?
Sept. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you, Marion, for expressing so eloquently what has been weighing on the minds of so many. Courts and judges with zero insight in the intricacies of the game of bridge have given players a freepass, that were found guilty of cheating by the bridge authorities whose verdicts were based on the findings of true bridge experts.

Many bridge federations do not have a choice and because of their monopoly position have to let these players participate in the national tournaments. But organizers of other tournaments do have a choice. They can make their tournaments by invitation only, just like WBF and EBL, and prevent undesirable players from participating. Personally I consider players that have not accepted the verdict of the bridge authorities and instead used bridge ignorant courts to sue their way back into the game as highly undesirable.

#saynotocheats
Sept. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Done. ;)
Sept. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Al, anybody that is a Marriott Rewards member and has added their Rewards membership number to their booking, got their booking added automatically to their Marriott Rewards online profile. In the profile it says that a $25 daily resort fee + tax will be added to the final bill. This may have caused some confusion.
Sept. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Let's just say I've seen that movie before. ;)
Sept. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When I made a reservation at the Marriott on the dedicated landing page a long time ago, the booking details stated no resort fee (for bookings before August 31). That information is gone now. But I took a screen shot then. Drop me a note and I can send it to you.
Sept. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you very much again, Al, for your continuous efforts to keep us up to date. Is there any chance you would be able to shed some light on the minimum play requirements to qualify for WBF masterpoints? Maybe I missed it, but I do not seem to be able to find anything about it in the (Supplementary) Conditions of Contest.

I did find some regulation in the Masterpoint rules here http://www.wbfmasterpoints.com/MPRules.asp. But it doesn't extend to events in which the KO phase consists of round of 64, round of 32, eighth-finals (round of 16), quarter-finals, semi-finals and final.

In order to avoid any misunderstandings it might be good to have this clarified before the start of the event, especially since the Supplementary CoC do mention that “For drop-in purposes, the players must have fulfilled the minimum play requirements for Masterpoints.”
Sept. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
North American players are not used to “having” to register in advance. In ACBL events they can just show up at game time and buy an entry. I wonder whether that may have anything to do with the current numbers. I am hoping it does.

At the time of this writing I see 100 US players registered out of a total of 384 players in the Open and 171 US players out of a total of 385 players total in the Mixed competition. @Jan do you happen to have any comparison numbers to Philadelphia? If yes, is that about the same percentage of US vs. non US players. Also what was the situation like roughly 2 weeks before the start of the Philadelphia championships. Did a lot of teams register during the last 2 weeks?

And before I forget it, thank you so much @Jan for all your efforts to provide transparency and @Al for being an invaluable link to WBF.
Sept. 5
Sabine Auken edited this comment Sept. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So long ago I hadn't even noticed it and came late to the discussion now. :)
Aug. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Booked. I never let politics get into the way of playing bridge with and against my friends from all over the world. If nothing else now is the time to support our Turkish bridge friends.
Aug. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have received a couple of private emails that made me feel I should try to clarify and explain the intent of my OP better.

1) As stated in the OP I do not have any issues with the poll conducted by the TD and the resulting ruling.

2) An incomplete description of methods was given. How do I know the description was incomplete? On the other side of the screen the explanation was: 1 can be bid with 3 cards when we have a longer minor and don't want partner to pass out 2/. Bravo for that excellent explanation! I have no way of knowing the reasons for the less complete explanation. Maybe a cow flew by. It wasn't my intended subject of discussion in this thread.

3) My issue was the Chief TD shrugging his shoulders when I inquired what would happen, if there were repeated incomplete explanations in the same situation. Repeatedly neglecting one's obligation for full disclosure in the same situation to me is being unethical. Before this incident I had been under the impression that the spirit in the bridge community is for administrators, players and tournament directors to work together to get rid of both cheating and unethical behavior. I was shocked to learn otherwise and was hoping the discussion in this thread would center on ways to achieve this goal.
June 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“but nothing I could see in the disclosure helped me to understand why 1♠ was the system bid with this hand.”

Our South player (who received perfect information on his side of the screen) could shed some light on this question. He was told that a 2-of-a-minor rebid would be NF whereas 1 was forcing. So in cases where opener does not want partner to pass 2 of a minor 1 can be bid on a 3-card suit.

BTW David, do you like German Riesling? :)
June 22
Sabine Auken edited this comment June 22
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
.

Bottom Home Top