Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Sabrina Miles
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Andy…I don't either. That's why I said it will lessen the enjoyment of all. The more experienced player, does, however, want to play in the event. And who could blame them?
May 28
Sabrina Miles edited this comment May 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think the directors ignored the conditions of contest when they refused to require a team to be forced into a bracket which their MP indicated that they did not belong. Asking if there are volunteers for bracket 1 and requiring the next highest MP total to be forced into bracket 1 may have resulted in the other 31 teams requesting their monies returned and no KO being held at all. I know it is hard for some folks to believe, but there are people who do not like being forced to play in a bracket in which they clearly do not belong. I find it hard to believe that the TDs did not ask for volunteers. I find it quite easy to believe that none were forth coming – despite all the folks saying they would love to get a chance at the top bracket.

The bridge community seems awfully segmented. Requiring folks who, by their MP totals, do not have the experience to be competitive in an event – for the sheer pleasure of those who do have such experience, will lessen the enjoyment of all. If all those who wanted to play the best in the game stepped up and actually attended the regionals, there would not be these type of problems.
May 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Speaking from anecdotal evidence, I know what happens when you require the 6000 MP team to play in bracket 1 so that you can have an event as advertised. That team does not again sign up for the knock-out and/or does not return to your regional. Both of which will lessen your regional quite a bit more than 4 expert teams being upset with the small draw.
May 28
Sabrina Miles edited this comment May 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Does that mean there is hope for us all? :)

BTW, well don't Nick and Nathalie!
May 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think so, but I voted for 3NT….because the OP said the team was weak (and likely the defense will be too). Without the added commentary,I would have voted for 3.
May 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Ray, do you see any reason why such info could not/was not posted in the appeal case book?
I did not play in any NABC+ event in Memphis…but I would surely read any NABC casebook
May 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't disagree that the number of appeals has been decreasing consistently over the years (I note, as an aside, so has the attendance– perhaps there is a corollary?) I would point out, however, that the casebooks do NOT provide the appropriate guidance to those who “weren't present and some of whom have no idea what Laws actually say” present company included.

If the casebooks were to be a guidance to those who were not present or who do not know what the Laws actually say, I would suggest that they are woefully inadequate. Firstly, there is no indication how an appeal is taken. For those who have been around, surely this in known, for others, it is not clear. Is there some reason why the appeal book cannot specify how one goes about obtaining an appeal?

Secondly, from a strict reading of the appeals, it is clear what rules were allegedly broken, however, it is not clear if such rules were broken or why such rules were broken. How do I arrive at this conclusion? By reading all the books…looking at the TD ruling, looking at the panel ruling and then looking at the commentators write-up. The TD ruling is one thing, the panel ruling is another and the commentators take a view giving credence to one or the other of the two. There is no consensus among “experts.” How then are mere mortal “who were not there and whom have no idea what Law actually say” to gain insight. More than once I have asked: is there somewhere where I could look to see what a slow pass means? The only response I have received is that there is no standard answer, it always depends on the specific example. How then, is it unexpected, that those who do not know how to differentiate lawful from unlawful question why major events are determined by committee?

How about giving us the tools to decide for ourselves? I suggest that the casebooks are not enough. Especially when the casebooks do not present a unified position from which to learn.
May 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks, fixed.
May 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As E, I am inclined to double again….and (hopefully) force W to bid. I know p will not leave 2X in….even with nothing. When p bids 3, I will gladly carry him to game. When opponents bid 3, I will bid 4 alone.

Even with 4 trumps, I can't fault W for not bidding.
May 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Those were my thoughts: if p had a game forcing hand, I am sure he could have come up with a bid other than 2.
May 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“what is there about regional tournaments that make them worth traveling to?” For me, there were/are 2 major reasons: First, at least last year, I viewed regionals as part of my bridge “immersion” – a chance to learn while actually participating. It is sometimes difficult, for me, to put “book knowledge” to work in practical application. The constant playing forced me to see and learn. (And I had a goal of doing as well as possible, with certain restrictions, in my mini-mckinney grouping)

I wanted to learn as much as possible, as quickly as possible. Attending regionals gave me that opportunity. I find that real life application is sometimes much more difficult than simply “knowing” the correct principles. I am not talking about table feel, though that is a part of it, I am speaking of my reactions to actual play: how (room) lighting effects my play, my nervousness, my ability to think my feet, learning when to go against probabilities as well as when to stick to them. The biggest lesson for me was learning what I really did not know….so I could work on it.

Secondly, I travelled to regionals both because I like traveling and also because I wanted to play in bigger fields that afforded me the chance to play against my peers as well as those from whom I could learn. For me, bridge is more fun and the chance for partnership assistance is much better when the regional is larger.

A by-product of traveling to several regionals last year was learning what I liked and did not like about regionals. I found that with some smaller regionals, the opportunity for “peer play” was sharply curtailed….such smaller venues, generally curtailed my enjoyment of the event. I found that some regionals are merely for professionals and their students/clients. That's okay. Since I fit in neither category, they are just regionals that I will not attend again. I found that some larger regionals had poor administration that sharply lessened my enjoyment of the event. I learned that I would spend my dollars where I had fun.

Bridge is fun. Traveling to Regionals also can be fun. Learning which Regionals to travel to…priceless.
May 11
Sabrina Miles edited this comment May 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's one thing to drive an hour or two to get your head handed to you. It's quite another to fly somewhere (or drive 5+ hours) and incur hotel and miscellaneous other costs when you have no real chance at being competitive. This isn't a pair event; thus you must convince not only your partner to accompany you, you must convince another pair – and hopefully two – who will also take the time and money for, as you say, lessons.

I can see why folks would say no.
May 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Richard, that is EXACTLY what the hourly speedball ACBL tourneys hosted on BBO are all about: “pairs compete against one another using an electronic playing environment and are able to win ACBL masterpoints.”
May 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It seems that the ACBL will give a sanction to anyone (not necessarily a unit/district, if my reading is accurate. (I, too, have been reading and studying consciously to see what might be done and how). I think this is one area that must be looked into. Limiting sanctions, which management has the right to do, would limit the number of tournaments. Granting the exclusive right to hold a tournament in a particular week, in a particular month, is something that ACBL management already has the right to do. Unfortunately, just as they currently do not limit competition in a geographic area for club sanctions, they, likewise, do not limit sanctions for sectionals and/or regionals. That is not to say that we can not demand that they do so. We (collectively) have the right to demand that sanctions for sectionals and regionals be limited….we can demand that certain safeguards (conditions) be placed so that the number of sectionals/regionals be diminished. The overriding problem is: there is no one solution! Bridge players, areas, units, districts do not fit neatly into one box. What works for one, does not work for all.

Thus, I think, we must rely on the goodwill of the decision makers in each district to review, evaluate and decide what is not only best for their district, but also what is best for bridge as a whole, to move forward in reducing the number of competing regionals. Unfortunately the NIMBY crowd lives on.
May 7
Sabrina Miles edited this comment May 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's okay even when you don't know anybody :)
May 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I like the idea of fewer, yet larger regionals. The problem is the ACBL does not run regionals; the districts do. For their part, the ACBL has raised the regional table fees at the NABC to $20 per session (Gatlinburg manages with $12 per session). The hotel rates arranged by ACBL has ranged from a very reasonable $99/night (Kansas City – that sold out so fast that the vast majority of folks could not obtain them) to expensive @$250++/night in Hawaii (that the vast majority of folks did not want to obtain).

With 5-8 larger regionals and 3 NABC events, all running exclusively, one would be speaking of roughly 1 larger tournament a month. I think, for something like this to be sustainable, almost all other tournaments would have to disappear – at least all other regionals would have to. Folks generally are not willing or able to travel monthly to tournaments – unless there is no other alternative. When you take away any alternatives, you are also taking away the opportunity for folks who don't travel to play in tournaments locally. Conversely, if you maintain the current regionals (even reducing the numbers) you will not get “larger” regionals (of the magnitude of a Gatlinburg).

I hope the regionals remain with the Districts – and not revert to the ACBL. Candidly, some districts run better (much better) tournaments than others. The idea of granting exclusivity rights to one district for a week to run a regional in a particular month has much merit. The devil is in the details in deciding who gets those rights, and which week of which month. At least it would be a start to paring down the number of regionals – and it might give those regionals who gain such exclusivity right a boost in attendance too.
May 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Ed….come on….don't you know when you have screwed up? Don't you know when you could have done better? The repechage is merely a mulligan for those who had unfortunate misunderstandings, or believed they could do better (who does not believe so?) …or for those who entered the Soloway and now want to play in the BRP. I would bet that there would be as many folks interested in the repechage as there would be folks interested in dropping in fron the Soloway. Why not get the best to compete in the BRP that was already underway?
May 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Greg, whether pairs would choose to play in the repechage is not up for debate; the query is whether they should be allowed to. And if allowed to, what should be their carryover into day 3.
May 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@oren…I am game….what is the absurd part…..and why is it absurd?
May 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Art, that is exactly what I am suggesting! A pair that qualifies for day 2 with 0 carry-over should have a chance at Day 3 with reasonable carry-over through winning the repchage. I dont think a pair should be disadvantaged because they made the cut. Each pair should decide for themselves what they think is best for themselves. Do you really mean to suggest that a pair that gets cut deserves more carryover than one who competed? I think each pair deserves the right to decide what they think is best for their overall competition. And, I think, the more that compete with the “drop ins” make the remaining completion better for all.
May 2
.

Bottom Home Top