Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Sabrina Miles
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
P's likely to think that I led from top of nothing if I lead the 9 spot.
March 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peter, in that context, I understand why 3 would be forcing.
March 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard, of course you are correct. I guess I should have phrased my question: why has the partnership decided to make 2 forcing? I was/am interested in the thought process of the partnership deciding to make the 2 forcing.
March 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why is 2 forcing?
March 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Allan, as far as the deterioration of clubs and the failed governance structure goes, what I hear Jay saying is that the clubs need and deserve a bigger piece of the ACBL pie. ACBL won't give it to them; the Districts/Units won't give it to them; and, folks are not willing to pay additional monies (directly to them) so that they might successfully run their business. Jeff B has been advocating a multi-marketing scheme to get clubs more dollars for bringing folks in.

Candidly, I don't know whether the pie should be redistributed. I think it behooves the ACBL to put safeguards in place so that potential club owners do not have to worry (for a particular time period and stated distance) that some newcomer will come in and take away their hard earned clientele.

But bridge is not a one-size fits all model business. Not all folks want or need a full-service bridge club. Should the folks who just want to play cards subsidize the folks who require teachers and mentors to enter the game? To ensure that folks are continually entering the game some incentive must be given to the full-service clubs (which, by the way, BBO is) to sustain and support them and thereby grow their businesses. But how much? When?

It is not surprising that everybody wants a bigger piece of the pie. It is also not surprising that it will take much more work to get 25 folks to reach consensus on the division of assets than it will take 9. One thing that is not needed is a paternalistic attitude, such as: "Our members deserve a high-quality product and should be willing to pay for it.” It is such paternalistic thinking that brought us the Hawaii NABC which incurred a six figure loss.
March 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A concise statement of the facts of the Blakely case can be found https://www.leagle.com/decision/incaco20170920030
March 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I had to smile at your comment….I did double my p's bid in a tournament. I was barred from further bidding. I am learning all the rules the hard way, one drip at a time.
Feb. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Utter my thoughts? Why, say they are vile and false? (Othello, IMHO, was so much better than Macbeth)
Feb. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, Linda, it is!
Jan. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How does that impact the GNT? From my prospective it cuts down on those “available” to play. Please understand that I have no problem with bridge havin professional players. Indeed, I think the game is best served with professional players. However the proliferation of flight b pros diminishes the pool of available players for those up and coming players who just want to play and (for whatever reason) do not wish to hire a professional. When players with 700 MP want to be paid to play (and there are many such players) the number of players of compatible skill level for those not seeking a professional partnership is diminished.
Jan. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As a “regular player” I could not disagree more. The GNT is an exciting event that encourages participation in NABC.

I note, however your concern that: “…this is a result of the proliferation of tournaments.” I might suggest an alternative reason for the decline: the proliferation of Flight B pros? (Maybe this is a chicken and egg argument). I would suggest that with the rapid increase in Flight B pros, up and coming players have a more difficult time finding compatible partners with whom to enter the event; such was not the case in 1973.

Personally, I joyously await the pendulum to swing back the other way.
Jan. 31
Sabrina Miles edited this comment Jan. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If my p could open 4 in first seat, missing the AK vulnerable, I think we can either make 6 or double 5 and obtain a + score. If p can't make 6, maybe we need to discuss 1st seat vulnerable pre-emptive openings so that we are on the same page.
Jan. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not to down play the lack of participation from Flight C players, I must admit that I find it more discouraging (and quite a bit more depressing) about the lack of teams in the other flights. My experience has been that Flight C players: don't know what they are missing; don't have the assistance needed to form teams; haven't invested as much time/attention/dedication to bridge to be lured to participate in the GNT, among other reasons. (Albeit, I think such challenges can be overcome by a District committed to overcoming such shortcomings – shout out to District 25!)

On the other hand, those in the Championship Flight and/or Flights A and B, know what bridge has to offer; have participated in the ACBL long enough to know what the GNT is all about; and, yet reject participation! I find it particularly sad that in a year when the BOD approved letting those Districts which draw more than 8 teams to their GNT final in Flight B be eligible to send an additional team to the NABC, that a District as large as District 3 could only muster 7 teams to its District final.

I think that when the Championship and Flight A players do not set the example about the joys of participating in the GNT, they do not encourage the participation down the line. From my perspective, the greater problem is the lack of participation from those that know the joys of competitive bridge and yet fail to participate. That is us. And that, in my opinion, is the saddest state of affairs.
Jan. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But then again, there were not regionals held EVERY weekend for folks to attend. It mystifies me why anyone (who knows there are regionals EVERYWHERE – EVERY weekend) would still go to the Nationals for the purpose of playing in the regional events.
Jan. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
X of 4 is for business….p's 4nt (instead of X) would be 3 suit takeout.
Jan. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Jeff, not everyone. I think the Lehman ratings are what doomed OKBridge. BBO refused to institute a ratings system, despite many calls for such. BBO's continual success should dispel the notion that a rating system will win out, if folks are given the choice. For those who insist on a rating system, there is the Colorado Springs power ratings. While I think the power ratings is a welcome tool for finding partners and teammates, I think the ACBL would greatly weaken its selling of MP if it suggested there was an alternative means of measurement of success. 80% of ACBL members have less than 750 MP. I would suggest that if you tell such folks that they don't have to get those MP or become LM's to be considered “good” players, folks might leave the playing arena before achieving the LM goal – which, unfortunately, we have seen time and again seems to be the jumping off point.
Jan. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@david, by no means. Unfortunately, by the time I learned about MPs and what they meant, and how they were accumulated, I was no loner eligible to participate in the Gold Rush events While myACBL said I had 40 MP (the points I accumulated on line when I paid my ACBL dues) ACBL counted all the MP learned on line even when I was not paying dues. If people want to play bridge, they will play(perhaps begrudgingly) in whatever events they are eligible to participate.
Jan. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Antidotally, when the “not your average gold rush” was advertised for our Senior Regional, the entries were less than expected. The gold rush limit was upped to 1250. Many indicated that they didn't want to play with the raised limit–and did not. There is a balance to be reached.
Jan. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But for the double, I would have bid 1NT anticipating following up with the 2 bid. The double suggested to me that I show my support immediately. P knows that in this situation my support may be lighter than normal.
Jan. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A paraphrase of Socrates: “I cannot teach anybody anything, I can only make them think.” Still true some 2500 years later.
Dec. 26, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top