Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Shawn Drenning
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bridge is a game of skill though. Not everyone's normal distribution is centered at 50%.
July 6, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Reading all the strong objections to this tournament is pretty frustrating. In no particular order

1. If you think it is a stupid idea, then don't enter the tournament. If no one enters then it will go away soon enough
2. Do you really think the existence of a best hand online robot tournament is really going to be the deciding factor for many people deciding whether or not to attend Toronto?
3. Everyone goes to great lengths to demonstrate how little THEY care about masterpoints, but then seem to freak out when they perceive the ACBL is undermining the value of masterpoints. If you don't care about masterpoints, then why do you care?
4. Why is it a bad thing that the ACBL is putting on an event that many people will enjoy and making money off it? Would you prefer they stick to raising card fees, charging for screens or any of the other things people spend time complaining about? Again, if you think it is a stupid idea, then don't enter
5. People worry that bridge is a dying game, but then object strongly when anyone tries anything innovative that might draw more players. I'm one of the “young” people the ACBL is in theory trying to draw and without these types of tourneys i may have stopped playing bridge before I ever got hooked. They helped my card play and bidding progress immensely and for periods of time it was the only format of bridge I played (due to lack of time, lack of partners, and the fact that it is a much more relaxing way to play)
6. Who cares if someone gets to be the national champion of besthand robot bridge? I don't really think conferring that title undermines anyone else's accomplishments

I get that this isn't “real” bridge whatever that means, but it sounds like fun (to me) and I don't see what possible harm it could do (and it might even draw more people to the game). It just seems like many people have a knee jerk reaction to reject anything that doesn't fit their (narrow) view of what bridge should be like.
June 14, 2017
Shawn Drenning edited this comment June 14, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for the replies. At the table I passed for -140, which did not score well as 4d makes (and we even lost to a few 5dx-1).

At the table I wasn't worried about 4d, but more that I would not feel happy if they bid 4s. Partner had Kx Ajxx qxxxx j10 so on this hand it was very easy to get the heart ruff. If the red honors are switched, I could see defense slipping if partner wins first round of trump.

If you bid 4d, what do you do if they bid on to 4s (double now that you've seen the two hands I guess!)?
May 21, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, on the plus side if you were fifth in the round robin, you probably weren't going to win regardless of the form of scoring, so at least you got home earlier.
April 30, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For the doublers, what is your plan over 4 and 4 respectively from partner?

Ignoring what is theoretically best in a partnership with strong agreements, I was unsure if partner would misinterpret if I pulled 4 to 5.
April 25, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not that I support it (or think it would be easy to enforce), but the idea of not allowing players to get paid to play in a ‘grassroots’ event makes more sense to me than just forbidding good players.
April 14, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe you won't qualify for GNTs, but definitely would prefer to live in a ‘strong’ district than a ‘weak’ one. Currently live in NYC (impression is that it is a fairly strong district) and it is very nice to regularly get to play against very strong players even in club games.
April 14, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hopefully there will not be sequel to this article after next weekend . . .
April 14, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Usually I ask if it is natural, agonize for awhile and then X
March 18, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Bridge Odds For Practical Players” by Kelsey and Glauert is reasonable, but I remember being dry (it has been awhile though).

“Expert Bridge Simplified” by Rubens I thought was less dry and had more interesting hands, but is probably more advanced.
March 8, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At the table this hand doubled, but there was potentially some UI because W fiddled with bidding box clearly (to me) thinking about doubling before passing. There was a director call and ruling was table result stands because E/W were in a force, which was fine since 3S made, but afterwards I decided I would have felt aggrieved had X been a successful action. Based on poll it seems others would have some sympathy.

One factor I did not mention is that EW were down by 40 IMPs after 13 boards of a 26 board match (so maybe that makes X more appealing). 4 has a shot if you bid it.
March 6, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Obviously (to me anyway), you'd like to bid 4NT natural on this hand, but I was not sure whether it *should* be natural. At the table partner interpreted it as blackwood and we played in 5NT after partner showed an even number of keycards and a void. Neither 5NT or 4NT makes. Based on the poll results, it seems that assuming partner will be on the same page here if you bid a ‘natural’ 4NT is dangerous.

I'm less convinced tempo is an issue here as I might not bid blackwood in tempo either here.
March 4, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hearing from the next table “you didn't use the ‘stop card’ so I didn't realize you jumped” makes me support this measure
March 1, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It might be problematic that women would be eligible for more master points since they are used to determine various things. I guess you could add various other stratiflighted categories that would award points (mixed, seniors, men, juniors etc.)?
Dec. 25, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You say he made a mistake, but you have no way to counter. It seems to me that it is a good bid then.

I don't really see what complaint is. You have the option of penalizing the bid when it is really wrong and otherwise you are not really harmed and they may get off to the wrong lead.
Dec. 4, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You can search by player here
https://web3.acbl.org/nabcwinnersbyname?name=Bob+Hamman
Dec. 4, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Doesn't the board always meet at the beginning of the NABC? I would be much more offended if they voted for the first time to hold the board meeting at the beginning of the nabc when it was in Hawaii. As is, seems inconvenient to make them find another time to meet when many of them will be attending (I'd guess anyway?) the NABC anyway.
Nov. 25, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
i think in the semifinals of the senior trials, the declarer at the other table is probably going to be fairly competent
Oct. 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why not have it be “double blind”? NS enters the contract and score and so does EW and if it doesn't agree then you have to try again. Kit's ideas all sound good to me, but feels easier for someone to verify an incorrect score than for two people to independently enter the same wrong score.
Sept. 25, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This sort of thing is pretty common in the world of finance I think for this reason
Aug. 21, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top