Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Shawn Drenning
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If the hotel normally charges $79.99 a day for parking, each spot they give to the ACBL for the $5 you propose would cost the hotel roughly $75. Assuming they actually fill a reasonable portion of their lot for $79.99 why would the hotel agree to this unless the ACBL is paying for it in some other way? Especially when it seems that the ACBL has already negotiated a room rate that is significantly below the market rate.
Aug. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“In the US we used to tip someone for good service. Not sure when that changed, or why.”

I do not know how old you are (that is when “used to” is), but cursory googling suggests tipping in the US has been around for awhile https://time.com/5404475/history-tipping-american-restaurants-civil-war/
Aug. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So the actual parking at the Cosmo was only $15 (I do not think you can park for much more cheaply than that in most places) and there was free parking across the street at Planet Hollywood. It seems (to me) that this setup was fairly conducive for locals attending. I get that some members of the ACBL are less mobile, but if that is the case (and the $15 is prohibitively expensive) did OP's friend try contacting the Cosmo and explaining the situation (or someone with the ACBL)? I found them very reasonable and they were happy to resolve a situation for me caused by the ACBL travel agent that they did not have to.
Aug. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think we essentially agree. My point was basically that cheap parking is not something we should be negotiating for here (because as you say it is valuable to the hotel) and that it is unreasonable to expect parking in San Francisco (or NYC etc.) to be reasonable and that if parking there WERE cheap it would only because the rest of the ACBL is subsidizing it for the few who think it is necessary to drive in San Francisco.
Aug. 24
Shawn Drenning edited this comment Aug. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“It is really a matter of negotiating. The host hotels will make concessions to get groups”

Sure, but they are only going to make so many concessions and this is not what (in my opinion) we should use our bargaining power for.
Aug. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If we choose to hold NABCs in cities like San Francisco, parking will be expensive. The flip side of your question is how many people would we lose if we only held NABCs in places with cheap parking?

Personally, I do not think *most* people really need a car in a big city (I lived in Chicago/NYC for more than ten years without one) and I would actively not want one visiting San Francisco. Furthermore, when I lived in Berkeley, I had no issue getting to/from San Francisco without a car so I am at least somewhat skeptical that the cost of parking will be what stops locals from attending.

It was unclear to me what you think should be done; do you think we should not be holding an NABC in San Francisco? Do you think the ACBL should subsidize the cost of parking? Something else?
Aug. 23
Shawn Drenning edited this comment Aug. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That makes sense to me, but seems for many not enough to overcome flaws of 2: https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bidding-problem-2-9acc3eionb/
Aug. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I had thought too, but a strong player offered that she preferred 2
Aug. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, my point was just that while I agree with what Marty says, in the alternate universe where they do NOT play Texas transfers it's not clear to me whether transferring to 2 and then raising to 4 should be a slam try. So maybe even with the agreements S thought he had, S misbid the hand . . .
Aug. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I do not think it is necessarily a worse story this way since it more closely matches real life.

Personally, I would prefer to bid A10x and keep the bidding at the one level if I'm going to have to bid a 3 card suit.
Aug. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There was a recent Bridgeworld article (the series with arrogant bridge robot) where something like this happened. In the article, they had an overtime where they played some extra boards.
Aug. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I wrote this late last night and wanted to finish the story”

I feel part of the story is lost if both N and S are doing silly things.
Aug. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“The frequency of these holdings, as with almost any specific holding, is low - opener would accept on about 1/70,000 hands.”

I agree that there is not much utility in an invitational sequence that opener will accept 1 in 70,000 times, but I'm suspicious of your math (if I understand what you're claiming to compute). The 1NT opener is going to have (say) the A of your suit and max way more often than that.
Aug. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you do not play Texas transfers is that still what that sequence means?
Aug. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“If so, why don't I just wait and do so next round?”

Because it might go all pass?
Aug. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
if you bid 4, do you give up over partner's 5?
Aug. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Heh, well don't take my word for anything being standard :); I have not seen it in print anywhere either, just heard that by word of mouth.
Aug. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think I'd probably upgrade Kxx xx KJTxx Axx
Aug. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I should not claim things are “standard” since clearly people disagree on what that means, BUT I always thought it was “standard” against Bergen raises for the double to be takeout if they have shown the mixed raise (or weak raise) and lead directing if they have shown the limit raise.
Aug. 16
.

Bottom Home Top