Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Steve Moese
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 337 338 339 340
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We are approaching an operating definition of a bad beat in Bridge.
Eddie K says even a slight chance is better than no chance at all.
3 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Please review the bidding with all explanations.
Or
Please explain.

Asking about a specific call or calling attention to a specific artificial call can create UI.

I had this exchange come up recently:

1 Alert - (P) - 1 Alert
Now 4th seat asks:
What does 1 mean? Answer: 0-7 HCP any shape.
What does it say about ? Answer: Nothing. Can be any shape.
So he could have no ? Answer: Yes

4th Hand now doubles.

We land in a tenuous 3N auction and second seat leads a low spade. Careful play nets us all 13 tricks. They were playing Mathe so the double ostensibly showed the Majors. Second seat refused to be swayed by the conversation. Fourth seat held 6 cashing cards.

I called the director to ask the the director explain what’s proper and not when asking for a review or the meaning of an alert. The director instructed the pair and made it clear that the line of questions did create UI. It was a learning opportunity, not an accusation about ethics.
4 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Revenue
9 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With all deference to Mr. Damiani, I have two major objections to this white-wash attempt:

1)
“This principle of reciprocity applies also with the zonal organisations and the WBF and vice versa. And naturally it is mandatory to allow for the possibility of an appeal.”

If the action of the CAS was indeed limited to appeal all woudl be right. Retrying the case entirely means any appeal gives any offender two shots at justice while the prosecution has no other venue for appeal. This flaunts every aspect of due process and is unconditionally unacceptable.

2.
“We did not foresee any difficulty with CAS as we were confident that the arbitrators would recognize the specificity of bridge which requires technical knowledge and judgment. Their resulting ruling does not, however, mean we may be in a weaker position than previously.”

Clearly this is not supported by the facts. The note makes no mention of the weakness in the case presented by the prosecution and the need for NBOs and the WBF to support prosecutions with sufficient skill both legal and bridge to prevail in cases like these. This weakness must be fixed.

Additionally, there is a growing sense of no confidence in the CAS requirement given the experience with this first case. We all think it is a very poor precedent for Bridge. We cannot afford a repeat.
9 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
West can bid either 6 or 6 to ask about 3rd round control of a red suit. 6 here. If East cooperates with 6, they should get home.
11 hours ago
Steve Moese edited this comment 9 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Might I also suggest these links:

D11 Home: http://www.district11bridge.com

D11 BoD and BoG reports: http://www.district11bridge.com/ACBL_board_reports.html
16 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The problem is that the 4333 shape means partner might need a dummy reversal for 10
Tricks. No short suit trump trpicks coming from this hand.

Also whenever I get bullish with a similar holding partner invariable has J9xxx of trumps. :-P
Feb. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray, we do Th Fri Sat sectionals now at our club. No Sundays. No evenings.
Feb. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
IIRC, it is quite common for boards to assert that they and only they can judge a fellow member. So by charter the conflict is excluded.
Feb. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
…for the moment, pick a major.
Feb. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When thinking about attracting new groups, we need to go where they are and think like they think. If we can offer a great venue and affordable fun playing rubber bridge, we should do that. Duplicate will take care of itself. I find the biggest error we make is assuming everyone who expresses an interest in learning bridge has to be made into a duplicate player. Just not the case. Fun is what brings repeat customers. Talent and ambition will select new duplicate players.

The lines blur for me between rubber bridge and what we call supervised play. Whatever brings people to a bridge center is what we need to do.
Feb. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Really important point Don. Data here says word of mouth by members trumps advertising and other means of outreach.
Feb. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Besides, partner has game tries over a constructive raise.
Feb. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David, Reno was one of my favorites in the 70's when in college…I do miss those days.

Dynamics are changing. Our aging population seems to respond better to 10 and 2:30 Regional starts during the week, then attendance drops off as they spend weekends with family. Working players do not fill the demand gap.
Feb. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Aye, there's the rub, Jeff. Perhaps we can poll people who do not attend. I would have surmised the holidays and family time detract from tournaments at the end of December.

Just thinking out loud.
Feb. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard, while the representation of this information by who rated/ranked what issue in what way is partially helpful, there is a better way.

How can we create a 2-dimensional table that shows Options as the ROW HEADER and the benefiting organizations/groups as the column headers. (ACBL, District, Unit, Clubs, Teachers, Players).

Each cell can then show (red, yellow, green) the impact the proposal has across the “eco-system”.

This impact map is much more important than who likes/dislikes the idea because it forces us to discuss objective impact of each item based on what's important to each group. It creates the map to dynamic tension where potential conflicts exist (e.g. adding tournaments deletes club game sessions).

I wil attempt to do this if I can find the time and provide a pro forma representation here.
Feb. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jeff start with a definition of standards. What makes a tournament great and what makes it lousy? Only with that definition in hand can we have a rational discussion about where and how to prune.

I submit it is possible that there can be great 400 table Regionals and poor 750 table regionals all dependent on whether they maximize the excellence of the events they offer. The metric must be tables per event.
Feb. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
IIRC, comments are not yet searchable.
:-(
Feb. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Both bid poorly. East should bid 2. Now 3N by West is somewhat more palatable (over a negative double that could be only 6HCP 3N is, well, optimistic). However soft side values convince me that 3 is better. East can correct to 3 and the misfit is now known.
Feb. 14
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 337 338 339 340
.

Bottom Home Top