You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have found that most players have excuses for bad plays. Currently one popular excuse is that I was tired and it was too late for me to think straight. With an earlier start time, the excuse would have to change to I can't focus early in the morning or I didn't get enough sleep because I had to get up so early to play.
Aug. 9, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am already hoping someone on the ACBL board buys or at least invests in a playing card manufacturing company. Then (and only then) will we have new cards in every board at the start of each National.
Aug. 9, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This sounds like a great start. It would also serve as a test. Attendance could be compared between an event in LA or Vegas with an early start and a similar one in Miami or DC with a late start.
Aug. 9, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am not dogmatic about it. I'd guess something like 11-3:30 and 4:30-8 or perhaps a little earlier 10:30-3 and 4-7:30.
Aug. 9, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The math is pretty clear for various distributions & has been covered well in these comments. What is more interesting is when the high card math leads one in the opposite direction from the distributional math. For example, you have a 9 card fit and know W has 8 vacant spaces, while E has 10. But W has opened (E never bid), and you are missing 16 HCP. Now do you follow distributional odds or point odds. Distribution points to E having missing Q, but HCP make it a favorite to be in W. Note you play around with various point ranges & distributions, but there doesn't seem to be a neat formula.
Aug. 9, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Isn't it time the ACBL learned something from these foreign venues. Our tournaments have the worst playing hours possible. First session starts too late. Break is too long. 2nd session ends after restaurants are closed. One can only hope that there is still some mediocre bar food available. I'd love to be done with the days bridge by 7 or 8pm, and then be able to go out for a real meal with wine in comfort.
Aug. 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Pasta & wine trump gelato & I suspect that like most highly evolved civilizations, in Italy you don't have to be 21 to have a glass of wine with dinner. Play well & win it all!
Aug. 5, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think it is fairly common for a player or players to commit an infraction for which there is a clear punishment. The punishment seems unduly severe to the perpetrator, so an action is taken to conclear the violation. I have seen several cases in which a player revokes. The revoke has no effect except the loss of an additional trick by penalty, and since this seems unfair, the revoke isn't admitted even if the player realizes it later in the hand. Sometimes another player notices the revoke, but since it is irrelevant to the ‘bridge’ result, they let it slide.
It is also fairly common to see players make their own rulings at the table for common irregularities, like a bid out of turn or an insufficient bid. Obviously these things shouldn't happen, but they do. Clearly someone who commits an infraction should never benefit from it. But is it always necessary that the normal result be distorted because it has occurred?
The argument that it isn't fair to the field doesn't always ring true. Is it fair to the field that my opponent pulled the wrong card so I made five instead of four getting a top instead of average? I am entitled to benefit from my opponent's bridge errors, but am I entitled to benefit as much or more from a mechanical one?
Aug. 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Congratulations to the winners. I was especially impressed by how often the Vugraph operators reported jokes, laughter and players enjoying the process.
Aug. 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This makes sense with a minor stiff, but I'd still like 1S 1N, 3H to show points and 1S 1N, 4H to show distribution, usually a weak 6-5 or 6-6
July 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, my fear is missing game opposite hands like xx KJx xxxxx xxx. If 2H = neg, then 2C 2H, 2S 3C, 3S can also be non forcing.
July 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you frequently open light, I prefer pass. If not then 2N
July 18, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When 1 suit in question, then it is a stopper ask. When 2 suits in question then the bid shows one of the suits
July 18, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bridge is the only game to have made a series of rule changes designed to minimize luck. Fixed partnerships, vs revolving, then total points to IMPs to Victory Points, duplicate & team of four (vs rubber bridge) I would think if there was duplicate poker or gin or many other games - the skilled player would win more consistently than bridge. Imagine team of 2 poker where a member of team A plays hands Head Up against a member of Team B while in the other room the teammates hold the opposite hand.
July 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Also both Chess, Backgammon and Go have computer programs that can beat the best humans. So far in bridge computers are relatively weak except at double dummy analysis, and poker they can play relatively perfect heads-up limit hold'em, but not much beyond that.
July 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have always said that money bridge had both the most skill and the most luck. Over a session against weak players there is no way to overcome a series of games and slams. In poker a combination of bluffing and folding may allow you to escape with little or no loss. It may also be a sign of the age of bridge players that there has been little mention of computer gaming.
July 14, 2016
Steve Zolotow edited this comment July 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A lot of problems with this type of quiz.
1. Games omitted (Oh Hell used to be Hamman's best game, Klob not sure of full spelling etc.)
2. Best is vague. Best for what, whom, when, etc.
3. Some mistakes in editorializing: gin rummy less skillful than poker IMHO, especially since there are some many varieties of poker. If hearts is properly played, Q must be discarded at first opportunity (prevents collusion etc.)
July 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I do mean it seriously. When focusing on the next board, it seems to me to well within the realm of the possible that something that looks so incriminating could occur without any conscious evil intent. Aside from the fact that I know MP, like him and have always found his conduct beyond reproach, I can't accept the fact that someone in his position would have the slightest incentive to pick some insignificant regional(although to me all regionals are insignificant) to cheat. What I find more incredible is the way the case was handled from its beginning until the present. While I have never viewed the ACBL as particularly astute or competent, this beyond belief. Perhaps the reason for the league's refusal to discuss who attended and what actually occured at various meetings, is an attempt to cover up their own idiocies.
May 18, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can certainly imagine inserting the card, shuffling (at least slightly) the hand, then (perhaps when trying to get it back in the board) realizing there was an extra card & shifting one back to the other hand without verifying it was the correct card.
May 18, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Skill differences between teams may also be non-transitive. That is a beats b, b beats c, and c beats a. Strange pre-empting style might beat a big club system that beats a standard system that beats the strange pre-emptive style. (Look at the Dinkin team for example of stange methods from this trial.)
May 15, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top