You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Li-Chung,

I was replying to your orginal comment, but got interrupted and then AJ chimed in with his first hand knowledge. Here what I was writing:

I think this motion was made just to simplify the current method of calculating MPs for a 4-session non-KO event. It currently pays a 40% bump over a 2 session event, but the method of calculating the number of tables that count for the event is not so simple; it depends on what event(s) are on opposite the 4 session event.

As for lower place finishes, the general formula applies, 2nd is 70% of 1st, 3rd is 70% of 2nd, etc. The biggest difference in MP awards is that any event with a qualifier session cannot be stratified. So there is just an A flight - no X, B, or C.

There has always been two sides of the argument as to whether a 4-session event is better to win that two 2 session events. Statistically speaking, it is harder to win 2 single session events than one 2 session event. The same applies to two 2 session events vs one 4 session event. However, winning a longer event is certain a better indicator of who is the best player.
March 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There are not 180 people at a BoG meeting. At the last BoG meeting in Honolulu, Richard Popper, the BoG chair noted that the meeting expenses are about \$40 per person (there are usually around 100 in attendance). The BoG then voted to do away with the continental breakfast and save the ACBL \$4K.
March 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The Goodwill receptions are expensive. The hotel is providing the hors d'oeuvres and drinks, and hotel charges are notoriously expensive. OVer the last few years the food has been reduced, but I would guess it's still many thousands for each reception.
March 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is one of the motions, but it hasn't been voted on as yet.
March 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Russ, I just want to thank you for taking the time to ‘be in the well’ today. You are clearly very busy juggling bridge and personal life, so taking on this task makes you most energetic.
And brave too! BoD members are too often bombarded with tough and generally negative questions on BW. You handled them all forthright and with clarity.
Feb. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Assuming you did indeed agree to play 2/1 as stated, I cannot understand how E/W were damaged by anything but a misbid, which last time I looked is not an irregularity.
Feb. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When E/W produced their system notes, did either say the notes were incorrect, out-of-date, or generally ignored? If not, then they imply that their notes are accurate. On that basis, you have MI.

If they had no system notes, then as others have pointed out, the assumption is MI unless the TD can be convinced otherwise. Here, West's bid of 3 with the hand he held would indicate the bid was preemptive, not invitational. Without any further proof support East's response of invitational, he gave you MI.

If they actually had no agreement (and no system notes), East stating 3 is invitational is again MI.
Jan. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Congratulations! (The number of congratulations in this post is significant….statistically!)
Jan. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Timo, you are certainly correct that the majority of BW posters think only along the lines of experts and have little regard to what C players expect. I doubt many of them play pro with clients who are just casual bridge players. But as I said before, only you know the capabilities of your client. Even run of the mill players like me are only in a position to judge a player's level by your description of her (having 1000 MPs), and to me that is someone who should know basic matchpoint strategies, which essentially make redoubles useless for playing a contract. Perhaps your client doesn't know that despite playing long enough to rack up 1000 MPs. That's for you to decide, not us.

Besides, my comment was meant as a witticism in response to David Corn's reply.
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“SOS redoubles and stolen bid doubles belong in the same garbage bin.”

I always heard that, at least about stolen bid doubles. However, did you read Kit's column this week? Or did you throw it in the garbage bin?
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As North's partner, you are the only one who knows what type of player North is, 1000 MPs notwithstanding.

I would have expected such a player (typically a Silver LM), to know that if 3 DBled is making, it is likely to be a matchpt top or nearly so. In that case, RDBL does nothing but put you in jeopardy of a cold bottom without any benefit on improving a top.
Hence my vote to pull the RDBL despite the hesitation.

Apparently you know your client better than we do….or should I say worse than we do!
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David wrote: “Take any flight C player you know. Defend a hand with him. At some early point when second to play, take a card from your hand, put it back, take out another card, frown, sigh, and eventually play something.

By asking the question at the crucial time, your partner knows this is a quiz, and is going to think extra hard about what the point of the quiz before answering. Hopefully, the answer doesn't require too much thinking.

There are certainly some actions that are totally obvious to anybody who plays the game. Slamming a Double card onto the table is yet another example of such. Before bidding boxes, it was a booming DOUBLE!!!, preferably after rising from your chair…and standing on it.

What about asking a less obvious question? While defending, declarer leads to KJxx in dummy. You hesitate, tug on a card, then play low. The J wins. After a few trick in different suits, ask your novice partner who has the A. Bet the response is not one-sided.

Addition: I just saw Peg's reply just above this one, but after I finished submitting the above. That's why it appears redundant.
Jan. 5
Stu Goodgold edited this comment Jan. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Alan, good analogies, but what about rules that are hard to comprehend, such as the infield fly rule? Many casual fans will never understand that rule.

And what about a runner on 2nd stealing signs from the catcher and relaying them to the batter? Because of that, catchers resort to complex signaling to the pitcher when a runner is on base. Yet there are laws against a coach stealing signs from centerfield using binoculars. Hard to understand why one is allowed and the other not.

As for David's comments - yes it would be ideal to educate all bridge players, expert and novice alike, on Law 16.
Although I have seen some reputed experts, and many B players, who are not totally conversant in Law 16 details, almost all novices and C players develop a blank stare when you discuss UI with them. You might as well be talking about the Riemann hypothesis. The concept of using UI is way beyond their comprehension.

Having a relaxed enforcement of Law 16 for newer players makes some sense. We should only apply it in obvious situations - obvious to the novice that is.

I like to use s volleyball analogy. Played for fun at a picnic, the game is vastly different than the game played at the Olympics. The rules of the game are bent or even ignored. Carrying the ball is not called, nor is hitting the net or stepping under it. Even the number of players per side can vary. But it is still volleyball.
Jan. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Basically, what I advocate will catch all cheats and a few innocents. But the innocents will rapidly learn not to break tempo in tempo-sensitive situations (thus actually reducing, not increasing, the number of director calls).”

The innocents, especially the newer ones, will rapidly learn to leave the bridge table and not return. Calling the TD for a hesitation infraction is viewed by newer players as saying they cheated. So is the suggestion of hitting them with a penalty for hesitating (while letting the result stand).

Newer, and quite a few experienced players, just do not understand Law 16, and never will. To them it goes contrary to the whole concept of bridge being a game of information, where you make use of whatever information you can without collusive secret agreements.
Jan. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“You may look at your hand for 10 seconds only, close it. Now bid. Play normally.”

Even I can, and usually do, just that. It just takes a little practice. Playing normally…. now that's harder!

Oswald Jacoby could spread his hand, look at it for about 2 seconds, put it in his shirt pocket, then bid and play without ever looking at his cards again. And he could play like, well, Jacoby.
Dec. 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Too bad the stop card was eliminated from most bidding boxes. Makes it hard to use it to stop the auction.

I do wonder about bidding to the 4 level. What happens if you make an insufficient bid and don't correct to a comparable bid, or you make an illegal bid? What happens in you situation where West must never pass with a Yarborough; if he passes or makes an illegal bid, is his partner barred for the rest of the auction?
Dec. 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
An interesting concept. It would certainly benefit the hosting organization since you require 3 sessions of 18 bds for 3 entry fees in one day. Yet one plays just 54 bds in those 3 sessions, rather than the usual 48-56 bds in 2 sessions (depending on whether it is a 24 bd/session KO or a 26 bd/session pairs).
Dec. 20, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
While Law 25 states that your Pass should stand, there are some circumstances where it may not. Some years ago, in a club game I opened the auction, which went 1 (P) 3!. My RHO then asked the meaning of the alert and I explained “Bergen Raise showing a limit raise with 4 card support”. RHO then passed. As I was reaching into my bidding box, RHO then asked a second question. That distracted me; as I turned to face him, I simultaneously pulled out a Pass card.

The opps were kind enough to let me take the pass back and bid 3 without calling the director. But the director should have allowed the correction anyway.
Dec. 19, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The Hawaii regional is run by D20, who most likely gives that responsibility to the Honolulu unit. The ACBL has little to do with the regional financially, other than to collect sanction fees and provide TD for which they bill the hosting unit.

Perhaps the regional will not fair well because those from other states and countries do not wish to return to Honolulu so soon after being there in Nov/Dec, just as you say is your reason for not going next month.

Other than that, the loss to the ACBL for the NABC shortfall in attendance does not directly affect the January regional.
Dec. 12, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Even new BoD members don't get a manual explaining their job. They are encourage to understand their responsibilities, and the current state of the ACBL, by pouring over the ACBL Codification document.

As for the BoG members reporting to their district, that is one of the primary jobs of each BoD member. Having 5 BoG members do likewise would be redundant.
Dec. 11, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top