Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ted Ying
1 2 3 4 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A world class player and champion, but also a wonderful person. She will be greatly missed, especially here at home. Condolences to Bill and Julie.
Oct. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2NT seems right here. Pick a minor. Partner should understand that I have more than , so 4/5 seems the right distribution for this bid.
Sept. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My personal style is that I tend to bid spades when I have 5/4 and I tend to double with I have 4/5. The only time I may make an exception is when I have 5 bad spades that I don't want a lead into. This is close, but not close enough.
Sept. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
They are a pair relatively new to paying up in the A/X field. They are getting better every week they play up.
Sept. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you everyone for your help. I have made a ruling in the case brought to me. I chose to allow the pass of 3NT and let the table result stand.

For those interested, the North hand was:

: 43
: AQ7
: AJ4
: A10874
Sept. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
North forgot their agreement and was bidding Puppet Stayman. Hence the alert.
Sept. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No. The opponent only questioned whether South was allowed to pass 3NT after having received UI from the alert of 3 that the 3 bid was not their agreement convention. It certainly makes passing 3NT much more likely to be the winning action and hence I lean towards not allowing it. However with this poll, it suggests that passing is the most likely action by the most people.
Sept. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is a ruling in progress for a home game. The hand was played some time ago, but due to logistics issues, the hand did not make it to a director for the last few weeks. It was just given to me 2 days ago. I am trying to determine whether passing 3NT is a LA and whether to adjust the final result and, if so, to what.

I am not considering a PP in this situation.
Sept. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you to everyone who answered/voted. Here's the other shoe.

You alerted 3 and the opponents check your CC and see the agreement above (which you know), but no one asks, so no UI yet.

When you bid 3, partner alerts, thereby giving you UI that partner has forgotten your agreement.

Does this change your response?
Sept. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks. For those who downgrade to a weak NT, this partnership plays 14+ to 17 for NT bids and account for some 14 count hands, if that makes a difference.
Sept. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My apologies. I had two copies of the poll, but I apparently shared the wrong version. Auction added.
Sept. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Start on 11/4
Daytona Beach, FL
Elizabeth, IN
Puerto Vallarta, JA

Start on 11/5
Niagara Falls, ON

Start on 11/6
Schaumburg, IL
Mansfield, MA
Aug. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is the reason that on the rare occasion I am at a regional, I don't play bracketed events any more. Having been a director for most of the last 33 years, I don't play that much. Most of my peers have long since outdistanced my masterpoint holdings. I like to play up, but my masterpoint holding often drops me down into bracket 2. I'm not a real danger to win in bracket 1, but I like to play the top players and would rather play 2 sessions of bracket one than 4 session of bracket 2. I won the last 3 bracket 2 events I played and didn't particularly enjoy any of them. I enjoyed the time I spent with my friends (including some of my opponents), but I can't say that the bridge was that stimulating.

But from my experience over the last 30 years, I would say that we have two competing problems. The first is that of those players, who want to play the best competition. These are the players who will enter the big events, even with relatively low expectations. This is one of the selling points of bridge. What other sport gives you the opportunity to have AAAA or AAA players able to play world-class players and have a chance (albeit very slim) of winning? We need to come up with an option that suits them.

Alternatively, there is a very large and growing subset of players who know that either they have plateaued or are near their level. They want to compete and win, but they have virtually no chance of beating even good national players, let along world-class players and consider that just beating their heads against a brick wall. In the ACBL, the largest subset of new players are retirees or near-retirees, perhaps empty nesters who have more time to take up the game and enter the game late in life. They are past their prime learning age. They do learn, but slowly and they are never going to be extremely competitive outside of limited flight events. I've watched over the years as many of them hit whatever the current cap for flight B is and then stop showing up at tournaments. They have no interest in playing top players. They just retreat to playing at local events and clubs. I've seen people do this when the limit was 1500, then 2000, 2500 and now typically 3000. And the masterpoint inflation does not do them any favors. They now get 10+ or 20+ points for winning some limited flight event and it just pushes them that much closer to withdrawing from tournament play.

So, my thoughts on suggested events, I was thinking that perhaps there should be parallel events. One is an Open KO event that starts with a 2-session Swiss funneling to a 4 team KO on day 2. Anyone can enter. This will satisfy the first group. You can accommodate any number of teams from 4 up. If there are only 4 teams, then you play the day 2 event on day 1, eg. 1-session head-to head semi-finals and a 1-session final. The players can start a new event the next day, either another team game or pairs.

The second is a bracketed event, perhaps with a cap? I know that at sectionals we run an Open Swiss and a Bracketed 0-3000 event and that is very popular. At regionals, we could change the cap to something like 0-10000. It weeds out the truly top players and still brackets the events for the lower flight players. No playing up. People who want to play up, go to the other event. Pure bracketing limited flight event.
July 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peg and Jan - I realize that the districts are very different. One of the comments I did make was that these are suggestions and that each districts could choose the restrictions that best fit the district.

In the case of Peg's district, restrictions on the Open Flight don't seem to be warranted as the Flight has very low attendance. The suggestions I made were for those districts where attendance at the GNT is higher. In our district, attendance in the Championship Flight has been shrinking in recent years and we were down to 14, which is the smallest it's been in quite some time (average over the last few years has been about 16-17).

Jan–I only meant that the team was not eligible for the subsidy from the district. I was not intending to winnow out the field by eliminating the strongest teams from the event.
June 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peg–no, the other events are not grass-roots qualifiers. If one of the points of the grass roots events is to lure the players who do not normally attend the NABCs and to draw them into playing, then it doesn't make sense for the districts to be paying for the same few players to go to the NABCs, especially if these are players who would be attending the NABCs anyways. We have a team of players that include Steve Robinson, Peter Boyd and Beth Palmer. All three are on major seeded teams in the headline events and are at all three NABCs every year. Is there a reason to subsidize their trip every year to the summer NABCs? They win frequently (roughly 50% of the time) and are the #1 seeded team at our district finals year-in, year-out.

If the point of the grass roots events is to draw more players to the event and attract them to NABCs, then perhaps limiting the number of trips that we subsidize for the top players would help the events.

The only events that are like this are the GNTs and the NAPs.
June 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peg, perhaps these restrictions are best put in the District CoC so that each district can determine the best way to handle repeat winners.

Another potential option, say that players may not win the trip in consecutive years. They could win every other year, but not back-to-back trips. That would give some variety to the participants.
June 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
MikeC - There are players with many masterpoints who are not regulars to the NABC. Another option, perhaps rather than eliminating the Open Flight say that players can only win the trip once. Or maybe once every X years (every 5 years? every 10 years?) Once the top players with the Open Flight, they have to wait several years to earn the trip again.
June 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Go back and reference the very first comment on the thread (from me). No one at ACBL HQ actually pays attention to their own rules, so no one noticed and no one cared.
June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
While handicapping seems to be a rather poor practice to encourage the strongest candidate from the unit to compete at the national level, seeding does make some sense.

And although masterpoints are often a flawed means of weighting a field, as one element, they do help to seed a field.

I think that the Colorado Springs Power Ratings are an improvement on the masterpoint concept. Like Chess Ratings, they are impacted by recent performance.
June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you apply CPR on a person who needs it and you crack their collar bone or a rib and it punctures their lung both of which have occurred before by people trained to do so, then the person has the latitude to sue you. While it is likely that you will win the case, the court proceedings and legal fees to defend yourself and can be a huge inconvenience.

Additionally, when an employee, e.g. an ACBL director does so, the law does not give the organization any legal protections, only the individual. The organization does not get the protections of the law.

Far better for bridge players and volunteers who are not employed by the league to get CPR trained and to handle the resuscitation of the player.
June 18
1 2 3 4 5
.

Bottom Home Top