Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Tom McGuire
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
These tactical bids will be outlawed when the NBA outlaws head fakes.
Oct. 13, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The drug testing regulations are maybe a reason that bridge will never be an Olympic “sport.”
Aug. 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've always found that good contracts are easier to play than bad ones. If you don't bid well, you better have some card playing chops. ;)
Aug. 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Geese – Thanks from me, too. Your post is very honest and forthright. I think many sponsors are like you – they want to advance quickly and it is a truism that one can only do that by playing with and against the best. So good for you – I wish I could do the same. Sharpen your skills and enjoy the triumphs when them com.
Aug. 7, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's a truism in marketing that you don't sell to everyone in the world – you sell to people who need/want your product/service. The ACBL seems to have divided those people into two segments – “Boomers” who have time on their hands, and “Youths” who may also have some free time. The cliche for selecting the Boomers is that they are “low hanging fruit” and easy to harvest. Yes, their playing years are limited but they still have at least 20 years of bridge ahead of them. The Youths have a lifetime of bridge ahead of them and are the long-term play. OK so that “gives up” on the 30-50 cohort, but 1) they have other things that are important to them to do with free time and 2) you can't market to everyone – you have to select who you are trying to reach. So the ACBL strategy seems to make sense…get some Boomers to play NOW and introduce the game to Youths who will adopt the game over the long haul.
July 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I hope this adds to the discussion rather than distracts.

I think Ken Monzingo statement that there is (paraphrase) “zero cheating at clubs” and his insinuation that cheating, even if not common, does occur in pro bridge, says this: “Intentional cheating with prearranged signals is almost never seen in local clubs – the stakes are too low. However, intentional cheating has been seen over the decades in professional bridge and, given the significant financial incentives these days, it might be more common than in the past. That is not to say that hesitations, grunts, frowns and groans don't communicate illegal information at clubs. They do so every day and insofar as club managers and directors allow and seemingly condone that behavior, there is ”cheating“ at the club level – it just doesn't rise to the level of concealed methods to communicate between partners.”
June 28, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm down with“shows Hearts”, i.e. Ellwell, but voted for “unknown major” as that seems to be standard.
June 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Congratulations to Greg and Grant Vance along with Jessica Lai for promoting a lively Thursday night game at the Oakland Bridge Center (Oakland, CA). The competition is good as is the vibe. I wouldn't want to be a novice walking in to that game but if I were a 25 year old looking to improve, I'd be there every week.
June 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
FWIW I think the most interesting aspect is that such an esteemed player had a “mental blackout.” That puts me on a something of a par with him – I have at least one per session.
June 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Very impressive! Kudos to Paul.
May 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This may be a stare-off of death. My guess is that both will fade away with bridge hanging in a bit longer in its current form. However, I'm certain that the NYT will have a longer life, but in a different form factor.
April 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When the NYT cut the bridge column from daily to three times a week (Truscott was the writer at that time) I wrote a letter to the editor. The reply was something like “we give more column inches to bridge than we do to India.”
April 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It took me 5 seconds but it it elicit a chortle. Funny.
April 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've underled Aces and gotten the desired return, but I've also gotten berated by partner who let me know that I was a rank amateur and that it is NEVER right to underlead an Ace – even if that is the only way to set the contract.
April 4, 2015
Tom McGuire edited this comment April 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Is it possible to leverage any of the work that has been done in order to minimize costs going forward?”
March 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is one of the biggest problems with “full disclosure.” If you ask the opps what their bids mean (especially in an auction that hasn't been alerted but that you suspect has conventional implications) you allow them to communicate UI, and good luck proving that! If you don't ask, you've forfeited your rights – “you're a good player, you know something was going on and you have to protect yourself by asking.” Both ways you allow the opps an extra step to the basket. Oh, and asking and withdrawing the question? How about just saying “I think you missed your partner's conventional bid. Give it some thought.”
March 9, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kevin, good for you for seeking out information and for reporting what the committee says and does. I'm sure they will issue some official notes as they did previously, but it is great to have another viewpoint. I'm certain that it is a pain for the committee members to be under scrutiny like this, but ACBLscore+ was such a fiasco that it is important that the process to replace it be entirely in daylight.
March 3, 2015
Tom McGuire edited this comment March 3, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What motivated this new regulation? Is it simply tightening up spectator access for its own sake – nothing untoward has happened, but better to make sure nothing does happen. Or is it that this is in response to known issues of spectators communicating, wittingly or otherwise, information between tables?
March 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I haven't heard “orthogonally” in years! Love it. It is sooooo geeky. :)

Now can someone use “granular” in a way that doesn't apply to sugar?
Jan. 10, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top