Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Tom Moore
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 23 24 25 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
While you are waiting for other answers let me discuss how we handle this at our club for most IMP games.

First this is not Swiss but Round Robin approach, however we do awards for wins as well as overalls.

We essentially bracket the game. To meet ACBL club rules the brackets must be based on the highest team member masterpoint holding, it does not support team averaging.

We rank the teams by the mastepoint holding and break them into brackets of 4, 5, 6 or 7 teams. Each bracket is playing a BAM team movement.

Five teams is our sweet spot and is the common bracket sized - four rounds of six boards. If the number of teams entered is not a multiple of 5 let's say we have 17 teams we have two brackets of 5 and 1 of seven teams (4 boards 6 rounds). The largest number of rounds bracket is normally given to the top players, but this is not required

Thus we know for 6 to 20 teams we need 4 sets of duplicated boards 30 boards each (our 6 team movement requires 30 boards.

The pros:
1. All teams play the same boards.
2. Like most bracketed events peer play peer.
3. You can use a standard convention card inside rather than a teams event, since you never play the same board twice.
4. Most player and occasionally all players get ACBL masterpoints.

Cons:
1. We have to arrange the sections so that adjacent teams playing the same hands are minimized.
2. If we have 4 or 6 team brackets they are adjusting their moves at a different time.
3. A small lag time to assign the brackets.
4. Stratification is not supported.
May 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In my ACBL training the following was discussed for defender cards.

Take a pass card from the bidding box have the dropper (and the declarer agreeing to the location) place the pass card at the point of the original dropped card. Then determine if it could be seen by the dropper's partner.
May 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jeff
Why consider this group?
or
Why does the ACBL give Jack a cold shoulder?
May 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Don there has been a second shift.
KO to Gold Rush pairs.

My last time in Gatlinburg several years ago GR was being first introduced. Attendance was low. Now in the Gatlinburg the GRs are show large numbers.

Not sure if GR help or hurt attendance but it is a big shift.
April 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jim good questions let me try a different twist.

1. Is solitaire on a computer cards?

2. Are people wanting to play with real people an opportunity? Is BBO their answer?

In our club it appears 50+ years of age and previous pinochle players get into bridge the fastest and stay the longest.
April 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike in general your thinking is right but I've found my club players in I/N games in Memphis, Nashville, and Atlanta. I live outside of Dallas, Tx.

Took my sister in law and her new to bridge at the time to Washington D.C. They played KOs mostly after a big lost they played a session in the I/N room, typically won and then went back to the bracketed events. - This was before Gold Rush.
April 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Greg I think I'm in basic agreement with you.

When I go to a NABC and see one of my club players over 199 masterpoints playing in the I/N room - I ask them why they are not playing in the Gold Rush or a bracketed event to try and get gold.

In the cases I have and that they moved up they have all come back to thank me during their life master parties.
April 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Once out of Gold Rush they can go to a bracketed event like KO or Bracketed Round Robin (a.k.a. as Bracketed Swiss).

Just a reminder - before GR the bracketed KO were the place to get gold.

Some larger Regionals have separate B/C events too.
April 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve you are correct and I edited my original content. The only way ACBL could force some club Swiss is to required a certain amount of black points being required from team play to make life master.

The biggest problem for new players is if they are unaware of team games then they have no reason to ask for them or get that sanction so they can compete.

I have no plans to start a “Get Swiss back in the Clubs” campaign.

I an feeling the problem may not be so bleak with the number of KOs brackets and Compact KOs that were held in Memphis. Not as large a number as about 25 years ago, but not a disaster.
April 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Since my name is mentioned let me add some to this discussion.

Before the BOD meeting I sent my DD a statement on non-approval for this item. The response from him made it obvious that the proposal was going to pass without much discussion.

I did state to him that the bigger loser on this decision may be the October scheduled Instant Match Point Game since now clubs can run a second JJ at essentially the same match points (vs the NS and / or EW) 1 point Gold.

That said, -
the motion passage will not have high impact on my personal club. Our lower level games will now have two chances for some gold slivers in October and we most likely will create some 8 is enough or some other teams games in the month to award lower players some gold.

In other months -
we take advantage of GNTs assuming are district continues allowing GNT district qualifiers. Continue to have at least one Swiss game within our S.T.a.C games. Have our annual Bracketed Swiss like event on the longest day. And in our Limited in club sectionals hold our Swiss as single session events to allow possibility of greater participation.

But I still feel the small incentive to clubs currently not running team games is significantly reduced.
(Edited after Steve Moses comment)
April 1
Tom Moore edited this comment April 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike thanks for the comments, they are so right on. I have students that are similar, but to them a 2NT is always a two minor suit (unusual notrump) hand.

Likewise, opponent opens 1 heart and they overcall 1 spade (think they are responding to their partner) with a 4 card spade suit topped by the six. Then they wonder why no one wants to partner with them.

I'll modify your last two sentences,
Just groups that are getting together to play the GAME, not getting together just to socialize playing a game. That's the dividing point.
March 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Randy - first time players at our club get a free play for future play, as well.
Finds this works great. Glad you mentioned it since I think it works to get players back to your club.
March 17
Tom Moore edited this comment March 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Randy, if you want bridge to grow.
Get younger kids to play trick taking card games.
I can't throw a ball, so you don't see me playing hard or soft ball.
March 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It shows that the ACBL games are really a nation wide game to new players.

It allows the ACBL to run ACBL wide games reports easier.

I was surprised by my I/N players love to go to their bridge friends scores for the same boards using the common game today. When my players go visit their friends they play bridge with them and check back to see what their local club players are doing as well.

————-

The purpose of my post was to state that the ACBL will have new data on games not really available in the past. Changing our club over to this system from our home grown one will take some effort on our club. But the players have asked for features we can't provide now and the new system will.

I use the current ACBL club reporting system today to look at the impact of other club by events today since they maintain all the game results for several years.

I can't make our players younger, our biggest lost has been from death, followed by not being able to physically get to our club, … losing interest is about last in why we lose table count.
March 14
Tom Moore edited this comment March 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ed actually it appears (observation, there is not a way to formally measure) to be the opposite in our area.

Mid size clubs having a physical site are dissolving with small community or Senior centers we one or two games a week are growing.
March 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Let's take a short look into the data currently and what will be available in a short time.

ACBL is setting up a new club results reporting, it will provide the player the ability to review all their games reported to the ACBL.

Yes I know that the current “the common game” gets similar data now but the ACBL system supports “the common game” and some other existing web sites too so the data collection will be much larger.

This system with ACBL live data will not have the masterpoint summary of the game we provide but the complete game files of every game played.

The point is that with this and the existing ACBL live data we have available much more than just tables played and masterpoints of the players we also can get their age, partners, and geographic location to do the calculations many of you seem to desire.

Is this too much big brother or is it the base for seeing who is really participating overall or at each club?
March 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is it time we really think about reorganizing the whole concept of duplicate bridge tournament structure. Do it more like poker.

For example in the ACBL Land restructure our ACBL Championships.

NO NABCs and no NAPs or GNTs.

Championships for major events exist but with no side games, also no regional events concurrent. Just one big pairs or team event over the four days or whatever sessions. You must earn an entry for these events by showing your skills at a held regional or optionally you can buy one at a high $ cost. Think of it like blue, silver, or red ribbon entries. If you want to play at less cost you must win your entry in club (REACH like games) or demonstrate your skills at a sectional to get a free entry into the regional qualifier event.

These required Regional and/or sectional entry requirements should increase sectional and regional events.
Entries at regionals would dictate at least 4 sessions events to win. Entries to regional from sectionals would require at least two session events.

The Final pair or teams championship provides a large cash payout to top winners .

The above provides features of GNT and NAPs in that your must show or play and wind an enter or provide a fee entry to qualify at any regional to get to the big event. But different in that is not limited to your Unit or Distinct.

No big in size event so BOD can meet electronically.
No hotel contracts since this could be held in rather large clubs or local smaller convention centers.

EDITED: To indicate this is an example for ACBL.
March 13
Tom Moore edited this comment March 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Side point:
Audrey Grant is in the HoF.
March 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John at least you don't have your open game players wanting to have these players so they can have a bigger game.

On Monday afternoons we have a limited game (0-500). Today was the Sr Pairs and as expected quetion “why aren't they playing in our game?” I stated I really don't think you want a player in this game that is still having problems following suit. Yes we have a couple of them.

Our general rules for moving up is when the pair can play at a reasonable speed.
March 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks Len.
Since it was my club that asked for the BOG motion to float CA team games. Others in my own district voted against it but one is a Pro player the other very tournament oriented.

Jeff B, the gold may not be much but -
1. It encourages clubs to run team games, especially for lower level player participation.
2. Also for the newer players it start getting them aware of pigmented points, especially Gold.

Jeff B
The upgraded for member games make me laugh in that we get new members and the award benefits games (OPEN) which they, the newly recruited, most likely not attend.

Jeff and Allan.
January is already booked with Junior Funds games and if passed I think February will get booked with Education Fund.
March 10
Tom Moore edited this comment March 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 23 24 25 26
.

Bottom Home Top