Join Bridge Winners
All comments by David Babcock
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 38 39 40 41
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm relieved that everyone with experience is seeing things basically the same way.

The one hour could be expanded to two after the first meeting.

So far, no one has touched on the issue of changing partnerships during the session - is the thinking that to do that would be an unnecessary complication in what will already be a new environment for everyone? I'm fine with that thinking if so.

It's two weeks until launch, so there is still plenty of time to get the program design right.
Sept. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
OK, supervised or free or whatever we call it play is the way to go. That makes sense.

If somewhere between ten and twenty people sign up, as I've been told to expect, and the session length is 1 hour (the available time slot), is getting everyone to play with several partners something worth trying to do, or will everyone be so focused on remembering what they used to do that it won't matter who is sitting opposite? Should this just be shuffle and deal with no mechanism for retaining the hands, or would there be value in keeping the hands intact, duplicate-style, with me coming up before the next session with a couple of level-appropriate lessons from the hands they played - or is it way too early to be thinking about this kind of thing at all?

Sorry if these questions seem very elementary, but this is new ground for me and, as the old philosopher said, you don't get a second chance to make a first impression.
Sept. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Apologies to all. Is it psosible for me to move the post, or do I have to repeat it?
Sept. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
or a bit of paint comes off the rank or the suit designation and the dealing machine freaks out
Sept. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I did after reading your suggestion, and his reply was that used Dealer4s for sale are “rarer than hen's teeth” - which is consistent with the lack of success with local inquiries that led to my post. This all speaks very well for the product: the PlayBridge folks fully deserve their success.
Aug. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One of the benefits to a club player of the almost-lost practice of kibitzing top players at a tournament when the only alternative is a side game with a pick-up partner is that you learn that at the highest levels, full disclosure is the norm. It is very unfortunate that most club players never see this.
Aug. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, as Gordon has also pointed out; thanks to you both. I may make up table cards with a ¾-Howell on one side and the same with an appendix table on the other: if/when the 13th pair shows up, the Norths just flip the card.
July 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've long suspected that H7ROVER came into being precisely to handle a late pair to a 6-table Mitchell without the dreaded 4-board sitout. An arrow-switch does improve the balance, but it's still not very good. Another improvement is to replace the NS bumps with detours by EW to table 7 to meet the rover - it's less messy that way when you have some mobility-impaired NS pairs.
July 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Gordon: “If you thought it might happen, you could have started with an appendix table - based on a 3/4 Howell or a double-hesitation Mitchell”

Bingo! Never thought of it.
July 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@William: I set that up in ACBLscore's EDMOV and it reported no errors, but a look at the pair guide cards shows a flaw: each moving pair meets one of the other moving pairs twice (both meetings at table 2). This is not a fatal flaw IMHO but it would be nice to find a way around it.
July 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What is the initial boarding?
July 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The reason not to resequence is to keep things as easy and familiar as possible for the players. IMHO that should be a factor in movement choices, though admittedly just one of several.
July 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@John: “I can't tell you how many players think it's right to automatically make an insufficient bid sufficient”

in spite of others' best educational efforts over maybe half a century
July 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@David: In long-ago versions of the Laws, for example 1927, a bid was an “offer to contract”. A bid that requires a response can hardly be an offer to contract. Eventually, the laws were brought into alignment with actual expert practice by removal of the the “offer” language. Amusingly, George Reith, from whose book _Accurate Contract_ I am quoting the 1927 language, discusses “forced responses” in the very same book.
July 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“They must never double in the Gold Rushes.”

maybe because letting an unmakable contract make costs more when it's doubled
April 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
and thereby it fell very shortly after José Damiani made the front page of the daily bulletin at that NABC.

https://cdn.acbl.org/nabc/2019/01/bulletins/db6.pdf
April 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
He has answered me quickly and responsively and (I hope) happily in the past, but this is about what the article he cited actually says, whence my request - which Richard Fleet has kindly fulfilled.
March 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Peg: that kind of thing isn't peculiar to education. If you want to volunteer at any municipal or county facility anywhere that has a volunteer program, you will likely have to get fingerprinted and await the background check. As a volunteer, suggest something they aren't already doing and even if your supervisor and everyone above are 100% supportive, they will still want to make sure nothing will wind up outside the entity's insurance coverage. (I'm speaking first-hand here.) As taxpayers, we expect careful stewardship of our tax dollars - and we should expect that even when our own pet project is the topic.
March 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
and everyone can have some role in their club in *running beginner classes*. Maybe teach. Maybe set up the equipment. If the club has a dealing machine, make the prepared hands if the teaching plan uses them. Maybe lobby the local weekly for coverage - the newly minted empty-nesters or retirees in the area may be willing to give it a try.

Just don't leave it to ACBL - not because of any issues about what they have or haven't done, but because you live where you are known and ACBL is not.
March 15
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 38 39 40 41
.

Bottom Home Top