Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Eric Gettleman
1 2 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Gary - that would whole-heartedly, and I'm truly sorry that happened to you. With online regional events, I'm much less concerned, and look very forward to playing - even if faced with potential cheaters.
Big difference in NABC+ events - it would break my heart.
June 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Paul…..I have seen the randomness of your partner’s bidding - no way you could ascribe a frequency accurately.
Oh wait…that’s me. I say over-disclose, especially if against people that may not be familiar playing against precision.
June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I love bridge for many reasons (including, but not limited to the logical challenges it presents, the partnership aspect, and the friends I have made over the years).
To cheat at bridge is something I can't begin to contemplate - as it would suck the joy out of the game immediately.
While I am competitive, and enjoy winning as much as the next person, I would much rather lose honestly and learn something. I feel lucky that this game is one of the few where you can pay an entry fee and get to sit at a table against top players in the world.
As for wanting to cheat online - are MPs really that important? Playing bridge with my regular partner is one of the things that brings me sheer joy - if we win, great; if we lose, that's quite alright - hopefully we learned something along the way, and maybe even made new friends.
While work may prevent me from playing much of the online regionals, I will play where I can, expect to be competitive, and if I get nicked by a cheat - it's a shame. Hopefully BBO can catch as many pairs that cheat as possible.
In the meantime, I'm just glad that BBO has enabled me to continue playing bridge during this pandemic, and that the ACBL is hosting a regional (not to mention a huge thanks to Tom Reynolds for his KOs, which have been tremendous fun and have presented great high-level competition).
Don't let the cheaters prevent you from playing the game we all love.
June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As his partner, I can say this is the first (and I hope only) time he has done this.
Not the hand I was expecting at all. Paul has very high ethics, and hence his bringing it here.
As an aside, my view on ethical is that it’s not just what the rules say, but the stricter of the rules or what you believe to be right.
May 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Another great BW idea.
I didn’t see what may be the optimal time as a choice.
Late enough so that West Cost can join but not so late that East Cost people that have to work the next morning are up too late.
I’d suggest 8:30 or 9pm ET.
Thanks for arranging.
April 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is a fun and interesting thread…so thank you.
While there was one comment about transfer over weak 2's/doubles of them, I think there are a few items around weak 2's I haven't seen (though may have missed them).
Ogust
Transfer McCabe (lead-directing xfer/possible fit over weak 2's)
Lebensohl over weak 2, X.

Also, Lebensohl over reverses is useful.

Lastly, with some mention of game tries above, I do believe Kokish game tries are gaining popularity.
April 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Brian…your generosity during these times is laudable (but not surprising for those that know you).
Follow-up thought…any chance a group of professional/top-tier players would be willing to do a Pro-Am online? Get a 10+ table game, with a 16 or 24 board session on BBO where all the amateurs pay $100 (or some other amount) and the proceeds go to the charity of the top two Pros' choice? People can be paired randomly or eventually there could be bidding.
That is just my strawman, but could be an interesting way to give back.
March 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes.

Congratulations to Jorge, very well done.
As an aside, while you may not think much of robots bridge, looking at the people like Phil, Alex Perlin, Leo Lasota and others, there is clearly a strong overlap in skills required to be successful both at the table and with bots.

That said, even if you disagree, would be nice not to post a negative comment on a congratulatory thread.

Felicitaciones Jorge…y buena suerte en el futuro.
March 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tom…thanks so much for organizing this. Please put me down for a team.
March 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
sign my kids up as well - 12 and 9.
March 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In addition to marketing, anybody have any thoughts about running an on-line class for people that are “trapped” in their homes the next few weeks. Especially given Geoff's comments about kids/Xbox - this could be a really interesting time to have a 1 hour/day class for next few weeks to bring in some kids.
Does anyone have experience doing this and could volunteer (or even do it for a nominal fee)?
March 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One thing that isn't clear to me here…if without a BIT, E would have bid 5C (at least some E players would), and gone down, but because of the BIT chose to Pass, and went plus…didn't E use the UA, where a logical alternative was available, and benefit from it?
The law seems a little fuzzy here. E certainly can't double here after BIT, though I would argue perhaps should either bid (and go down, or have it rewound to 4H depending on outcome), or a poll should be taken on actions and score accordingly if pass.
Sept. 24, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think it's a shame that any Director (especially in an I/N event) not be courteous and professional. I/N players are critical to the game we love.
That said, I will say that I was fortunate to have only positive experiences with Directors this NABC.
In the Mini-Spingold Day 2, we started the 3rd segement with director calls on each of the first 3 boards (MI each time).
Before we started the 4th board, the director asked “should I just stay here while you start the next board?”. Broke the tension.
That said, while the rulings were 1/1/1 (one to each side, and one where no damage occurred), the Directors were professional, courteous and explained their rulings clearly for all.
All in all, exemplary.
July 31, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jim - while I would normally agree with you (as I am a hard core Diet Coke-aholic), this was clearly a “Pepsi” NABC (as he won the Spingold and the Fishbein Trophy).
July 29, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi David…I like the way D6 ran it this year. Final day came down to 3 teams (after a one-day Swiss that Saturday). Played a 3-way for one session, with team in last place getting eliminated if down in both matches and had lowest net IMPS. The final two teams played head-to-head last session (with carryover). Seems to get closest to a true first/second/third.
Most importantly, upon arrival at the venue, the CoC were clearly posted and the format was clearly announced to all.
June 17, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peg…from the old CoC:
The District 22 GNT Finals are knockout team events scored by IMPs (and converted to VP’s when a team plays in a round robin)
The URL is: http://acbldistrict22.com/D22/DIR/GNT/2018/D22_GNT_2016-2018_COC.pdf
It's not dyslexia…the issue is that the current website no longer has the old CoC. I believe the 2017-2018 CoC posted there is the old ACBL GNT CoC, not the District.
June 12, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Art - unless they used the 20pt integer scale on Saturday. In that case, I would argue switching to NABC+ on Sunday would seem more nefarious. Using the same scale Sunday which was used on Saturday seems most appropriate (that said - the idea of using VPs in general may seem ridiculous; however, taking the conversion to VPs as a given for argument's purposes, 20pt integer would seem right for Sunday given Saturday's scoring)
June 12, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peg…I agree 110% with your last paragraph. I think the most troubling item to me is that the scoring method wasn't clear to all from the onset (and that the official second place team was misinformed). That is why I think the ACBL should see about allowing a second team.
As to the VP scale itself, I am saying that if a 20-pt integer scale was used on Saturday, I wouldn't use the argument “we don't think they used the right scale on Sunday”. I would make the argument that the CoC isn't clear, we sought clarity, and were given misinformation. Please allow a second team at nationals given the fiasco which happened.
June 12, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Understand that it's not obsolete. To that point, the lack of VP scale specification on Sunday isn't something that would likely sway any appellate committee (especially if a 20-point integer scale was used on Saturday).
If I were Finn/others, I wouldn't build my argument around that, but rather around the idea that there was miscommunication (or at least a lack of clarity) to the teams involved, and appeal to the ACBL for two teams to be allowed in Vegas.
Based on the CoC (albeit not fully clear, and with a much less than ideal methodology), it would seem to me that the official winner was declared correctly. The lack of VP scale specification isn't enough (unless Saturday had been scored on continuous or 30pt).
In the absence of the ACBL allowing a second team, I'd suggest Finn/team start a gofundme campaign to raise 1k (or 2k) to play in other events at the NABC - he clearly has a very bright future in bridge, and I'd gladly contribute.
June 12, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Out of curiosity, what was the VP scale used during the first day? Although the number of boards is clearly different, I would be surprised if they went from integer to continuous or vice versa (or from 20 to 30 or vice versa).
If it was a 20VP integer scale, then while I completely sympathize (and feel strongly that a better, more complete CoC should have been made readily available), I would argue that the results were properly calculated.
I can also easily see an argument as to why those results should be challenged to allow both teams to compete at the National level as discussed by others (even if slightly unfair to remaining field).
June 11, 2019
1 2 3
.

Bottom Home Top