Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Eric Gettleman
1 2
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tracey - for what it’s worth, a playoff for 3rd still leaves some doubt as to the “true” second place (if both 2nd and 3rd lost to 1st).
Our district TD did it really well.
2nd weekend, 1st day bring it down to top 3 teams via a Swiss.
2nd day, do a 24board RR in morning to determine top 2, then in the afternoon head-to-head for 1st vs 2nd.
That avoids many complications when trying to find a “true” 1 thru 3
June 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Rick - While I can sympathize with your disappointment with the current outcome of the finals (and I agree that a CoC that would allow a winner of two matches in a 3-way not to win the event is not a CoC I would choose), I am dismayed by your last post.
In that post you essentially accuse the other team of cheating (by using UI, at the very least). Additionally, you demean all Flight B players (myself included) by laughing at their opinion (I agree that the poll should have been of your peers, but you didn't have to trash Flight B players in your statement). Lastly, you imply director malfeasance.
I had hoped that an amicable resolution would have been for the winning team (per the CoC - even if many may disagree with its content) to invite one of your pairs to join them as a third pair.
However, your last post makes me reconsider that thought, as clearly this became personal and constitutes character attacks.
While bridge should be competitive, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that we are all part of a community, where we are trying to grow membership and behave as maturely as possible.
May 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not many preferred pairs. They can add whomever they want as a third pair, though there are only a few “preferred” pairs per the CoC:

Team Augmentation Rules.
Subsequent to winning a flight in the District 22 final, a team may elect to augment its membership to a maximum of six players with approval of the D22 GNT Coordinator. Augmented players should preferably have played in the D22 finals on the final day, and must have at a minimum have been qualified to play in the
District 22 GNT finals.
May 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On an interesting side-note, the official results are no longer posted on ACBL Live.
That said, while I think it's a shame that a team that wins both matches isn't declared the winner of the event, it seems that it is within the rights of the District (and was spelled out in the CoC).
The unfortunate part of this is that it seems that the CoC weren't readily available to all and that there is debate as to which scale to use. Those 2 points are what strike me as most troubling.

My wishes are as follows:
Next year, the format is changed, but more importantly, made clear to everyone in advance.
The team that was declared the winning team is only a four-person team. I believe they can augment a pair. Why not invite one of the second-place team pairs to join them? While not a perfect solution, a nice olive branch that allows for bridge to be a draw for people, rather than anger some.
Alternatively, the ACBL can figure out a way to accommodate an additional team at the National level.
May 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I should probably know better than to jump into the middle of an argument, but that has never stopped me before.
Felix, I'm not sure I fully understand the attack on Sabine and Roy. If your claim is that they are not being supportive enough of #saynotocheats, and that they have sent mixed messages (or worse yet, been hypocritical), I believe you just can't see the forest for the trees.
Sabine and Roy are taking an active stance on an issue that is important to everyone that cares about high-level bridge. They are doing so in a highly visible manner.
They have nothing but my respect on this issue.
While you may think David and Tony are taking a stronger issue on this by not attending, there is certainly room for all four to do the right thing in different manners (again, nothing but respect for them as well).
When Marion wrote her initial #saynotocheats post, many that felt strongly about cheating would have been “100% supportive”, or “agree 100%”. That doesn't mean that they have a moral obligation to not attend a competition where cheaters may be present. More importantly, Roy and Sabine are actually taking a real stance (not just paying lip service) by saying they will refuse to play against known cheaters.
Your quoting of Sabine and Roy somewhat misses the point (in fact, I would argue that Roy's quote specifies that his strongest view is that he fully supports any efforts to keep cheats out of the game).
Either way, I respect your views that people should stick to their word. However, I believe that Roy and Sabine are doing just that (and setting a strong example for the rest of the bridge world).
We shouldn't judge them for their approach to cleaning up the game we all love, but rather just admire their efforts in doing so. If you have better ideas, please feel free to share them, as many have done.
May 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Interesting side-note. All 4 of last year's Spingold QF losing teams dropped in to the Roth. They each received the lowest carryover (same number assigned to the lowest Day 1 qualifier). Of the 4, 3 of them made it to day 3, with final placings of 8, 22 and 23.
April 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For anyone that hasn't had the privilege of meeting Brian, he is even nicer in person than his post would suggest. He is great to kibitz (he and John are incredibly thoughtful and he is willing to discuss hands after), and a humble opponent (when I got blitzed in the Spingold by his team a few years ago, he was gracious even during the fourth quarter). Next time you have the chance, I highly suggest just pulling up a chair and watching and learning. He and John are a class act.
April 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
100% mutual Don. Great being able to share a meal and a bridge table with you this past week. Look forward to doing it again in the future.
April 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Great meeting you too! I'm not easily discouraged (or would have given up bridge long ago). It's a little sad to me that some people can't see the forest for the trees, but I am still happy to share stories of people doing the right thing, even if it wasn't done perfectly. Look forward to seeing you at a Unit or Club game sometime soon.
April 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Unopposed auction. This is trick 2 (with no implied shortness anywhere). Given that the only danger of losing 2 tricks is if they are 4-0 onside (since we can't do anything if they're offside), then leading J up is the only way to pick up the suit for just one loser. Small to the Jack leaves you with no way to finesse the 9/10.
April 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Fair point. Given my certainty in stating Meckwell as our agreement, he didn't say anything. However, with the information, perfect defense would have led to -3, which is what he asked the director for (for a bottom board). Let's not miss the main point.
Regardless of when he should have said what, I'm thoroughly impressed that while he may have been able to get a good board, he volunteered for a bottom. I think that's a lesson from which everyone can learn.
April 2
1 2
.

Bottom Home Top