Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Jan Martel
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We know George as a bridge player, but he changed the lives of millions of women in a major way with the invention of the birth control pill. For some of us, his invention of Naprosyn (what is now usually called Alleve) was almost as important - as far as I know, young women today don't suffer from menstrual cramps thanks to George. I was lucky enough to be able to hug him and thank him for making my life better. I'm willing to bet there are innumerable women around the world who would have liked to do that.
June 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Perhaps I should phrase that question differently - when this committee has finished my (admittedly long) list of possible changes to the General Conditions of Contest, I will post the proposed revised General Conditions of Contest on the usbf website and do a post on the Policy Forum with a list of all the changes and an opportunity for discussion and vote. What I'm trying to find out with the “needs a vote of the policy committee” is whether a specific change merits individual discussion by a broader group than this one.
June 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Ted. I'm not sure whether you're suggesting that a team that won at the District in one year isn't eligible to compete the following year or that if they win they shouldn't receive a subsidy toward their expenses to attend the NABC finals. If it's the former, I think you're making a big mistake, at least for the Championship flight - don't we want it to be as strong as possible? If the latter, I wouldn't argue with you, although I would point out that the Championship flight teams have to pay an entry fee, whereas the lower flights don't, so the Finals are already more expensive for them.

Really, the Championship flight is different from the others - it's a serious NABC event and we shouldn't make it any weaker. Let's use it to promote the top level of the game. The lower flights are the ones aimed at introducing new players to the NABC experience.
June 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have been told that there is very little difference between Open and Open+ charts, so you're really allowing almost anything.

3 days or half the time between when they are added and when play starts is fine with me. Anyone else?
June 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But how do you define “unusual method”? My thought was that if someone else is playing essentially the same thing, it isn't “unusual” for this purpose.

What if the pair is added less than 6 days from the start? Should we then give them less time? So 6 (or 7?) or more days in advance, you get 3 days to file, but under 6 days you have to file more quickly? Make the filing deadline for late-added pairs be the earlier of 3 days from when they were added or 3 days before play starts?
What about a pair that is added within 3 days of play? Obviously they have to complete a SSF and ACBL card before play starts (they're required to bring them to the table after all), but how soon after being added?
June 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But the opponents don't necessarily get 3 days - suppose a pair is added within 4 days of the start of the event? Then they have 3 days to file so their opponents get either 1 day or no days to prepare a defense.
June 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The team members for the Bermuda Bowl had not yet been listed. The WBF “participants” page <http://db.worldbridge.org/Repository/tourn/wuhan.19/microSite/Participants.asp> lists the countries entered in each of the 4 events - initially there is a box with a check mark in it to show that the country is entered. When a country lists the specific players, the box has lines in it and you can click on it to see who is on the team. The “Monaco” box was still a check mark when I looked at it; the “Poland” box is now a check mark.
June 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks, Avon. If I'm reading the results correctly, the fourth APBF teams will be:
Bermuda Bowl - China Hong Kong
Venice Cup - China Hong Kong
D'Orsi Cup - Japan
Mixed - Indonesia
June 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Monaco has apparently withdrawn from the Bermuda Bowl - they were listed as a Zone 1 team about 2 weeks ago and have now been replaced by Poland, the 9th place finisher in the 2018 European Team Championship.
June 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No, it doesn't
June 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This has been a productive discussion, which suggests that maybe we need a more thorough look into the whole appeals process. While I am confident that appeals committees already have the power to penalize frivolous appeals and just wanted to remind them of that fact, it seems sensible to do so in conjunction with a re-write of the provisions that govern appeals, which would include the procedural issues Oren is concerned about (which I also think, as a practical matter, are handled now).
When we wrote the current section about appeals, we were trying to do away with the previous procedures where the director would sometimes call each appeals committee member separately to give him or her the facts and get an opinion. That poor procedure sometimes caused different appeals committee members to rule on different sets of facts, because somewhere along the way an appeals committee member would ask a question and the answer to that question would be communicated in subsequent calls but had not been communicated in prior calls. We do much better now, but there is still room for improvement.
So can a smallish group take this over and come up with a new section on appeals, to include both strong restrictions (things like a penalty for an appeal that lacks substantial merit can not exceed X IMPs), and recommendations for procedure? I know Oren wants to be on this small group, who else? I don't think there's any huge time pressure, we're looking at something in terms of months, not days or weeks, or years.
June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I very strongly agree with Danny that we do not want to consider delaying appeals until the end of a match - yes, that would probably reduce the number of appeals but more importantly it would distort the match - players are entitled to know the score after each segment of play. If we delay appeals until the end, that won't be possible.
June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Can you be more specific? An IMP penalty shall not exceed X IMPs? A player may be barred from competing for a period not to exceed 1 year? No penalty shall be imposed for the first appeal without substantial merit?

I'd be happier if we could come up with some suggested penalties, but I just don't see them.
June 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually, I discourage this if the operator uses the keyboard to enter bids. The keyboard is sufficiently quiet that players can't tell when a bid has been made (and many operators type when they aren't entering bids and plays so if a player does hear the keyboard s/he doesn't know whether it's a bid or the operator saying something to a spectator), and it is interesting to the audience to know who is thinking.
June 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I still don't know how to close the voting on this poll, but it is now over.
I will add video recording to the evidence that can be used to support an IMP penalty for slow play. I'll leave Vugraph for now, although I think it is unlikely that we would have Vugraph and not video and I know that our directors prefer to use the video record since it's more accurate.
June 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The way our website lets me do it, it actually means 00:00 on August 6th.
June 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The USBF VP scales are Appendix C to the General Conditions of Contest <https://www.usbf.org/docs/COC/General%20Conditions%20of%20Contest%202019.pdf>;. You can also find the scales for 7, 8, 9, 10, 14 & 16 boards in possibly more-readable form under this year's USBCs on the Tournament menu.
June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Some organizers of selection events would also like to know when and where the 2020 Junior and “adult” World Championships will be held, but so far that has not been announced.
June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you haven't voted on this, you have one more day, after which I'm going to try to figure out how to close voting and will add video to the evidence that would support awarding an IMP penalty for slow play.
June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I tend to agree with this - we put Vugraph in as an alternative to a time monitor because the directors usually watch the play on Vugraph, so have a good sense of how much time is taken. But sometimes the operator doesn't enter bids or plays exactly in real time, and now that we have the alternative of a video I'd be fine with removing Vugraph. Lat's wait until we finish this vote and I'll do a vote on that.
June 14
.

Bottom Home Top