Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Jan Martel
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What are the other two?
March 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I found the motion about rewarding “recruiters” interesting. It's 191-21 and 22 (as far as I can tell there aren't any page numbers on the Journal PDF, but if you search for “recruit” you can find them easily).
What seems strange to me is that the total amount a recruiter can “earn” for encouraging new members to stay for 2 or 3 years is limited to the value of a one-year membership each year (that's currently $49, or $46 for Life Members). Why should there be such a limitation? Isn't the 6th new member just as valuable to the ACBL as the 5th?
OTOH, I guess having some reward is better than having none.
March 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Isn't this motion the one coming from the BOG that previously said “cheating” and was rejected because it wasn't limited to “collusive cheating”?
March 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I believe it was on the evening of the first day of the Final of the Rosenblum.
March 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kirsten - I'm not sure what you mean. I don't think that the WBF has barred a player from competing (or has not barred a player from competing) is a “WBF rule” that other bridge organizations should respect or follow. I have no idea to what you are referring as a “travesty” but it is my understanding that the ACBL Board has discussed whether to have full reciprocity with the WBF and has decided not to do so.
Feb. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think the ACBL has to comply with this suspension - it isn't a WBF NBO and I do not believe that it has agreed to reciprocity with WBF rules. Thus Fantoni-Nunes are not allowed to play in ACBL events, and Geir is.
Feb. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I believe that beta blockers are no longer banned for bridge. They are banned for sports like shooting, where a lower heart rate can improve performance.
Some drugs (diuretics for instance) are banned because they are masking agents.
Please do not read this comment as remotely suggesting that I am in favor of drug testing - I have always been against it, it's a pain for our players to have to get TUEs for things that aren't performance-enhancing, and this ruling doesn't change my mind one iota.
Feb. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, of course. All US members of the ABA are regular members of the USBF. Any regular member can become an Active member by paying dues. Any Active Member can run for the USBF Board. Also, both the ACBL and the USBF will appoint NABF Board members and anyone interesting in serving on that Board can ask to be appointed.
Feb. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When the USBF was originally formed, the ABA participated in its formation and governance, but some time ago the ABA chose to terminate its representation on the USBF Board and participation in International Bridge.To the best of my knowledge, the ABA does not want to participate in NABF governance.
Feb. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It’s people over a certain age, and I do not know.
Feb. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The NABF is the new Zonal Organization for Zone 2 (North America). Its Board of Directors is its governing body. Our expectation is that the Board will not have much to do, other than appointing WBF Executive Committee representatives from the people nominated by ACBL, CBF, FMB and USBF. If each organization nominates the number of EC members to which it is entitled, the NABF Board will just be rubber-stamping those nominations. If an organization nominates more people than it is entitled to select, the NABF Board will choose among them. If an organization does not nominate anyone, the NABF Board will select one or more representatives. The NABF Board will also deal with other Zonal issues if they arise.

The WBF Executive Committee is the governing body of the WBF. It meets once a year at the World Championships. Zone 2 is entitled to appoint 5 representatives. In addition, the WBF Congress will select 3 EC representatives, one of whom will be from Zone 2, and the WBF High Level Players Committee selects 2 EC representatives, one of whom is currently from Zone 2. The WBF Management Committee is selected from EC members and manages the WBF on a day to day basis.

Membership on the WBF EC is limited to people who are under 75 when first appointed to the EC and those who are reappointed must be under (I think) 78. It is difficult for EC members to compete in World Championship events because of time conflicts. I hope that Al Levy, who is a current WBF EC member and who posts on Bridge Winners, will be able to provide more information.
Feb. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Hendrik, Of course it's a preempt, but if the only meaning that is not above average strength has a known suit, I think it is allowed under the Open+ Chart in segments of less than 6 boards, and doesn't require a written defense.At least in the past for the ACBL and clearly now for the WBF, regulations of weak bids ignore strong meanings of the bids. Is there any reason that the new charts would have changed that approach?
Feb. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But the rule is that if it is a weak hand, there is a known suit, at least that is how I have always seen that sort of rule interpreted. What the Open+ Chart says is “an Artificial opening Preempt below 3NT that does not show at least one known suit.” Obviously, a strong 2 is not a preempt, so I think that if 2 is either strong or a weak 2 bid the preempt shows a known suit.
Feb. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Perhaps one way to express support for #saynotocheats is to attend tournaments that are doing something like this. Pula is pretty far from home for me, but …
Feb. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We do about the same, except that all 3-level jumps are preemptive (they will have the strong option sometimes and we might want to get in their way when they do).
Feb. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Although there is a defense to this opening in the ACBL database, it is unclear whether the new convention rules require one, because there is only one possible suit if the hand is weak.
The new Convention Charts <http://web2.acbl.org/documentLibrary/about/181AttachmentD.pdf> provide that a pre-alert and written defense are required for bids allowed only in Open+ events with 6+ board segments. An opening preempt below 3NT that has at least one known suit is allowed in Open+ events all the time (not limited to 6+ board segments), so I think does not require a pre-alert and written defense.
I don't know why pre-alerts and written defenses are connected - if I played that method, I would certainly pre-alert, whether or not a written defense was required, just as I do for transfer response to a natural or balanced 1 opening bid. It's not hard to agree on a defense, but you shouldn't be required to guess what your partner thinks is the right defense when the bid comes up.
Feb. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have revised the Draft based on McKenzie's comments and posted a new one. In a day or two I will post on the ITTC Forum for a more general review.
Feb. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Pg 2 - there are some issues about how to determine whether a player has met the play requirement when a team either withdraws or is disqualified after having played part of the Round Robin. If we re-do the play requirement when a team is disqualified, based on the remaining number of teams, and don't count the boards played against the disqualified team, we might unfairly make a player play an additional match that wasn't planned. But if we don't do something, it could also cause a problem, for example suppose the team either withdraws or is disqualified after the penultimate match. If one of the players who was supposed to play the final match against the team that is no longer playing needs that match to meet his or her play requirement, it would be unfair to say the match doesn't count for play requirement.
But if you say that the team that is no longer playing still matters for play requirement then you have to figure out how to assign the matches not played against them. My first thought was to do what we do when a team forfeits in a KO match and let the opposing team(s) designate who “played” the match. But that is unfair to the teams that have already played the withdrawn or disqualified team, who had to randomly choose who played the match, without knowing that it wouldn't count normally, and also had to play the match. The teams who haven't yet played the team get the advantage of rest, but it doesn't seem right also to give them the advantage of choosing which of their players is deemed to play the match.
My conclusion, after a lot of thought & discussion with Chip, was that if a team is no longer playing in the Round Robin, either because they have withdrawn or because they have been disqualified, we do not tell the other teams when they are scheduled to play that team. Other teams continue to make blind lineup submissions and if they were due to play the team that is no longer there, the players they submitted are given play credit for the match.
This got much more complicated than I had thought when McKenzie originally raised it.
Feb. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think we ended up deciding there was no good tie break if the teams hadn't met in the Round Robin. And you are correct that only the Seniors has matches starting mid-day and only the Open has teams that don't play in the Round Robin.
Feb. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Multi players need to bring the ACBL defenses to the table for their opponents. Maybe silly, but it saves making everyone carry the multi defense in case their opponents are playing multi (at least for those who use the ACBL defense).
Feb. 2
.

Bottom Home Top