Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Jan Martel
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
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@MR: The WBF allows written defenses to Brown Sticker Bids, and also to Multi, which would be BS if it were not expressly exempted. So our teams are going to compete in events where written defenses are allowed, and it seems to me that we should allow them also.

Of course, the WBF has different rules for the Round Robin and the KO stage, which as a practical matter means that we now see almost no BS bids, but out experience when we had different rules was that it was more complicated and didn't seem to gain enough to be worth it. If we find that using the Open+ Chart instead of the Open Chart in the Round Robin causes problems, of course we'll reconsider.
Feb. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You haven't played in a USBC for some time, Tom, so I guess you aren't familiar with the system disclosure used.

The ASF is a very detailed description of really unusual bids. It includes things like what are normal responses to the opening bid, and what happens in competition. It also requires a recommended defense. It has to be filed at least 4 weeks before the event to allow other players a chance to study it adequately. Very few are filed.

All pairs are required to complete a System Summary Form, which includes a section for “bids that require Advance Preparation.” Things like 1NT with a small singleton, weak bids with known suit(s), Multi & other bids that have ACBL Approved Defenses, are disclosed and described on the SSF - there is unlimited space and we expect people to provide a complete description, although probably not quite as complete as that on the ASF. The SSF also asks for “style” disclosure.

IN addition, all pairs have to file and ACBL convention card to describe things that are more easily described there. The SSF and ACBL convention card have to be filed 2 weeks in advance, to allow other players to study them and prepare for anything off the beaten track.

I guess that what I'm trying to say is that things that don't need a recommended defense, also don't need the very detailed description provided on the ASF - they do have to be disclosed and adequately describe on the SSF.
Feb. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Of course that's up to the Credentials Committee, but I don't think so. That would almost certainly be something a person knew before or during the USBC, wouldn't it?
Jan. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think you are misreading the Open+ chart. Numbers 8 & 9, which you quote, would bar the use of the 2 bid, which can have length only in diamonds (#8) and shows length in an unknown suit with 3 possibilities (#9). Note that those two restrictions are not limited to segments of fewer than 6 boards.
Jan. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, the only real difference is Multi and the Round Robin matches are 6+ boards.
Jan. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Unless I am misreading the Open+ Chart (which is entirely possible), an opening Preempt that can have length in one unknown suit is limited to 2 possibilities. So 2 Multi is okay, but if 2 showed a one-suited hand with a Major or clubs, it would not be allowed. Similarly, 2 showing a one-suited minor is allowed, but 2 showing a 1-suited hand with hearts or a minor is not. There's also a rule providing that the unknown suit can't be the suit opened, which is why I didn't include the opening bid suit. In order to show 1 of 4 suits, I think the bid would have to be 3NT or higher.

Also, the restrictions are on bids below 3NT, so 3NT showing anything is allowed. Of course, we could choose to impose a requirement for an ASF and allowance of written defenses on things that are allowed on the Open Chart, but ACBL isn't doing so.
Jan. 24
Jan Martel edited this comment Jan. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What do the rest of you think? Or shall I do a poll?

Okay, seeing no comments, I've done a poll.
Jan. 23
Jan Martel edited this comment Jan. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is it your suggesting that we should require Advance Submission Forms only for the artificial preempts that do not have at least one known suit?
Jan. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With regard to things for which written defenses are allowed, I guess that your suggestion is that we should change “Any artificial opening bid that does not promise above average values” to “Any artificial opening bid that does not promise above average values and does not promise 4 or more cards in a known suit”? So written defenses would still be allowed for Multi and for 2 showing a preempt in an unknown minor, but not for bids like 2 showing a weak hand with 4+ cards in each Major.
Jan. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks, Tom. So the concept of things that are allowed on the Open+ chart but not on the Open chart is something that is relevant in ACBL events? Is that only the things listed in Paragraphs 3 & 7 of the Open+ chart? If so, perhaps we should reference those sections in the General Conditions of Contest so people don't have to figure it out for themselves?
Jan. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks, Peter. I'm not sure how to define what should have written defenses and advance disclosure. Of course, we could just go with what the ACBL does (and figure that out). Or we could try to do something else.

I spent most of my time on this revision trying to articulate the new eligibility rules and didn't change much of the existing system stuff except to reference the Open and Open+ charts instead of the Mid Chart and Super Chart.
Jan. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Our current rule for the Senior USBC is 2/3 seeding points and 1/3 Round Robin finish. That balance was decided by the Senior ITTC some time ago. It would indeed be easier to do equal weight.
Jan. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Seeding points based on long-term performance are almost certainly a better predictor of success than performance in a Swiss or Round Robin with relatively short matches. For example, in the Orlando Rosenblum, the teams were originally seeded based on WBF masterpoints (a pretty bad method, because some people have more opportunities to earn them than others). After the Swiss, the top 16 teams in the Swiss were seeded 1-16 and got to choose their Round of 64 opponents from the bottom 32 Swiss teams. The remainder of the field was seeded based on original seed. The top 16 seeds out-performed the top 16 Swiss teams in every round of the KO, even the Round of 64 where the top 16 Swiss teams had the advantage of choosing their opponents.

A few years ago, the Senior ITTC, which was more active then, discussed whether to do away with seeding and base KO bracket position completely on Round Robin finish. They voted (based on my recollection quite strongly) to retain seeding and to have it count for twice as much as Round Robin finish.

The randomness of the Round Robin isn't an issue of whether you rest people in the Round Robin, it's an issue of which lineup your team happens to play against - we prevent teams from choosing their lineups based on which team they're going to play, so it is random, but if you have a 5 or 6 person team, you're not going to play all of them in each Round Robin match.
Jan. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We don't adjust ACBL seeding points because they were earned with ineligible teammates; we only do that for Positioning Points. Trying to do it for seeding points would be mind-bogglingly difficult.
Jan. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think that we do want to see it. The alternative would be using the round Robin results completely, and that tends to have some randomness, because of the fact that teams field different lineups in different matches.I do agree with you, but just using open seeding points is probably more accurate and definitely easier than trying to tweak them.
Jan. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Congratulations!
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually, perhaps I should be more clear. The one thing I am not willing to do here is maintain a separate database of USBF Senior seeding points with entries from different events - maintaining the PP schedule is a lot of work and that's by team. To do it for individual players is far more work than I am willing to put in or to ask anyone else to put in. We need to seed based on data that is available: Masterpoints, VSR seeding points, or something else someone can think of, or some combination.
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Usually committees impose probation in days. The old ACBL rule was stated in days.
Obviously there is a big difference between suspension and probation. And in my experience, a big difference between probation for less than a year and probation for a year or more.
I had hoped that people would have opinions on what should disqualify a player from the USBCs, but it seems that this isn't a topic of much interest, so I will leave it up to the Board.
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm sure that ACBL isn't going to continue doing this, and as the person who would have to do it if USBF did it, I don't see the benefit. The major contribution will be from performance in the Open events, so why shouldn't we just use what we have available instead of maintaining a marginally different set of numbers?
Jan. 20
.

Bottom Home Top