Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Jan Martel
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wasn't thinking of limiting VSR points to senior teams. Just taking the VSR points of the players on teams entered in the Senior USBC and using them to seed the event.
Edit to add - I don't see why only performance when a player was a senior is relevant at all to where the player should be seeded in the Senior USBC. In fact, some “recent” seniors & seniors who play in open events have complained that they don't get seeded properly when we give seeding points for performance in Senior events, so using VSR points instead might actually do a better job of seeding than what we've been doing.
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The Board meets next week and unless more people weigh in here, I'm going to ask them to decide this question, so if you have an opinion and haven't yet expressed it, please do so promptly.
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1. We do have a separate section about “cheating” in the General Conditions of Contest. However, that doesn't cover “cheating” convictions by other than USBF or WBF. However, I have a sense that people who are convicted of collusive cheating are expelled, so we could consider saying that anyone who has been expelled from the ACBL, even if they've been readmitted, isn't eligible.

2. Part of the problem is that the ACBL rules don't clearly separate out real cheating from other ethical determinations. It might be difficult for us to define whom we'd exclude based on a prior ACBL conviction for ethical violations (some of them are a little vague).

Why do you include E2 (give information about a board in play to a player who has not yet played the board) in things that are okay? Is it because you think this probably means accidentally?
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The question is whether a really long probation should make a person ineligible, or a probation following a suspension?
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One thing at a time :-). This is about the Conditions of Contest. The Bylaws are being revised, but that's a different issue.
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree. That's probably the thing we want to focus on, although I guess we should affirm that ACBL suspension makes someone ineligible. The question about probation is should it ever make a player ineligible, and if so, how long should the probation be (I think original term is what we should be talking about) to make a player ineligible.

Probation doesn't prevent a person from playing in ACBL events, unless it is a probation that causes the player to become not in good standing (original term of 24 months or more, or probation following suspension where the original term is 90 days or more).
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Where do you find that provision? I looked at General Conditions of Contest going back to 2004 (the first one I have) and there was nothing about 90 days probation until 2016.

Your language sounds like ACBL language, not that our Conditions of Contest, because it refers to “ACBL NCBO” - are you sure it isn't the forerunner of the ACBL section on eligibility that has now been deleted?
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry my shorthand was confusing to you. The only restriction is on NAP & GNT games other than at clubs. No restrictions on other tournament play.
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think it's because there is also a provision that a player who is not in good standing cannot receive a “subsidy” from the ACBL, and players in the NAP and GNT at the NABC stage receive such a subsidy. I guess they thought if the player wouldn't be eligible for the subsidy they shouldn't be eligible to compete in the event.
Jan. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks, Rena. I thought all three NBOs were created when the Olympic thing happened, but I'm sure you're right and it was just USBF. Sorry for providing misinformation.

And you are 100% correct that the USBF doesn't want to take on any new functions - we're a very small organization - running the USBCs (selection events for the Open, Women's, Senior, Junior & Mixed World Championships) is most of what we do and will continue to do.

The WBF says that many countries in the rest of the world receive financial support from their National Sports organizations because of the association of bridge with the Olympics. Sadly, we don't get any precise numbers and it's far from clear that the money some bridge organizations receive is worth the cost to all of us from compliance with Olympic rules.
Dec. 29, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The USBF is not the ZA. The new NABF is the ZA. The USBF, CBF & MBF are the NBOs for WBF Zone 2. The ACBL continues to do what NBOs in most other zones do - sanction and run bridge games in North America.
Dec. 29, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No, each NBO has always chosen the teams to represent it in the World Championships. When the ACBL formed the NBOs it no longer participated in choosing World Championship teams. It continued to choose the Zone 2 representatives to the WBF Executive Council; that will now be done by the NABF.
Dec. 26, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Randy: In Toronto, the ACBL committed to paying part of the WBF dues - $94,200 in 2019; $72,150 in 2020; and $50,100 in 2021 and future years. The remaining dues are the responsibility of USBF, CBF & MBF in proportion to their share of ACBL members (about 86% USBF, 14% CBF, and a little bit MBF). In Toronto, the ACBL Board agreed to have management help the NBOs raise that money. That was the reason for this year's REACH. I do not know what will happen going forward.

@Jim - yes, but really the NBOs have never “reported” to the ACBL except with regard to how they spent the International Fund and Junior Fund money ACBL gives them. That reporting will continue. The main change here is the appointment of WBF EC reps.
Dec. 26, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When the WBF was founded in 1958, the ACBL already existed (and was one of the founding entities of WBF). From that time on, the ACBL was the Zonal Authority for Zone 2 (North America - now Canada, Mexico & the US, formerly also Bermuda). The ACBL was different from other Zonal Authorities because it also filled the role that in most of the rest of the world was filled by National Bridge Organizations - running or sanctioning club games and tournaments, and awarding masterpoints. In 1995, when the WBF first embraced the Olympic <insert whatever word you want here, I'd probably be censored for mine>, the WBF told the ACBL that it needed to have separate NBOs for each North American country and the ACBL formed the CBF, MBF & USBF (it took a few years, the USBF was formed in 2000). In some ways, the organization in Zone 2 now looked like a sandwich, with the ACBL at the bottom and top and the NBOs in the middle - the ACBL continued to sanction and run club games and tournaments and issue masterpoints. The NBOs were responsible for selecting and supporting international teams. The ACBL at the top was the Zonal Authority, a bridge between itself as the organizer of “local” bridge and the NBOs as selectors of international teams, and the WBF.

In its role as ZA, the ACBL was charged with electing representatives to the WBF Executive Council, which is the WBF's governing body. The ACBL elected representatives for 3 year staggered terms, so in one year they elected one representative and in the next 2 years they elected 2 representatives a year. Until 2014, the WBF representatives were always ACBL Board members. In 2013, the ACBL Board decided to allow people who were not ACBL Board members to self-nominate for positions as WBF representatives. Several people did so, and Howard Weinstein was elected in 2014, along with ACBL Board member Georgia Heth. So the answer to “how did the Hartman nomination come about?” is that Mr. Hartman responded to this year's ACBL Board request for people not on the Board to self-nominate.

For several years, the WBF has been encouraging the Zone 2 NBOs to form a new Zonal Authority, because the ACBL doesn't meet some of the WBF requirements of a ZA (principally supporting the Olympic movement and as a result of that the principle of full reciprocity in discipline cases, but perhaps other things as well - after all, the ACBL has never looked like the other ZAs).

This year, the USBF, CBF & MBF formed the North American Bridge Federation, which will become the ZA for Zone 2 in 2019. The NABF will be governed by a Board of Directors appointed by the ACBL, CBF, MBF & USBF: 1 Director appointed by MBF, 2 Directors each appointed by ACBL & CBF, and 4 Directors appointed by USBF.

In accordance with current WBF procedure, the NABF will elect all 5 Zone 2 representatives to the WBF Executive Council for 4 year terms commencing in 2019. Those representatives will be selected from people nominated by the ACBL, the CBF, the MBF and the USBF, with 1 representative selected from each of the ACBL, CBF & MBF nominees and 2 representatives selected from USBF nominees.
Dec. 26, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Our Bridge World collection goes back just far enough to have those articles - they're a lengthy look at takeout, negative, responsive and similar doubles. I didn't see the word “Italian” in a quick scan of the two articles. The second one says “to be continued” but there is no later similar article that year.
Dec. 26, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The problem with that is the nasty opponents may bid 3 before you get to bid 3. So we play that X is assumed to be minors and if followed by 3 it's competitive; 3 immediately is invitational so we don't get shut out with that hand.
Dec. 23, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Ray - that's sort of true, but when I went to look at the list of District Directors, it was obvious that it hadn't been updated recently, since many of them are listed as having terms that expire(d) in 2017. I assume all of those were re-elected, but …
Dec. 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why? Surely 4 of the players on a 5 person team could have played a total of 60% of the boards played by the team (in fact even if the resigning player played all of the boards s/he could play, the 4 remaining players would have played 60% of the total boards played. Similarly, each player on a 5 person team could have played 60% of the boards available for him or her to play.

And a player on a 5 person team could play 80% of the boards.
Dec. 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think “Probation” is really a red herring. The only meaningful effect of long-term probation is that a person who is on probation for 90 days or more can't compete for an ACBL country internationally. Lanzarotti isn't a citizen or resident of an ACBL country, so that won't affect him.
As you say, if probation means people will be watching more carefully, Lanzarotti will be on probation.
Dec. 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The reason I don’t like having the second team take priority is that that means how we schedule the USBCs is determinative. There are lots of things that go into the choice of scheduling, but I really don’t think my decision about when to schedule an event should force someone to prioritize that event overr another one.

Before I count votes, I thought I would email the people who voted for option two and give them the chance to change their votes to either option one or option three, if option two remains so far behind. I will also email again the people who haven’t voted as well as the people who abstained.

edited to correct iPhone's dictation errors.
Dec. 21, 2018
Jan Martel edited this comment Dec. 21, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top