Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Jeff Lehman
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 284 285 286 287
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
South exhibited poor social skills. Perhaps the director, should the director hear of the situation, might empathetically explain to South the “bigger picture” about how the tactical bid might affect the willingness of the EW pair to continue to frequent the duplicate club and learn our great game. Maybe South will understand; maybe he won't. Can't make much more about this situation than that.

The cynic in me is trending toward placing the editor's “profoundly unethical” comment in the same bin as so many efforts to make bridge a less intellectually compelling game … where players' ability to avoid opposing winning players and winning strategies is emphasized more (by master point award system, for one) than players' ability to improve their games and be exposed to the beauty of our complex game.
Sept. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steppingstone to the good 9 in dummy. Very cool.

Thinking of a ruffing game, when suspected heart shortness of opponents is positioned after your heart shortness and suspected diamond shortness is positioned after your club shortness seemed less than intuitive to me.

What happens if Robot West, who is anticipating no entry to his partner for the cashing of any diamond tricks, leads back a trump, rather than Q, after winning the first heart trick? Is result still same?
Sept. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard, certainly seems as though you should have accumulated the frequent flyer miles to travel to Orlando, or any other tournament location, for free!
Sept. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why is the absence of UI at the time of South's overcall of 1NT relevant?

Isn't it possible that South obtained some illicit knowledge from North only later in the auction, from North's reaction to West's penalty double? I have played with partners, and against opponents, where such “tells” are easily diagnosable.

If South obtained UI from North's reaction over the penalty double, the issues could be – as they often are –, is Pass by South a LA (to the class of player to which belongs South) and is 2 by South (under methods – or absence of methods – used by the partnership) demonstrably suggested over Pass by the UI?

That is three questions: was there UI, is Pass a LA, and is chosen bid of 2 demonstrably suggested over Pass by UI. Only the third question seems pretty easy to answer “yes”; the first two, much more difficult.
Sept. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just noticed that a motion passed that eliminates the reimbursement to newly elected BOD members for NABC attendance, when the subject NABC precedes the start date of the term for the new member.

One small step for cost savings …
Sept. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Here is the report of D25 DD Mark Aquino; skip to Page 6 for the materials of broader interest. Both Mark and his predecessor, Rich DeMartino, have always issued helpful and prompt reports after each NABC.

http://nebridge.org/media/userdocs/2018/08/27/Updated_8-24_-18_PDF_Atlanta_2018_DD_Report.pdf
Sept. 13
Jeff Lehman edited this comment Sept. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I believe Mike Lawrence would suggest that double is for takeout only the second auction (where, given that responder skipped over 1 of each major in order to bid 1NT, the opponents likely have a fit in a minor suit). On the other three auctions, second hand's double is a penalty double.
Sept. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My inclination is to win A and return a heart.
Sept. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is this responding to my comment above? If “yes”, then the process I was recommending begins with Create Article. Then, after choosing a title for the article, select the far right icon that looks like a compass. Selecting the compass icon brings to the screen a 52-card layout tableau, which you can then complete. Then add the text and select preview to check to see if what would be published looks the way you want (so that you can proceed to publish) or not (so that you can edit).

The compass icon is available for both polls and articles.

Hope this helps.
Sept. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John, would you please use the Bridge Winners handviewer tool to prepare the 52 card layout with compass positions?
Sept. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Even if ACBL is getting a great deal – lots of incremental current value and very limited incremental current cost – from Jay's software, is that the sole prism through which the use of the software should be viewed? Or … should the prism be what product (by whomever as a vendor) gives the ACBL the most value (where “value” could be measured as anticipated long-term growth in the amount of duplicate played) compared to its cost, a review of which is impossible if, as some allege, other vendors are foreclosed from presenting their products?
Sept. 11
Jeff Lehman edited this comment Sept. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
https://bridgewinners.com/forums/read/youth-bridge-education/best-bridge-books-for-absolute-beginners-youth-bridge-players/

Although the above article was referencing newbie youth bridge players, you might find the comments of value to you.
Sept. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ratings, or any other measurement that can decline as well as increase, will please a few current bridge players and upset a lot more, IMO. I think it will, overall, reduce the amount of long-term bridge being played and is, accordingly, an idea that should never be implemented.

The objectives which have been espoused for ratings – assigning players to the brackets that align more closely with their skills rather than with their accumulated master points – can be accomplished without implementing ratings. Surely, among all the volumes of data retained by the ACBL, there is some (additive only) data that measures special accomplishments (high finishes in open events) and can greatly mitigate the problem of “bad” bracketing … and without upsetting a great many current ACBL members.
Sept. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael, that is only part of my point. In other part my point is that the high awards to limited events (high relative to much tougher unlimited events) induces players to continue playing in limited events for as long as they can, thus causing them to be unprepared for tougher events at such time as tougher events become the only events for which they are eligible. That situation can, I would speculate, cause them to stop playing tournaments all together.
Sept. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The goal of master point awards should be to motivate an increase in the amount of long-term bridge being played.

Two friends of mine have been entering and winning lots of local regional 0-2500 mps pair games. I strongly suspect that their being able to often win against that level of competition, and garner the substantial number of master points that accompany their wins, is driving them to play more often.

Short-term, that is good.

But what happens when they exceed 2500 mps? Do you think they will continue to play often, when the events for which they are eligible have tougher competitors, and they have not altered their games to succeed when the opponents know when and how to punish you when you bid out of line? Or will their volume of tournament play substantially decline?

I fear the latter.

But if their wins were awarded the amount of mps merited by the accomplishment of beating a field that contains no player with more than 2500 mps, they might choose either of two options that will cause them to play longer: they might choose to focus just on winning, and find that the lesser awards in the limited fields enable them to continue longer in the <2500 fields; or they might choose to try to earn the less regular, but occasionally larger, awards available in fields with players with >2500 master points, thus becoming comfortable in that challenge.
Sept. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Who goes to tournaments for the masterpoint awards?”

I think people who have certain goals – such as advancing to the next rank – are motivated to attend tournaments for the masterpoint awards.

Have you never met a bridge player who has said something along the lines of “I want to become a Life Master and thus I am going to some particular event at a tournament to help accomplish my goal”?

A contributor to decreased bridge tournament attendance these days – in my opinion – is that the goals players hold are attained with so little effort that motivation to continue playing tournaments is soon diminished. If, for example, the goal to become LM could be accomplished only by playing in, and achieving some success in, tougher events, I think that is exactly what many players would do. Compared to achieving that goal now, doing so would require the players to play more often and to learn more about the beauty/intellectual challenge of the game, each of which would help increase long-term attendance.

Yet, a high percentage of actions by ACBL BOD is designed to accomplish the exact opposite, to make earning advanced ranks easier and easier.
Sept. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My sense is that tournament advertising is more focused on the “playing your peers” (availability of events for players with <300 mps or <2500 mps) element than the “win lots of mps” element. But I do not have a whole lot of advertising available to witness. At any rate, I suspect different districts take different tacks.

Hopefully “fun” is an element of all the advertising. In my dream world, “puzzle solving” or “intellectual challenge” would be an element of advertising. Not holding my breath.

Btw, do you really believe that most players dismiss master points? I know we read a lot of that talk on this website, but, even if one assumes that those who make that talk are reporting their genuine feelings, do you really think they represent the bulk of players? The people who contribute to this website are not representative of bridge players as a whole, IMHO.
Sept. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I interpret Len's C as suggesting that the new ideas for mps awards are no more appropriate than the current methods. Thus, I think he is dismissing as unimportant suggestions for improvement in mp awards.

Me? I think the current methods cause a long-term diminution of play and are, accordingly, “bad”. I think that other methods – such as those that highly emphasize strength of field and eliminate consideration of simultaneous events (yes, that includes my suggestions) – would not cause a long-term diminution in play and are, accordingly, “good”.

If you, Ray, interpret Len's C differently …
Sept. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well .. I agree with B.
Sept. 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 284 285 286 287
.

Bottom Home Top