Join Bridge Winners
All comments by McKenzie Myers
1 2 3 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For an appeal to go through, it must have the approval of both members of the pair that was at the table and their team captain. Whether a player on the team who isn't one of those people approves of the appeal or not is (legally) immaterial. I would suggest that only those two or three players be liable (though, of course, a committee-imposed IMP penalty would necessarily go to the entire team!).
June 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
LAW 92
RIGHT TO APPEAL
A. Contestant’s Right
A contestant or his captain may appeal for a review of any ruling made at his table by the Director. Any such request, if deemed to lack merit, may be the subject of a sanction imposed by regulation.

I parse this as

"A contestant or his captain may appeal for a review of any (ruling made at his table by the Director).

rather than

A contestant or his captain may appeal for a
review of any (ruling made at his table) by the
Director.

That is, it's a legal right for a contestant to request a person/body other than the Director who made the final decision to do the review of the ruling.

If any Laws Commission folks out there want to tell me I'm wrong I'm happy to change my opinion :)

Edit: square brackets don't play well on BW, changed to ().
June 13
McKenzie Myers edited this comment June 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was kibitzing at the table when this happened. Kit doubled 100% in tempo - enough so that my guess was he thought he was 0-2 in the reds rather than 2-0! Impressive.

Also fun: when Kit bid 7 at his first turn, Zia (his screenmate) gave him an admiring look and shook his hand before passing the tray to the other side.
June 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm pretty sure this is the only choose your opponent option in any of the USBCs. And yes, this committee now covers all the USBCs.
May 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've let Jan know about some changes to Law numbers in the 2017 Laws to go in Section XIV. I have a few other suggestions:

Pg 2: ineligibility for cheating. Should we put in here (or in Section XII) that if a team is DQd for cheating during the RR and their earlier RR results are vacated, the play requirements don't need to change for their table opponents? As in, for both pairs that actually played that match, it would still count toward their minimum number of matches even though results were thrown out. This seems commonsensical to me, but it may be right to codify it.

Pg 5: withdrawal during the event. Here it says that during the KO the DiC may grant a withdrawal if the team is “substantially behind”. Would it be worth defining this term as something like 3 imps per remaining board?

Pg 20: tardiness. When boards are removed for tardiness, the opponents are awarded 3 imps per removed board. I suggest it should be the greater of 3 imps or the average imp result from the remainder of that segment or round robin match. If they're playing an 8 board match and one board gets pulled, but the offenders go -28 on the other seven boards, it feels like the pulled board should also be worth -4 imps. We're just talking fractions of a VP here, but it feels right to me. (This change would make this penalty essentially equivalent to Average Minus as defined by Laws 12C2(b) and ©.)

On page 24, it says “The defending side should refrain from touching the opening lead until it becomes a quitted trick. (It may be touched by the declaring side.)” The parenthetical goes against Law 7B(3), which says in part “No player shall touch any cards other than his own”. I'd suggest removing this parenthetical.

Pg 25, explanation of calls. I'd love to see something here about written questions and explanations being hidden from possible view from the other side of the screen before the aperture is raised. Too often, in my mind, written questions / answers are visible to the other side of the screen, giving someone with good eyesight more information than they deserve. We do want full disclosure across the screen from the declaring side, but information given by the defenders (and specific questions asked by the defenders) shouldn't cross the screen.
Feb. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The Conditions of Contest for each event determine what the maximum carryover can be in each session. When crossing over from Day 1 to Day 2 of a two day event or Day 2 to Day 3 of a three day event, zero carryover for the bottom contestant is used for simplicity's sake. In a three day event, though, in order to make the Day 1 carryover weigh correctly on Day 3, the relative carryover between last and first isn't zeroed out.
Dec. 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Scoreboard for Baze Senior KO:

http://bridgewinners.com/tournament/ko/2018-fall-nabc-baze-senior-ko/grid/

I'm sure the BW code monkeys will put this link on the front page sometime in the morning.
Nov. 24, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Danny - the Mixed (and Open, Women's, and Seniors) will all be in Schaumburg in 2019, and will continue to be through at least 2021. The mention of Denver was totally tangential to this discussion. (I completely agree about that hotel, though!)
Oct. 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Wow, that attendance SUX.
Sept. 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think you missed the part where it was the Swedes in the vugraph room that were celebrating, not those at the table.
Aug. 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you can see your LHO and RHO, would you really not be able to tell when your partner takes an action and RHO's turn begins?
July 17, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One of my local clubs (Corvallis OR) held a “Swiss Decade Challenge” last month, where teams were comprised of players whose ages started with the same number. The first place team (out of 13) started with a 9.
June 25, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The KO matches were 120 boards. Due to their deep bye, this was Nickell's 360th board. Lall played the opening round robin and all four KO matches, so this was their 582nd board of the event. The Lall team's skill and stamina to play such high quality bridge consistently for ten days was very impressive.
May 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We've posted first segment scores, locking all fantasy brackets. Segment-by-segment scores will not be posted here on BW - you can find those at the USBF site:

http://usbf.org/docs/vugraphs/USBC2018/Bracket.php?stage=Roundof16
May 13, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Chip,

I'll always remember my first time meeting you. It was relatively soon after your winning of a big event (2003 GNT, maybe?), but rather than talk about that you were (or at least you acted) more interested in hearing about my experience as a junior and a new player at the NABCs. I was impressed then and am still now.

As the years go on, I find it considerably more difficult to keep my bridge skills up while working a (more than) full time job. Do you have any suggestions on how to stay sharp while still excelling at your day job?
April 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The only time we have three-way matches is if the number of teams is a power of two plus one or two - otherwise the event comes down to a power of two via byes, two-ways, and four-ways. See http://cdn.acbl.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Appendix-C.pdf
March 12, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Someone” has been saying this as long as I've played bridge.
Jan. 28, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The ACBL bases this on wins only, but the USBF has decided to base qualification on victory points, on the theory that the team that lost two matches by one imp is “better” than the team that won one match by one imp and lost the other by a hundred.
Jan. 19, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This match visibly aged me. Congrats to Arjun and co and deepest condolences to a very strong Wei team. We'll be seeing a lot more of them on Vugraph.
Jan. 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
FYI: We (the TDs, mostly Sol) have been keeping pretty meticulous track of all these late/slow play data for each partnership in both the RR and KO phases. If something like Chris's plan were to be implemented, we have the data to start it immediately.

Not suggesting the USBF goes one way or another on this question, of course - whatever's decided I/we will be happy to apply it as fairly as possible. Just thought this should be known.
Oct. 20, 2017
1 2 3 4
.

Bottom Home Top