Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Michael Kamil
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Taught in schools sounds great - corporate sponsorship is not happening from what I can see.

Steve, I was simply referring to your statement that top level bridge CANNOT survive without spectators. It has so far. I don't see why it “cannot” in the future. Do you mean there will be no more national or world championships? I mean, we're not getting revenues from spectators or corporate sponsors.

Perhaps it sounds like I wouldn't want corporate sponsorship or more spectator interest. Of course I would…I was just disputing with your statement.
Sept. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve, Why can top level bridge not survive without spectators? I don't see how it's ever been dependent on spectators.
Sept. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Joshua, To me this would create a FAR different set of rules changes. All sorts or rules and penalties are gone from the original. To be simple minded, the card game will no longer be played with cards. On another note, I don't lose much table feel with screens. Granted…might be different for others. Now I find I'm repeating myself too. There should be some code words on blogs for, ok…let's table this one amicably. :)
Sept. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peg, I think they would all be “misclicks” - you'd have to have a new set of rules for this. To me, you're discussing a new game…some derivative of bridge. I'll give up quietly here. :)

Michael, Weird stuff does happen I….didn't the U.S. win a World Championship recently because Lorenzo Lauria pulled his own wrong card from the dummy? Not happening with electronics. Now, I believe having new rules is a poor idea…you may not. That's what makes horse races.
Sept. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Joel, I said this above, but I just thought of something else. When you hit the late rounds you are changing the actual rules of the game. You now have replaced revokes, leads out of turn, etc. with misclicks. So just to be clear, we're actually playing two different games within one event. Seems off to me.
Sept. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peg - I would have to say their are MANY of us who rely heavily on table feel and instinct. Perhaps Bob and Michael don't or would prefer not to. Incidentally you can call it “bridge” if you like…I would call it “electronic bridge” since the rules have changed.
Sept. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, for you it would be, but apparently it wouldn't be bridge for many at the top level. Interestingly, it seems to me (based on this thread) that most world class players prefer it to remain a card game. Since they're apparently the relevant sector of bridge players involved in this discussion, why are we looking to change the rules of the game? Of course I could be wrong about just what percentage of world class players would want to play electronic bridge, but as I say I'm basing my guess on this thread (perhaps this and others?…one gets lost around here). :)
Sept. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
MR - I don't get this part anyway. Weren't these these penalties created at the same time as bridge? To me they're part of the game, just as the original rules are always part of Monopoly and the like. What you're really suggesting is a new game…“Electronic Bridge”. It's certainly an idea, but I think it's clear that it's a new game.
Sept. 18, 2015
Michael Kamil edited this comment Sept. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good point…I'm sure history is repeating itself. We got screens and they found a way to cheat. Now we'll have electronics and they'll find a way to cheat. Wonder what we'll try next.
Sept. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Now instead of revokes and leads out of turn we can have misclicks…interesting change.
Sept. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Robert, apparently the cheaters found a way despite the advancements. Didn't Fisher-Schwartz win the Cavendish? They actually employed the screen structure (trays and boards) for just this purpose.
Sept. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Neil, I think Cornelia was suggesting staying in one's home country and playing from there. Perhaps I misunderstood.
Sept. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How in the world would you monitor this for cheating if everyone was sitting in different countries?
Sept. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard, I think this hand must be in my top 10 torture problems of all time. :)
Sept. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Larry - Regarding your analogy, see Gabby's link just above about the Eudaemonic Pie
Sept. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Eugene, Get the axe ready…she's posting again!
Sept. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What do you mean “all stand together” David? I think we're all supposed to stand in separate rooms. :)
Sept. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Serious question…Have they ever in the history of bridge?
Sept. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Wow - that was fascinating to read Jeannie. :)
Sept. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael K - I would agree with you if you had a 6-4 vote…the truth is that I believe you'd NEVER have a 6-4 vote and that the committee would NEVER get it wrong. One man's opinion. In other words, I think these cheating issues are blatantly obvious one way or the other, especially when discussed by 10 top players. I cede you the last word too. :)
Sept. 17, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top