Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ping Hu
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 21 22 23 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tom, is your NLM game a separate event? What is its size? TCG might exclude certain NLM games if the size is too small (it needs statistics). However these are technical problem that could be solved. You could e-mail me some games and I could check what information is available.

As for ACBLscore, I think you could set up a handicapped game and score it both ways (handicap or not). Players could get the higher of MP awards based on two methods. You could let ACBLscore to setup handicap (which would be based on masterpoint) or set up handicap yourself. If you think all your NLM players are about the same level, you could use TCG data for open players to set up handicap for them only and treat all NLM players the same.
Sept. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you use Commongames, you could try to use its handicap score.
Sept. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
6 pairs will form 3 teams and play a complete round robin. You could divide the match to two halves to make it easy.

The following is the steps ACBL uses to run 3-way matches. Each team starts at their home table. You could place 6 boards at each table (assuming you plan play 24 boards for the session).
1. Each team EW player moves to the higher table/team(1->2, 2->3, 3->1) to start 1st round. Shuffle and play.
2. At the end of 1st round, EW players bring the boards back to their home table, then go to the 3rd team table to play round 2 (do not shuffle the boards).
3. After round 2, EW players go back to their home table to compare scores. This complete the first half of match.
4. Repeat above for 2nd half of match.
Aug. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Randy,
The web link from my OP has fees for all ACBL special games. GNT table fee is less than half of NAP, but with same rating (for MP awards).
Aug. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Randy,

I agree with you GNT is an expansive event to play. I first played it in 2011 when I was still a flight C player. I won district NAP and GNT that year and that was my first time playing in NABC.

GNT was more expensive at that time because we had to pay our entry fees every day we played in NABC final (unlike NAP). After that I raised this issue with ACBL as well as MP pay out for the final was slow. In later review ACBL increased the MP pay out for GNT final and waived entry fees for first 2-3 days.

However my OP was not intended to have more players to play in GNT event. Most players who play in club NAP game do not go to district final either. I just want to point out club could held GNT game like NAP game to give player more masterpoints.

There could be some other factors prohibit players to play team team as I suspect in the next post I just made a minute ago. If we could identify the real problem, we could find a solution.
Aug. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would like to hear from more club owners. I attended district final for both NAP and GNT every year. I don't recall GNT table size is smaller than NAP. The club NAP game has a lot of attendance.

Maybe this is just a general problem of team vs pair?
Aug. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The job description for Executive Director has been published in multiple Atlanta NABC Daily bulletin since Aug. 2.
http://cdn.acbl.org/nabc/2018/02/bulletins/db7.pdf
See page 13.
Aug. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Don - I know. This probably more reflects current bridge activities. Otherwise some managers will be very busy while others are idle.
July 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Karen,

Zoning is a great idea. In fact ACBL has already divided their operation to different zones. It is logical to organize something similar. See the link below.
http://web2.acbl.org/fieldoperations/Map.jpg
July 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Go to Special Events.
July 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would replace human TD with a robot TD. Just load a pair's full disclosure agreement into a program and check if their explanation matching it or not. Let the robot assign a penalty.
June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would like to add that in between mini-bridge and bidding, I play a game of BridgeIt. This is a game I found from Kitty Cooper's teaching manual.

In this game player does not expose his hand like mini-bridge. Instead, each player write down his HCP and shape (4432 etc). Each player could look at everyone else's HCP and shape and take turns to bid a contract. This help students to learn about bidding's procedure (from lower to higher) and look for trump fit as well as how high they should bid (based on some knowledge from mini-bridge). It also make the introduction of my simple strong club open bidding system easier once they know what information to look for. This is in contrast to my class where I taught Standard American. You need to go through opener's rebid and responder's rebid that took a lot of time to learn and master.
June 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I also teach 4th-7th grade student to learn bridge. I started with mini-bridge that start with basic 4-3-2-1 counts. Then I give them a sheet to keep track how many HCP they had vs how many tricks they took. This leads to the concept of 25 HCP for game. In the process, they also learnt concept of balanced and unbalanced hand and looking for 8 card trump fit.

For teaching bidding, initially I started with ACBL's textbook. After two years I found it was not very effective. Last semester I tried a new approach. I used a simple strong club system. Good hand open 1C (17+), responder 1D is 0-7. Any other bids are natural and shows 8+, now they are in game forcing (17+8). After 1C-1D everything is natural and they just try to find best partial if they could not find enough HCP for game.

Now all other openings are limited, so responder has a better chance to judge if there is a chance for game than opening from Standard American.
June 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Kevin, it is in the process of being certified by ACBL. If you are interested, PM me and I could give you a copy.
June 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What about we increase MP awards for team event?
June 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was in Chicago Duplicate Club last Sunday. This club also used duplicated boards for their Swiss team for quite a while. They played 6 boards per round for 4 rounds. Their general set-up is to use set 1-6 and 7-12 during round 1, 13-18 and 19-24 for round 2, 25-30 and 31-36 for round 3. In round 4, they announced pairing and ask the two teams to find a set of boards to find a set of boards both did not play. They also had an extra set in case there is a need to use it. The reason for this arrangement is they don't have a lot of sets of pre-duplicated board.

For last Sunday we also used my software BridgeTD (mentioned by David White early) to run the game with ACBLscore and Bridgemate. This allowed players to enter their names into Bridgemate and upload to ACBLscore directly. Game results were also calculated by program and upload into ACBLscore directly just like pair games. The only thing that had to be manually done is to input the board number for each table in the program that got to send to Bridgemate. This is special because of the way this club wanted to run it. If you run Swiss with same boards per round like Bud did, the program will take care of everything.

Last Sunday's game there were 13 teams. So there were 3 way tables that used the extra set of board (different from other pre-duplicated boards). Two sets of pre-duplicated boards were used for other 5 head to head matches. For round 1, 3 matches used board 1-6, 2 used 7-12. Round 2 and 3 were similar. All boards were collected after each rounds and put on a table. At round 4 director announced pairing and asked the two teams to go and find a set of board both did not play. Then we went around to find what boards were played on each table and put them into the program.

Everything went smoothly last Sunday except at the end of round 2 one team found they entered a wrong score. We simply corrected it in BridgeTD and updated ACBLscore before doing next round pairing.

The score is almost instantly available in ACBLscore once the last table entered into Bridgemate. Even we had a slow table the game still finished on time.
June 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Bud, my program will allow you to run Swiss team using ACBLscore and Bridgemate. It is in the process being certified by ACBL. It should be available soon.
June 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Bud, the best thing to do is to run it with Bridgemate or BridgePad. Player just have to enter the scores. They don't need to say anything.
June 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Rich, I don't know there are different skill other than bridge. The difference in team game and pair game is that in team game both of them play the same boards. If the match has a large amount of boards the strong team eventually will win.

For pair game one session is usually only 24-30 boards. You play against a random number players, and your results are compared against random number of players who played the same boards. You don't have control for all factor that needs to win. Even we could make the best prediction based on player's ability, the real score is going to vary a lot. There is a large uncertainty (sigma). Based on my study from the Commongame with 1.5M data point (one data point is a pair's score from one game), this sigma is 5-6%. So my conclusion is pair game has a large factor of luck.
June 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is quite true. In fact if ACBL wants to revive KO event, all it needs to do is to change MP formula to give it more master point.

Your second argument is also to the point. Is MP awards matching the merit of event? Does pair event deserve more MP awards than team event? I happen to believe team events test skills more than pair event. In general you need more luck to win a pair event. So I could not agree ACBL's rule change a few years ago that gives pair event more MP awards.
June 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 21 22 23 24
.

Bottom Home Top