Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ping Hu
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It looks like the problems is only with Bracket 1. Other brackets are fine. However with multiple brackets exist the top bracket definitely could not be only 4 teams.
June 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Use this link to see how many teams per bracket.
http://web2.acbl.org/tournaments/results/2019/06/1906014.htm
June 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Could we get an agreement on definition of win, loss and tie?

If you scored 110 on a board and the other table is 100, it is a win at matchpoint but a tie at IMP. For IMP and VP scale, it is similar, a win/loss at IMP does not mean a win/loss at VP for different VP scale.

I agree win/loss should be used at GNT but it does not exclude VP as a variable scoring method.
June 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Great sportmanship!
June 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peg, I agree and noticed the late modification date in my comment at the other thread.
June 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Chip, D22 COC would be found from this link
http://acbldistrict22.com/D22/DIR/GNT/gnt.php
If you look at Appendix 3, it has the same scale.
June 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You could find ACBL 20 VP scale for different number of boards here.
http://web2.acbl.org/codification/AppendixK.pdf
June 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was surprised to see their withdrawal from USBC score board, and thought it must be a mistake, maybe it meant for the other match where the difference is over 80 IMPs.
June 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Debbie, forgive me for coming to this party late. I found Michael Bodell's post about PDF version of COC vs Word version of COC. I also noticed the version of COC I downloaded was dated 5/29. It is clear to me that the COC should be given to players much earlier for a well run event.

As Michael noticed in his analysis it looked the difference in the two version is more about clarify things than any material change. So I have to give the author the benefit of doubt that the modification is not intended to cover some kind of wrong doing. Even the initial COC is not well written (and we all disagree with its format - we think KO for last day is better), it looked the organizer and TDs tried to run the event based on that COC.

One issue no one has discussed here is who is responsible for what. It is clear that organizer and TDs has responsibility to make COC clear to players. However I have to say the team captain also has a responsibility. When I register a team for GNT, I always check the COC for that year and see if there are any difference from previous year. And I let all my players know it.

I believe someone had commented that players should be more proactive in each district when they decide their COC. This is the only way to avoid this kind of surprise.
June 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I went to D22 website and downloaded the COC. One could argue it should have better written. Although I don't like the format, this COC clearly said in “3 team format” VP will be used to determine the winner, with Win/Loss as first tie-breaker if VP is tied.

This is clearly different from the usual KO format but it is this event's COC even I don't like it.
June 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The article said you could upload club game with special code (04 or 22) which would exclude it from NGS and payment.
June 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Based on this article it seems EBU charges a fee for NGS rating.
June 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That's not bad.
June 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How many people from Red Over company are currently ACBL members? Whatever solution they develops, they could try it on themselves and show us if it works.
June 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Steve, I want to follow up with your previous statement that ACBL recruited about 11,000 new players yearly but losing 12,000-13,000. I think we have about 100,000 active members. This means that we are adding about 10% of new members. This is not a bad results. It seems we need to do a better job in retaining existing members.

Is there a study on why players leave ACBL? Mortality is a factor. If you look at US mortality rate it varies from around 2% at age to 70 to 6% at 80. That is only a small part of 12% we are losing.

Instead of new recruitment rate I would like to see retention rate go up? What is our current retention rate by membership length?
June 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, I'm surprised both Russ and Jay Whipple will not be on BOD next year.
June 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Do you think your playing strength increased as measured by the rating number?
June 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think your experience could only prove a bad rating system was not a solution. It should not rule out “all” rating systems.
June 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Rich,

What is your rating changed over time?
June 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve, do we have any study on why players drop off? Even if we double our recruitment, if there are more players quit it is still a losing proposition.
June 3
.

Bottom Home Top