Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ping Hu
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you don't have a website, you might want to use the ACBL website. Just upload the game file. It could show game results as well as allow you to make an announcement to players.

There will be a major upgrade of ACBL website for club very soon so it would be more like ACBL live for tournament.
Oct. 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes. FDCC “as is” is not good enough. I propose to have a new standard that could define CC information for multiple apps. Players could use it for their own system notes. It could be uploaded to online play like BBO, Funbridge and other online site. If tournament wants to adapt it (like those trial in World Bridge Series in Orlando now), players could use their flash drive to plug in a tablet. So there will not be a need to ask any questions during bidding.
Sept. 28, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
These are technical problems that could be solved with technology. If I design it I would make these details optional.
Sept. 28, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Online play's alert should follow rules for screen. All delayed alert become immediate alert-able since it won't be a UI to partner.

@Barry, if FDCC is a failure for BBO, it is only for technical reason. I think conceptually it is a great idea. Technical problem could have a technical solution. We could develop a standard to solve this problem using new technology. ACBL is in the process to adopt USEBIO as its game file format for the future. We could develop a standard for Convention Card as well. Players could use editors (an equivalent of current ACBL CC editor) to define their own system. The difference from current ACBL CC is current one only allows you to define a limited number of bids. The new standard would allow you to define every bids. This could be used as you system note. It would be uploaded for online game. The idea is that during the game player could see opponents' system and there should be no need to ask ANY questions. This minimized the chance of UI for both sides. So OP's problem will never happen.
Sept. 28, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Art, this depends on where you live and play, as well as how bridge is taught. 4 cd major was common for quite a long time. Even current ACBL cc only requires player to indicate they open 4 card major or 5 card major. It does not require 1NT to be alerted as may have 4 card major, as opposite to 1N-2C-2D-2N where 2N needs to be alerted “may not have 4 cd major” for those playing 4 way transfer.

The most common problem in BBO is a bid that is common to expert level player may not be so obvious to a less experienced player. It is in these cases saying “no agreement” would leave opponents at disadvantage because they have less chance to get it right than the experienced partner.

However I think the real solution should be technical as I said in my comment early. BBO should continue to support the full disclosure CC. With that CC, opponent does not need to ask questions. In fact, asking question could be a potential UI to his partner.
Sept. 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Art: The question is what is “general bridge knowledge”, especially in online environment where players could be in a wide range of skill/knowledge level.

Even for experienced players if opponents use a different system/treatment there could be some surprise. A few days ago there was a post about opponent using 4 card major system opened 1D and his partner bid 1N with 4 card heart. This is “general bridge knowledge” for anyone who play 4 card major that 1NT bidder could have 4M. But that author of that post did not expect or certainly not familiar with it and led H from a 3 card suit.
Sept. 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm not sure “no agreement” is adequate when opponents ask to explain the call. In F2F tournament, when opponent asked for explanation, player suppose to explain all the calls' meaning even they are natural.

I think opponent is entitled to know a call in your system is forcing, signoff or invitational even it is natural. In BBO speedball not everyone has time to look over opponent CC to see their entire system. Even two CC are identical different partnership might have different treatment for certain calls. They may not have any specific agreement on a specific call, but there could be some meta agreements.
Sept. 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There are two issues here. First one is alert. Alert should be made when you made a conventional bid per ACBL policy. I don't think there is disagreement with it.

The second issue is what player should answer when opponent asks for a bid. This is what OP tried to discuss. Should you said what your bid means by you, or what you partner think it should means. I think either of them could have a problem. We might need a technical solution here. BBO used to have a Full-disclosure CC that you could define the meaning of every bids. My ideal solution is every pair should have such a CC with all there agreement defined. If a call is not defined, it is presumed natural. When such a CC is used, opponents could see their entire system. There is no need to ask questions.
Sept. 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think ACBL should come up a revised rules for its online games. It should be more like the rules with screens since partner could not see what you tell opponents. It is clearly you need to disclose any partnership agreement. For those calls there is no agreement, it is debatable you should tell what your bid means or what your partner think it means.

If you tell what your partner think it means, it is like in F2F game you try to explain a partner bid that you have no agreement. You could potentially give misinformation.

I have involved in drafting some rules for online matches on BBO. We decided on require player to disclose what their bid means but adding “not discussed with partner”. Even so there is still a problem what if a call is psychic. Am I suppose to say it is a psychic when asked? There is no perfect solution.
Sept. 26, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We are talking about BBO speedball game, not ACBL F2F tournament. How could you not to know what your own bid means? If you have no agreement with your partner, you could add comment that this call is not discussed with partner. You still should know the meaning of your own bid.
Sept. 26, 2018
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, 2018
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, 2018
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, 2018
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, 2018
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, 2018
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, 2018
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, 2018
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, 2018
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, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Go to Special Events.
July 6, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top