Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Sabrina Miles
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 26 27 28 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think so, but I voted for 3NT….because the OP said the team was weak (and likely the defense will be too). Without the added commentary,I would have voted for 3.
May 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Ray, do you see any reason why such info could not/was not posted in the appeal case book?
I did not play in any NABC+ event in Memphis…but I would surely read any NABC casebook
May 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't disagree that the number of appeals has been decreasing consistently over the years (I note, as an aside, so has the attendance– perhaps there is a corollary?) I would point out, however, that the casebooks do NOT provide the appropriate guidance to those who “weren't present and some of whom have no idea what Laws actually say” present company included.

If the casebooks were to be a guidance to those who were not present or who do not know what the Laws actually say, I would suggest that they are woefully inadequate. Firstly, there is no indication how an appeal is taken. For those who have been around, surely this in known, for others, it is not clear. Is there some reason why the appeal book cannot specify how one goes about obtaining an appeal?

Secondly, from a strict reading of the appeals, it is clear what rules were allegedly broken, however, it is not clear if such rules were broken or why such rules were broken. How do I arrive at this conclusion? By reading all the books…looking at the TD ruling, looking at the panel ruling and then looking at the commentators write-up. The TD ruling is one thing, the panel ruling is another and the commentators take a view giving credence to one or the other of the two. There is no consensus among “experts.” How then are mere mortal “who were not there and whom have no idea what Law actually say” to gain insight. More than once I have asked: is there somewhere where I could look to see what a slow pass means? The only response I have received is that there is no standard answer, it always depends on the specific example. How then, is it unexpected, that those who do not know how to differentiate lawful from unlawful question why major events are determined by committee?

How about giving us the tools to decide for ourselves? I suggest that the casebooks are not enough. Especially when the casebooks do not present a unified position from which to learn.
May 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks, fixed.
May 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As E, I am inclined to double again….and (hopefully) force W to bid. I know p will not leave 2X in….even with nothing. When p bids 3, I will gladly carry him to game. When opponents bid 3, I will bid 4 alone.

Even with 4 trumps, I can't fault W for not bidding.
May 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Those were my thoughts: if p had a game forcing hand, I am sure he could have come up with a bid other than 2.
May 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“what is there about regional tournaments that make them worth traveling to?” For me, there were/are 2 major reasons: First, at least last year, I viewed regionals as part of my bridge “immersion” – a chance to learn while actually participating. It is sometimes difficult, for me, to put “book knowledge” to work in practical application. The constant playing forced me to see and learn. (And I had a goal of doing as well as possible, with certain restrictions, in my mini-mckinney grouping)

I wanted to learn as much as possible, as quickly as possible. Attending regionals gave me that opportunity. I find that real life application is sometimes much more difficult than simply “knowing” the correct principles. I am not talking about table feel, though that is a part of it, I am speaking of my reactions to actual play: how (room) lighting effects my play, my nervousness, my ability to think my feet, learning when to go against probabilities as well as when to stick to them. The biggest lesson for me was learning what I really did not know….so I could work on it.

Secondly, I travelled to regionals both because I like traveling and also because I wanted to play in bigger fields that afforded me the chance to play against my peers as well as those from whom I could learn. For me, bridge is more fun and the chance for partnership assistance is much better when the regional is larger.

A by-product of traveling to several regionals last year was learning what I liked and did not like about regionals. I found that with some smaller regionals, the opportunity for “peer play” was sharply curtailed….such smaller venues, generally curtailed my enjoyment of the event. I found that some regionals are merely for professionals and their students/clients. That's okay. Since I fit in neither category, they are just regionals that I will not attend again. I found that some larger regionals had poor administration that sharply lessened my enjoyment of the event. I learned that I would spend my dollars where I had fun.

Bridge is fun. Traveling to Regionals also can be fun. Learning which Regionals to travel to…priceless.
May 11
Sabrina Miles edited this comment May 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's one thing to drive an hour or two to get your head handed to you. It's quite another to fly somewhere (or drive 5+ hours) and incur hotel and miscellaneous other costs when you have no real chance at being competitive. This isn't a pair event; thus you must convince not only your partner to accompany you, you must convince another pair – and hopefully two – who will also take the time and money for, as you say, lessons.

I can see why folks would say no.
May 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Richard, that is EXACTLY what the hourly speedball ACBL tourneys hosted on BBO are all about: “pairs compete against one another using an electronic playing environment and are able to win ACBL masterpoints.”
May 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It seems that the ACBL will give a sanction to anyone (not necessarily a unit/district, if my reading is accurate. (I, too, have been reading and studying consciously to see what might be done and how). I think this is one area that must be looked into. Limiting sanctions, which management has the right to do, would limit the number of tournaments. Granting the exclusive right to hold a tournament in a particular week, in a particular month, is something that ACBL management already has the right to do. Unfortunately, just as they currently do not limit competition in a geographic area for club sanctions, they, likewise, do not limit sanctions for sectionals and/or regionals. That is not to say that we can not demand that they do so. We (collectively) have the right to demand that sanctions for sectionals and regionals be limited….we can demand that certain safeguards (conditions) be placed so that the number of sectionals/regionals be diminished. The overriding problem is: there is no one solution! Bridge players, areas, units, districts do not fit neatly into one box. What works for one, does not work for all.

Thus, I think, we must rely on the goodwill of the decision makers in each district to review, evaluate and decide what is not only best for their district, but also what is best for bridge as a whole, to move forward in reducing the number of competing regionals. Unfortunately the NIMBY crowd lives on.
May 7
Sabrina Miles edited this comment May 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's okay even when you don't know anybody :)
May 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I like the idea of fewer, yet larger regionals. The problem is the ACBL does not run regionals; the districts do. For their part, the ACBL has raised the regional table fees at the NABC to $20 per session (Gatlinburg manages with $12 per session). The hotel rates arranged by ACBL has ranged from a very reasonable $99/night (Kansas City – that sold out so fast that the vast majority of folks could not obtain them) to expensive @$250++/night in Hawaii (that the vast majority of folks did not want to obtain).

With 5-8 larger regionals and 3 NABC events, all running exclusively, one would be speaking of roughly 1 larger tournament a month. I think, for something like this to be sustainable, almost all other tournaments would have to disappear – at least all other regionals would have to. Folks generally are not willing or able to travel monthly to tournaments – unless there is no other alternative. When you take away any alternatives, you are also taking away the opportunity for folks who don't travel to play in tournaments locally. Conversely, if you maintain the current regionals (even reducing the numbers) you will not get “larger” regionals (of the magnitude of a Gatlinburg).

I hope the regionals remain with the Districts – and not revert to the ACBL. Candidly, some districts run better (much better) tournaments than others. The idea of granting exclusivity rights to one district for a week to run a regional in a particular month has much merit. The devil is in the details in deciding who gets those rights, and which week of which month. At least it would be a start to paring down the number of regionals – and it might give those regionals who gain such exclusivity right a boost in attendance too.
May 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Ed….come on….don't you know when you have screwed up? Don't you know when you could have done better? The repechage is merely a mulligan for those who had unfortunate misunderstandings, or believed they could do better (who does not believe so?) …or for those who entered the Soloway and now want to play in the BRP. I would bet that there would be as many folks interested in the repechage as there would be folks interested in dropping in fron the Soloway. Why not get the best to compete in the BRP that was already underway?
May 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Greg, whether pairs would choose to play in the repechage is not up for debate; the query is whether they should be allowed to. And if allowed to, what should be their carryover into day 3.
May 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@oren…I am game….what is the absurd part…..and why is it absurd?
May 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Art, that is exactly what I am suggesting! A pair that qualifies for day 2 with 0 carry-over should have a chance at Day 3 with reasonable carry-over through winning the repchage. I dont think a pair should be disadvantaged because they made the cut. Each pair should decide for themselves what they think is best for themselves. Do you really mean to suggest that a pair that gets cut deserves more carryover than one who competed? I think each pair deserves the right to decide what they think is best for their overall competition. And, I think, the more that compete with the “drop ins” make the remaining completion better for all.
May 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Art….what do you think of those at the bottom of the BRP deciding to drop out to play in the repechage? Yeah, unlikely, but certainly possible…..their advancement to day 3 not guaranteed….but now they believe they would fair better with a carryover. Not only quibbling over the amount…deciding what's the best for their advancement. I would say that those with 0 carryover into the final day would have little chance of making the overalls. I would think that those in the BRPs would know this. Thus, it is not unlikely that those at the “bottom” of the qualifiers might also realize this and try to improve their chances. If they miss the requalfication, no real loss. They have conceded the fact with 0 likely carryover.

A policy must take into account all ramifications….and to give carryover must also consider these facts.
May 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No doubt there are other things to compete for our dollars. But, as far as bridge is concerned, I have not run into a better value for $$$ than Gatlinburg. Transportation isn't easy, but readily available (I flew into Charlotte…and rented a car). All the other things: hotels, restaurants, entry fees, lots of folks….can easily be found and at the lowest costs in Gatlinburg. So, if folks do decide to spend $$$ on bridge, they won't find a better value than Gatlinburg….unless it is their home regional….and then there is a question of whether it is a good value.
May 2
Sabrina Miles edited this comment May 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Art, of course you acknowledge that there will be those who enter day 3 with 0 carryover. Those that played 2 days and made it to day 3. I am not adamant about no carryover….but I think anyone who gets to drop into an event does not deserve carryover more than those who played in it from the beginning. What happens if one of those who did not make Day 2 were to win the repechage and are now able to enter the event on Day 3. Do you think they too deserve carryover? Carryover is a touchy subject…and one worthy of further discussion, once the drop in situation is settled.
May 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Max, the difference is no one is guaranteed to drop into the BRP merely because they made it so far in the Soloway. Now those who get bounced from the Soloway will have to compete (with those who want another shot at competing) to enter the BRPs too. If we really want the best possible pairs entering the BRP, the extra competition will ensure that those pairs are entered. Carryover? There will be those who will entering with none….the most is 4 boards? Surely those who want the best competition can overcome a 4 board lead.
May 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 26 27 28 29
.

Bottom Home Top