Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Sabrina Miles
1 2 3 4 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ... 27 28 29 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why did I pass in first seat? If you missed a pass in the diagram, I vote 3nt.
June 3, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This scenario came up in a board I played in a sectional this weekend. When my p bid 3nt over opps opening 3 bid I was tempted to transfer him to 4 (I had 5, but only 8 HCP). I didn't transfer because we had not discussed whether a transfer was on. (BTW, 3nt was the winning bid here). Nonetheless, if my hand were bigger, e.g., 13+ when my p overcall opps preempt with game, I am certainly going to explore slam…and although we have no real agreement, we have agreed (subsequent to this weekend) that Front of Card systems are on.
May 28, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think this is a great move! It demonstrates that the ACBL does listen. I must admit that I found the parking situation in Orlando very aggravating. I did like Orlando in November/December. Hopefully an equally attractive location can be found without the ugly drawbacks.
May 18, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am curious why there was an invitation with 11 HCP, a void, opposite p's opening 1NT (15-17).
May 18, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was a bit confused about the system; I thought that std american and 2/1 were two separate and distinct systems, no? In both systems, however, a cue of the opponents system shows a limit/limit+ raise of partner's suit.
May 18, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With all the talk of the NABC's dying out, it seems to me that hotel reservations must be made as soon as ACBL opens them….and alternative arrangements must be made at least 6 months before to secure a decent price…with close proximity (if you are willing to travel a distance to the playing site, there are many choices). I know that I had to settle for my second choice in San Diego, because I am liking Airbnb and my first choice there had already been booked just for the time period covering the nationals….coincidence? I think not (and I booked in February).

I second Ethan's suggestion to try Airbnb. But please note, the prices for the places close to the Convention Centre have more than doubled from the time that I booked my condo there (late November). If you don't book extremely early, it seems your choice is dollars or proximity…and only you can decide which is better. Me, because both are important, I decide to book extremely early.
May 5, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Occasional remarks about the other table (closed/open of the same team), ok; but I've chosen this table. Sometimes I choose a table because there is no voice commentary…or very little written commentary at the table(s)/pair that I wish to watch. To see much written commentary about the table that I would have preferred to watch I find VERY frustrating and a bit annoying. If there had been sufficient commentary in that room, I would not be in the one I am watching. You make me choose and then torture me with news about the one I preferred to watch.
May 5, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In contract construction, the often used rule holds that specific and exact terms are given greater weight than general contract language. When the COC says that with 19-24 teams entered there would be carryover, one might expect that with 20 teams entered there would be carryover.

Granted the COC was not well drafted, but it was specific enough to glean the District's intent.
May 1, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Tim….that's what happens when one does not read the entire COC. There is/should have been carryover when there are over 19 teams. But if one reads only a portion, it is easy to come to the wrong conclusion. Apparently, many did not bother reading the entire COC
April 30, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Tim, apparently the TDs don't read it, unfortunately.
April 30, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just because the district decides on the COC does not guarantee that the Directors follow those COC. For flight B in D25, they didn't. Carry over was done away with because the COC was not followed.
April 30, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As someone who LOVES BBO, I would say that the robots could use some fine tuning. What I'd like to see is an option for players to check off what additional/fewer conventions that the bots could/would not play; e.g., check puppet and the bots play it/uncheck drury and that bot does not play it.

What I do love about the bots is that when one highlights its bids, the explanation consistently describes the hand it holds…..if only my p's bid consistently described the agreements we have when s/he bid! Additionally, the bots descriptions have proven a useful teaching tool for learning standard bids.

I find the biggest shortcoming of the bots is the lack of defensive signaling. Yes the bots overbid when their partner give untruthful information – or try to mastermind the hand! In all, the bot lasts for, at most, 12 boards….and never talks back, never criticizes, and always takes you back when you really screw up.
April 26, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hmmm….at the table I choose 2NT (relay to 3). My p suggested that 3 would have been a better bid. I REALLY don't like to overbid my hand….to me, with a worthless q, 3 is an overbid. In hindsight, I really liked the 3 bid (stayman). It would have gotten us to the winning 4 contract. But I see that most folks don't like that bid either. Had I bid 3, I would not have taken p to game in ….I've already overstated my hand!
April 26, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
apparently some – at least the better players – think so. I do not begrudge them their say…the rules are construed as such. With time, and costly mistakes, others learn as well.
April 17, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually, I think that a district that has a two team GNT final should not be supported as much as one that has a 40 GNT team final (if the ACBL were to run the GNT like the NAOP). Where do you think the extra funds of the ACBL come from? While I am not for deleting representation from a district who can't provide the minimum representation necessary to sustain one entry, I surely do not think that they should get equal distribution of the funds, because they are a district! I am even more adamant in my position when I hear all the reason why they can't do better….and the reasons why they won't try to do better.
April 17, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I feel your pain. As a player who learned to play on-line, I find myself more often than I should asking for a when I really mean the top (isn't it obvious!) I wish my p would ask which .! But at least it has proven a learning experience for me. For those who learned to play in F2F tourneys, I do not see this mistake as often.
April 17, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As one who, with less than 1500 MP, chose to play in the open division, I find it hard to swallow that those with 5000+ MP need protection because of master point inflation. What I do see is that those folks perceive that the can easily win in Flight A and would rather not compete in the Open/Championship division. I have no sympathy. Leadership starts at the top. And if those at the top won't lead, they should get out of the way, not block the way of those up and coming players.
April 17, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Peg, I am confused by your cost argument about additional teams being added based on participation. You state: “If we can't get decent funds for 1 team in each bracket - how are we going to begin to achieve it for 2 teams?” It is my understanding that as presently construed that the districts provide the funds, if any, for each of the teams it sends to the Nationals. As you have repeatedly said, your district, for a variety of reasons, does not have the wherewithal to attract additional participation. Thus, it is very unlikely that your district would be sending additional participants to the nationals for the GNT and, thus, would not need to concern itself with funds for a second team. Why then are you concerned about how other districts will fund their additional teams?

While I am loathe to be ungenerous, it seems to me that your argument boils down to: we can't do better (in getting additional participation) and we don't want to be disadvantaged by having to play against other districts extra teams.

The objective here, I thought, was to increase the GNT participation. Why not give those Districts who have the wherewithal to increase participation the opportunity to do so by being able to send additional team(s) to the National?
April 17, 2017
Sabrina Miles edited this comment April 17, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The addition of extra teams from those districts that have sufficient participation to warrant such supplementation does not detract from the concept of every district be represented. What it does do is marginally level the playing field so that those with 1 team because of few entries in the district finals are not given an unfair advantage over those districts that had great participation when all are playing in a short randomized swiss for qualification to the KO round.

I would not advocate the elimination of district representation for those districts that did not meet minimum participants. Although I think there is more than sufficient reasons to hold each district accountable to a minimum standard, I sympathize with the hardships some districts have in attracting additional participation.
April 17, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Currently, the ACBL bestows Diamond Life Master status on those with 5,000 MP (with minimal pigment prerequisites). Less than 2% of the all ACBL members have over 5000 MP. If anybody does not need coddling and protection from the “big guys” its those with 5000+ MP (ok, we've already upped it to 6,000). For goodness sake, let's not raise it again! If we want folks to play up, lets start at the top….and have them play up!

And for folks who need protection and already have 6000 MP, perhaps another hobby might prove more fruitful.
April 17, 2017
1 2 3 4 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ... 27 28 29 30
.

Bottom Home Top