Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Sabrina Miles
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes to both! It seems intrusive. Hopefully such measures were utilized only to the men’s room. Perhaps there was notice of potential photography?
July 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Assuming I had a valid reason to bid 4 the last round, my cards have not changed. I told p I was not interested in slam with a 4 bid. If p wants to explore further, I'd suggest that he take the lead and do so. A bid of 5 is not taking over the captaincy and doing so – it is a weak nilly way of saying I don't know what to do.
July 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Isn't this hand made for the textbook definition of a mini-splinter?
July 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What is the 5 response? (3014)? I thought that an even number of keycards with an unspecified void would respond 5NT. In any event, if p is asking about keycards, N cannot sign off less than 6.
June 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The 8 board robot tourneys on BBO are NOT ACBL sanctioned.
June 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My initial thought was that dummy was putting the cards on the table and asked about the contract so as to put the trump suit on the far left. However, the question asked about “during the play of the hand.” Accordingly, dummy has already been placed on the table, trump suit has already been placed on the left, and dummy has no reason to inquire further.
June 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Mike….I know…I know…that the sponsors of the open trials pay more…and money talks louder?
May 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Shailesh really? You lost to the team and now you think you “deserve” to win? Boy, bye.
May 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Mike since team A has already beaten team B, where would you prefer to send my winnings?
May 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is there any dispute that one team won both matches, against both opponents? That the other teams had 1 win and 1 lost and 0 wins and 2 losses? Are we really arguing that the team who lost should be declared the winner because they beat the team who lost twice by a larger margin?

Sounds like Alice has gone down the rabbit holle, and the idea of fairness is a farce.
May 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for the vugrahs. I find them very educational. If it is feasible, might voice commentary be added to each round? I think the voice commentary makes the vugraph experience much more enjoyable.
May 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agreed Ken. Nonetheless, if fewer teams of relatively close experience levels do not show up to play, and others do not desire to fill the void….there is nothing to be done. The advertisement and schedule can only go so far to predict what will be held. (And make no mistake, it is a prediction) If nobody (or very few) want to play the KO, then it is a no go. Hopefully, the schedulers learn from it and select a schedule that more folks want to participate in. It seems, however, that some do not want to let go of the idea of a KO….even if the majority of folks are more interested in playing in a somewhat competitive event. The KO's, in my opinion, work only in large events, where there are sufficient brackets to support peer play.
May 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Andy…I don't either. That's why I said it will lessen the enjoyment of all. The more experienced player, does, however, want to play in the event. And who could blame them?
May 28
Sabrina Miles edited this comment May 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think the directors ignored the conditions of contest when they refused to require a team to be forced into a bracket which their MP indicated that they did not belong. Asking if there are volunteers for bracket 1 and requiring the next highest MP total to be forced into bracket 1 may have resulted in the other 31 teams requesting their monies returned and no KO being held at all. I know it is hard for some folks to believe, but there are people who do not like being forced to play in a bracket in which they clearly do not belong. I find it hard to believe that the TDs did not ask for volunteers. I find it quite easy to believe that none were forth coming – despite all the folks saying they would love to get a chance at the top bracket.

The bridge community seems awfully segmented. Requiring folks who, by their MP totals, do not have the experience to be competitive in an event – for the sheer pleasure of those who do have such experience, will lessen the enjoyment of all. If all those who wanted to play the best in the game stepped up and actually attended the regionals, there would not be these type of problems.
May 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Speaking from anecdotal evidence, I know what happens when you require the 6000 MP team to play in bracket 1 so that you can have an event as advertised. That team does not again sign up for the knock-out and/or does not return to your regional. Both of which will lessen your regional quite a bit more than 4 expert teams being upset with the small draw.
May 28
Sabrina Miles edited this comment May 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Does that mean there is hope for us all? :)

BTW, well don't Nick and Nathalie!
May 27
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
.

Bottom Home Top