Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Sabrina Miles
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, Linda, it is!
Jan. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How does that impact the GNT? From my prospective it cuts down on those “available” to play. Please understand that I have no problem with bridge havin professional players. Indeed, I think the game is best served with professional players. However the proliferation of flight b pros diminishes the pool of available players for those up and coming players who just want to play and (for whatever reason) do not wish to hire a professional. When players with 700 MP want to be paid to play (and there are many such players) the number of players of compatible skill level for those not seeking a professional partnership is diminished.
Jan. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As a “regular player” I could not disagree more. The GNT is an exciting event that encourages participation in NABC.

I note, however your concern that: “…this is a result of the proliferation of tournaments.” I might suggest an alternative reason for the decline: the proliferation of Flight B pros? (Maybe this is a chicken and egg argument). I would suggest that with the rapid increase in Flight B pros, up and coming players have a more difficult time finding compatible partners with whom to enter the event; such was not the case in 1973.

Personally, I joyously await the pendulum to swing back the other way.
Jan. 31
Sabrina Miles edited this comment Jan. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If my p could open 4 in first seat, missing the AK vulnerable, I think we can either make 6 or double 5 and obtain a + score. If p can't make 6, maybe we need to discuss 1st seat vulnerable pre-emptive openings so that we are on the same page.
Jan. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not to down play the lack of participation from Flight C players, I must admit that I find it more discouraging (and quite a bit more depressing) about the lack of teams in the other flights. My experience has been that Flight C players: don't know what they are missing; don't have the assistance needed to form teams; haven't invested as much time/attention/dedication to bridge to be lured to participate in the GNT, among other reasons. (Albeit, I think such challenges can be overcome by a District committed to overcoming such shortcomings – shout out to District 25!)

On the other hand, those in the Championship Flight and/or Flights A and B, know what bridge has to offer; have participated in the ACBL long enough to know what the GNT is all about; and, yet reject participation! I find it particularly sad that in a year when the BOD approved letting those Districts which draw more than 8 teams to their GNT final in Flight B be eligible to send an additional team to the NABC, that a District as large as District 3 could only muster 7 teams to its District final.

I think that when the Championship and Flight A players do not set the example about the joys of participating in the GNT, they do not encourage the participation down the line. From my perspective, the greater problem is the lack of participation from those that know the joys of competitive bridge and yet fail to participate. That is us. And that, in my opinion, is the saddest state of affairs.
Jan. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But then again, there were not regionals held EVERY weekend for folks to attend. It mystifies me why anyone (who knows there are regionals EVERYWHERE – EVERY weekend) would still go to the Nationals for the purpose of playing in the regional events.
Jan. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
X of 4 is for business….p's 4nt (instead of X) would be 3 suit takeout.
Jan. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Jeff, not everyone. I think the Lehman ratings are what doomed OKBridge. BBO refused to institute a ratings system, despite many calls for such. BBO's continual success should dispel the notion that a rating system will win out, if folks are given the choice. For those who insist on a rating system, there is the Colorado Springs power ratings. While I think the power ratings is a welcome tool for finding partners and teammates, I think the ACBL would greatly weaken its selling of MP if it suggested there was an alternative means of measurement of success. 80% of ACBL members have less than 750 MP. I would suggest that if you tell such folks that they don't have to get those MP or become LM's to be considered “good” players, folks might leave the playing arena before achieving the LM goal – which, unfortunately, we have seen time and again seems to be the jumping off point.
Jan. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@david, by no means. Unfortunately, by the time I learned about MPs and what they meant, and how they were accumulated, I was no loner eligible to participate in the Gold Rush events While myACBL said I had 40 MP (the points I accumulated on line when I paid my ACBL dues) ACBL counted all the MP learned on line even when I was not paying dues. If people want to play bridge, they will play(perhaps begrudgingly) in whatever events they are eligible to participate.
Jan. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Antidotally, when the “not your average gold rush” was advertised for our Senior Regional, the entries were less than expected. The gold rush limit was upped to 1250. Many indicated that they didn't want to play with the raised limit–and did not. There is a balance to be reached.
Jan. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But for the double, I would have bid 1NT anticipating following up with the 2 bid. The double suggested to me that I show my support immediately. P knows that in this situation my support may be lighter than normal.
Jan. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A paraphrase of Socrates: “I cannot teach anybody anything, I can only make them think.” Still true some 2500 years later.
Dec. 26, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Alan, it's the combination of the two attributes that I find inspiring. I dare say that each has shown brilliance in bridge play not because of their gender, but in spite of it. Moreover, each that I have mentioned have shown the temerity to showcase their skills in open events.
Dec. 25, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@David…thanks for catching the auto correct….still not use to editing before sending :)
Dec. 25, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As previously acknowledged, generally Masterclasses are taught by known experts in their fields. I find that Masterclasses are as much about sharing techniques as they are about sharing experiences and providing inspiration. Personally, I'd like to see more women get acknowledgment for the expertise they bring to bridge. Not only because they are women, but also because they are great bridge players and theoreticians. In this vein, I'd like to see a masterclass taught by: Karen McCallum, Sabine Auken and Frances Hayden
Dec. 25, 2018
Sabrina Miles edited this comment Dec. 25, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think your point undercuts his “11 years of rehabilitation” Rehabilitation can only begin after one acknowledges and renounces his past behavior. I think he has at least another year to serve, but hey, it is what it is.
Dec. 19, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“A cynical person might also observe that a lot of bridge today is driven by money…” I think it is just as likely to be a pragmatic persons observation….which include much more than just courses.
Dec. 19, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think you significantly undermine your argument when you ascribe motives to the BOD members who voted for the Honolulu site without more than conjecture on your part. In particular, I think that attributing “self-interest of a paid trip to paradise” as the most likely reason that the BOD members voted for the Honolulu site, and thereby compromised their fiduciary duties, to be purely sensationalism and a straw man argument. Personally, I put more stock in the opinion of Donald M who was on the BOD and who voted for the site and stated his reasons for such vote — none of which included self-enrichment.

That said, I am at a lost to understand how you would implement your proposal to “build a better mousetrap.” In Atlanta, there were not enough members in attendance at the annual meeting to obtain a quorum, despite some advertisement for such attendance here on bridgewinners. What, exactly, is your proposal in this regard?

I think you are right that one individual should not be able to bind the ACBL to a contract to over $500,000 without oversight. Are you sure this has happened? I agree that more transparency is necessary for our BOD to execute their fiduciary duties. It seems that several on the BOD agree, and are on their way to establishing such guidelines to ensure it.
Dec. 7, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Who are the texts from?
Dec. 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@steve, not placing blame, merely apportioning it more aptly. I understand that the loss was acknowledged with the choice of sites. I find the real chutzpah being Gary’s post that the membership paid for a holiday for the wealthy.
Dec. 4, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top