Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Barry Dehlin
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Whether we're talking limits for articles OR lead/bidding problems, can we at least get some type of “submitted but pending auto-publish” functionality so that I can finish a session, enter the 1-5 bidding/lead/play/ATB problems inspired by it, and just have the dribble into the queue on their delayed timetable?
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What are our defensive agreements? What form of scoring?
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Additionally, had the diamond king been offside (or remote chance there is a ruff) - then 6♥ wouldn't have made.”

IANAD (Director), but it's totally unclear to me why this matters. Aren't we talking about THIS hand in evidence before us rather than any hypothetical variation? On just about any deal, you can craft defensive holdings that produce an improbably low number of tricks for declarer. I didn't think those were relevant at all to the analysis.

I don't know if it's in accordance w/ the laws, but the principle of “if you err by giving misinformation, the least favorable result that is at all likely will be assigned” seems just to me.
Jan. 13
Barry Dehlin edited this comment Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“The call+the raise to 3 together could convey ‘hey, I know you might have bid on less, but if you did, I am not punishing you’.”

IMO, this is tin-foil hat conspiracy-theory paranoia. If I know my partner has called the director mid-auction but it's behind screens and I don't hear the discussion, I might think of many possible explanations before I think partner is sending me an unauthorized message. Most likely partner asked for explanation of a bid and didn't think it was adequate. Perhaps there was an alleged zero-tolerance violation based on a comment from his screen-mate. Perhaps he objects to a kibitzer's presence. Perhaps he realized belated that he is only holding 12 cards. Perhaps he doesn't have a 4 card in his bidding box. Perhaps he thinks he heard discussion about this hand on his last bathroom break. Etc, etc, etc.
Jan. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
(Deleting inaccurate comment)
Jan. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This one has nearly 1200…

http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/the-whole-story/
Jan. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For what it's worth, here are results across the Common Game. About 2/3 of pairs are in game.

https://tcgcloud.bridgefinesse.com/PHPPOSTCGS.php?options=LookupClioBoard&acblno=4357884&date=2020-01-07&board=16&gamemode=Nite
Jan. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Unsurprisingly, my preferred methods too!

The story on this hand is that I passed, and partner with KJTxx x x AKQxxx can make 11 tricks, and 10 are easy even if not guessing trump queen.

So our debate is whether (a) I shouldn't pass, (b) he should jump to 2, or © this is just bad luck.

Without a known fit yet, I definitely don't think (b) is right…
Jan. 8
Barry Dehlin edited this comment Jan. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The unfortunate news for you is that the North American Pairs are one of the ACBL's “grassroots” events, in which ACBL district play qualifies pairs for the national event. To my knowledge, this event is only available to ACBL members who have qualified at the district level.

https://www.acbl.org/tournaments_page/charts-rules-and-regulations/conditions-of-contest/nap/

Good luck in the rest of the tournament.
Jan. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have never followed these races closely enough to know, but isn't it highly unlikely that one month of club results will produce a change in the Crane standings?
Jan. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Really dislike the idea of separating the major tournaments from the NABCs. One of my unique bridge experiences was entering the Spingold as a hopelessly outclassed team and getting crushed by Diamond. That would have never happened if I would have had to travel separately just for the Spingold.
Dec. 23, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks David for the informative post.

If competition for weekend bookings is such a big problem, it should be feasible to change NABCs from a weekday/weekend mix of a 2252 schedule (1252 for Fall NABCs) to a 524/425 schedule.

I personally would dislike that because, as a still-working bridge player, it reduces my best target days to one weekend. But I can see how it might work best for the bulk of NABC participants.
Dec. 19, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Having lived in Minneapolis for 6 years, I consider it equally crazy that (a) they actually HELD an NABC there in almost-winter, and (b) they have NOT HELD one there in the summer. It's a too-short, but idyllic summer. I would think Minneapolis would be good from a cost perspective as well…?
Dec. 19, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Topics or tags will not be enough for more effective browsing of old posts. You also need much better search functionality, with options to use date, poster name, commenter name, number of responses, etc. in addition to the keyword-only (or keyphrase-only) search that is available now.
Dec. 14, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's interesting to me that a post where the title starts with “ACBL's Future” does NOT get to the critical issue facing the ACBL, which I define as a decreasing number of live duplicate bridge sessions.

Section A of the post focuses on the decline in NABCs. This is also a problem, but not the fundamental one facing ACBL.

Section B focuses on masterpoint awards, which I agree can be bizarre and inconsistent, but I submit are not even on the top 10 list of ACBL's problems. Sub-optimal masterpoint awards don't keep people away, it just distorts what type of live bridge they play.

Section C on Governance addresses an issue that MAY need to be solved as a precursor to solving the fundamental problem, but is not itself the fundamental problem.

Section D is really about financial management, perhaps also a precursor issue but again not the fundamental problem.

Section E isn't intended to address the future, but rather give well-deserved kudos to Pavlicek's website.

Apologies if this all sounds critical; I believe the OP to be well-intentioned. But if well-intentioned thinkers can't stay laser-focused on the fundamental problem when talking about ACBL's future, what chance do we have?
Dec. 14, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not going to complain too much about a glitch in an overall great website where the price is right. But if you all want to make the bracket contest an attraction, you need to enable it as soon as possible, and remind folks ahead of time that the deadline is going to be tight.

For what it's worth, I anticipated the issue and signed on this morning (USA Eastern time) to fill out my bracket. While I could easily read the pairings in the ACBL Bulletin, the bracket tool wasn't enabled on the site. Didn't have time to check back in the middle of the day, and so I am now locked out too…
Dec. 1, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Like many other Americans, you seem to be mixing up the appropriate role of a Supreme Court. It should be a fair arbiter and interpreter of laws made by others, not some type of super-legislature that has less (or even zero) accountability to electors.
Nov. 14, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
"The problem with your proposal to accept what is offered, JoAnn, is that if it passes, governance changes for the board will not advance for another 50 years or so. "

Can you please explain why you believe this to be true? If not this proposal, what is your practical alternative approach?
Nov. 10, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Should have specified that we play Lebensohl over the reverse so responder's method of getting out at 3 is 1-1-2-2N-3-3.
Oct. 13, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Honestly, a jump after partner's reverse hasn't even been on my radar screen (perhaps showing my inexperience relative to other posters here).

In your preferred methods, how narrow/broad are the specifications for that bid? Great suit, check…but how great? Does it show a solid suit (and if so how long…as extreme a suit as G3NT)? Does the bid show extra strength? Is it denying support for either of reverser's two suits (or is that strain dependent)?
Oct. 13, 2019
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
.

Bottom Home Top