Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Christopher Monsour
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Over 35 is not a protected class. Over 40 is.
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is 2019. If you are selling NABC+ entries at a table, that's a problem. Maybe the surcharges wouldn't be practical for the side games.
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe you should study the difference between socialism and capitalism a little more carefully! ROTFL
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Since she's heard her partner's explanation that X was penalty, we may be getting a score adjustment if she pulls the XX.
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
(1) You do well, so you care whether the event continues to exist. Novices are more likely to play if they get a discount.
(2) It's an abject failure if most bridge juniors are from wealthy families. Why do you think that is? Will we have enough bridge players if that (assuming it's true) continues to be the case?
(3) You can turn this into lower entry fees for the vast majority of attendees. It doesn't have to result in more profit from the NABC.
(4) It's pretty simple to have a requirement that doesn't offer this discount to players who have frequently changed their address. This is basic stuff. Easy.
(5) Not on the wealthy. On those who have a lot invested in NABCs and therefore more at stake in their success and ability to perpetuate over the next 50 years. Also maybe you ought to reflect on how your point (5) completely contradicts your point (2).
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Pretty much only pros and their clients would be paying the extras. If most NABCs are as solvent as you say, we could lower the base entry fee, so it would be cheaper for most people. And a LOT cheaper for youth, so that our game has a future.

As for the BoD, reduce the size from 25 to 8, elected by the membership in groups of 3 districts. That should cut board-related expenses by at least 2/3 and lead to better and more accountable decision-making. But that is a separate topic.
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
RR, absent the UI, I'd be thinking 3X might not be passed out if I don't redouble.
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David, your diamonds are AQx which is as good as partner can hope for when you showed a club one-suiter. Bid your hand. If he was fooling around he will pull since he can't expect better, but if he was fooling around he will pull whether you redouble or not. On the other hand, if I don't redouble, he might pull even when he really has diamonds, thinking they are stacked over him. After all, maybe the other pair are on unsure ground about their double. Yes, RHO might run, but since it's not clear either partner or RHO have anywhere to run to, I'd rather RHO ran than partner.
April 16
Christopher Monsour edited this comment April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The clients are also prime targets for higher prices. Lots of seeding points is an excellent proxy for both, which is the point of my proposal. There is no possibility of resale.

Geography applies as there aren't perfect substitutes for NABCs. (Also, the price for locals needs to be above marginal cost, so maybe 50% is too steep a discount, but you definitely want to give them some discount, to keep the table count up for marketing purposes, among other reasons.)

On the other hand, I don't see how selling expensive entries at the last minute will help. It will just mean closing down the partnership desk. Everyone else will shift when they buy, and no one wants to pay a stiff premium to play with a pickup partner.

Making the premier games carry too hefty a premium for those who have very little chance to win will just cut down on entries and on participation in the NABCs. I don't think that's what we want. We want more revenue without losing participants.
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's hard to win the Spingold if it's not being held. It's easy to explain to someone that they need to pay a little more because their district is never the host.
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For that matter, the ACBL already offers youth or student discounts (just not yet for the 26-35 set), so it's not as though they don't already practice price discrimination. They just need to do it more effectively now that they are under financial pressure.
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think you are aware of everything the airlines do. For example, they can make deals available only to people who purchase through certain distributors. They can offer you an upgrade at a higher price if you have shown an inclination to purchase that upgrade in the past, than the price they would offer to someone who has not. They certainly vary pricing by how desperate they are to sell a seat. Anyway, price discrimination is easily defined “the action of selling the same product at different prices to different buyers, in order to maximize sales and profits.” I think we can agree airlines do that.
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Have you ever bought a plane ticket?
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not sure why I didn't pass last round.
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Never mind. Found the edit button.
April 16
Christopher Monsour edited this comment April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sometimes you just have to payoff when the opponent holds that extreme a hand because if you don't you will be taking too many phantoms when he holds other hands. And even with that South hand, if partner had something like x QJ10 Kxxx Axxxx (leaving opener with KQJ10x xxx QJx KJ, certainly not outside the realm of possibility), they'd be toast. You could even move some of the club or diamond honors around between partner's hand and opener's, and they'd still be toast. Most hands where partner's hearts are QJ10 tripleton set them.
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And one of you got the vulnerability wrong.
April 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3 of course. Which is why I just cut to the chase and bid 3 how, before partner gets the thought that pulling 3 to 3 implies a club suit.
April 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1NT. Everyone plays transfers here, right?
April 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At the table I bid 5 but thought it was very close between that and double, given the conditions of contest which include the wire that partner has at most 13 HCP. I was rather shocked to score 89% on a normal down one (I played it competently but hardly remarkably) when 4X would have been down 4. (Dummy had KJ5 95 Q654 AK94 and the 4 bidder had AQ1087643 6 3 J107.)

Now I'm even more confused that double got 3 out of 23 votes in the other poll (not mentioning the weird conditions) but NO votes in this poll (including a 5 bid from one of the 3). I was trying to understand how much more attractive the conditions made a double, and now I am instead forced to ponder and/or ask how the conditions make double *less* attractive.
April 15
.

Bottom Home Top