Join Bridge Winners
All comments by David Morris
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 38 39 40 41
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This could be a whole another thread. You've got 15 seconds to get it started.
13 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I like playing robot games. GIB doesn't care how long you take to bid. GIB just encourages overbids, then punishes you with perfect defense so you always come up a trick short. What fun! At least I get to take the time required to bid – or even more – without a Director standing over me or an Appeal panel waiting to punish me over “tempo.” Actually makes me glad nobody will partner me in F2F games. UhOh. I'm probably in trouble because of that,too….They'll say I'm anti-social.
May 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Because you don't still think it is silly. It is silly.
May 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray, since you're into comment accuracy, the Associated Press which I referenced in a comment above (with a cited statement from the LAPD, too) and that drew a remark from you, well that AP isn't correctly a newspaper. But you go Ray, that was some good lawyerly snark!
May 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Citing the Associated Press:
https://www.dailyherald.com/article/20190509/news/305099845/

“During the interview, Hiatt admitted to killing Barry Crane,” an LAPD statement said."
May 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe it's the confession that ties him to it.
May 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree it is interesting. As to East's possible motivation for the club nine false card, what might it be other than to represent a singleton club and thereby beg you to take the finesse in hearts (thinking that you cannot be hurt)? Thus, I decline and spurn the finesse. I know playing ace and another heart may be anti-percentage, but that wasn't the question.

Case 2 therefore sort of reminds me of the Rabbi's rule (when the king is singleton, play the ace). In this case, if you really only fear a ruff, do what you can to prevent it (draw some trump). You may get to draw four trump, and you also may benefit from the Rabbi's rule.

As mentor said, you pay your money and you take your chance.
May 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
OK, I'll try this. I'm not certain what UDCA has to do with the lead as much as it might with East's first play, so here;'s my thought.

I only need to pick up hearts with one loser and no club ruff. So, if East plays the Jack, I'll win the queen and finesse the heart. This figures the Jack is either a singleton or disinterest in clubs.

If East plays the club nine, then the club 10 could be a singleton, and I cannot afford the finesse. I'm going ace and another heart.

Yes, I know this could be wrong. You did indicate that E-W are legit. As my mentor used to say, you pays your money and you takes your chances.
May 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mr. Buffett, is that you disguised behind D16? Any chance we can get a game in? I'm in your database already, and I can pay my own entry!
May 1
David Morris edited this comment May 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe just sell drop in entries to the BRP to anybody who wants in? The drop in price could be a premium over and above the events, if any, that folks are dropping out of. That way, it'll be “all gravy” to the ACBL, picking up entries that wouldn't otherwise exist. (I'm assuming none of these really strong, really extra special elite, losers and late-comer pairs would consider lowering themselves to play some filthy-bad NABC side game with it's ridiculously low entry and unreasonably smallish masterpoint award).
April 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can answer that. It's because when somebody says the truth, there's nothing more to be said.
April 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Constance. I appreciate this point. “Inconvenience” isn't the basis of my argument. It's a lot more than this. As much as it may appear otherwise, I'm not against the greatest players our game claims. It's not about them. It's about the game itself (games themselves? for there are events involved).

Nobody has yet referenced the full extent of problems created by the fact these two events follow very different formats. Yes, its assumed that great players can excel at each format. Even without contesting, or even testing, this assumption, it does go to the heart of a drop-in issue, in this way: If you're on a six-person team and you're by far the weaker pair on that team, then if/when the team fails why should you be able to ride the coat-tails of stronger players to “drop in” to the BRP? Maybe it's actually a “climb up” to the BRP. It doesn't matter if this actually occurs. What matters is that duplicate bridge is a partnership (or team) game. What's to prevent a strong Solloway player from dropping in to the BRP but with a different partner? We'd have even more argument.

Similarly, take a failing pair from the Solloway, where one partner played great as part of a pair at IMPs, and his partner failed him miserably, accounting for the DQ. You think that second player deserves to “drop-in” to the BRP just because the NABC schedule is somewhat stupid? Well, I don't. It's a partnership. There's just no way to discern who deserves a drop-in and who doesn't. And, even if we could magically discern this, that pair has been given a second chance that no pair in the BRP who did not bomb out early, can equal. Jeez, we now want events without equality?

These kinds of unsolvable issues are why I believe it's a false argument that drop-ins can make the BRP “stronger.” That argument fails because it involves assumptions, hypotheticals, and even personalities. I don't think that is merited in order to benefit players who argue that it is justified because of their “elite status.” (You DQ'ed, so you're elite? You only DQ'ed because of those bloody team-mates or that bloody partner of yours, so you deserve a do-over that nobody in the BRP is entitled to? C'mon).

I'm also not claiming that we can't make this change because the BRP is pure and we just can't change it, ever. Maybe it should be strengthened. I have no idea. But, I do have one idea: no NABC event(s) need this kind of hybridization, period. Change the schedule. Change the scoring. Change the manner of qualifying, Just don't change these two events into “hydrids” on the basis that a very few players think it's an idea that could accrue to their self-interest some day as individuals in pursuit of more “points.”
April 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But Ed, not in TV-land. Apparently, in ACBL-land, the needs of a few elite members clearly outweigh the needs of many, so Spock wouldn't fit in at all. In addition, he'd be an unheralded junior master once he did begin playing; definitely not BRP material in anyone's book. Quite the martyr, that Spock! Made for some great TV, but highly illogical I must say.
April 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Constance, there's probably many an ACBL member who'd consider it a “fun and exciting time at NABC” to play in the BRP. Might it even be “a bit mean-spirited” to restrict or even prohibit their entry?
April 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It was, in fact, known as a “Team of Four” event. But, that was when the idea of a level playing field was alive and well and with “tournaments” designed and run for all comers, equally.
April 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, I suppose we could stop talking about it, excepting that elitism is a built-in feature of the idea of drop-ins, which defines the OP. Maybe if we stopped the elitism, discussion of it would stop. It's also OK to minimalize the elitism argument, but doing so doesn't at all strengthen the argument that elitism necessarily needs to prevail when it comes to drop-ins (or, really, anything else).
April 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I see what you've done there. You assume there are two teams that are overwhelming favorites to win their first six matches consecutively. If there are even three heavily favored teams, those odds seem to drop precipitously. And, if the field is anything close to being more balanced than three strong teams, the odds that any two teams win their first six matches is way below 50%.

That's to say nothing at all about their being seven board matches with hand deals where a board or two decides that the winner isn't the strongest team, or that seven boards is such a short match that the weaker team wins anyhow.

All just IMO. Your results may always vary.
April 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't see Oren's or Max's arguments as at all compelling. Their arguments (if you call them that) are speculative, i.e. IF players could be allowed to drop in, and IF they would have entered originally, and IF the conditions of contest are amended on the fly, and IF making the field stronger is considered as having merit, and IF entry into the Solloway is somehow magically converted into a valid qualification for the Blue Ribbon Pairs, and IF certain elite players merit special treatment and IF all of this speculation can be justified on some philosophical basis, and IF a prior finish of drop-in players in the BRP is proof of something (actually anything will do here), then Max and Oren and a handful of others are somehow magically correct in arguing their position, which is the specious thing they so strenuously seem to want.


Except: even an overwhelming amount of speculation doesn't convert opinion to fact. The Blue Ribbon Pairs as currently constituted doesn't need or merit adulteration. That's the defect that I see, Max.
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I admit this situation never applies to me, at least so far. But since everybody is giving an opinion, here's mine: Drop-ins neither strengthen or weaken the field of an event, and it's a false argument to present it that way.
Drop in's do pollute or contaminate an event; the Blue Ribbon Pairs is no exception. Here's the reason this is so: Elite or professional players already have so many breaks that there's no real opportunity to compete against them on a level playing field. Allowing ANYONE to join an event already underway absolutely unlevels the field in some form or fashion. I don't see how it can do anything else.
FWIW, I admire what Meckwell have done and what they're capable of, and I'd love a chance to play against them (not for money), but if the playing field isn't level, there's no real point to that fantasy competition no matter when or where it takes place. Plus, I don't think they're a pair that would want any kind of handicap as inducement to compete against me.
April 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David, you've got me thinking of running for a BOD spot from D16.
April 18
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 38 39 40 41
.

Bottom Home Top