Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Debbie Rosenberg
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 59 60 61 62
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Btw, I don't think it's only pros and those hiring them who sometimes want to plan for different partners in the pairs and teams, though I do suspect it affects that group more often.
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks, Christina.

Yes, there is a lot of uncertainty, though as you say, it may affect only some people. Not just the pros, but their partners!

Specifically regarding drop in to the Mixed Pairs, I wonder if just playing the one day final is even a possibility for those who reach the semi-finals of the mixed teams. It looks like teams that lose in the semi-finals might be expected/required to play a playoff opposite the finals of the Mixed pairs.

Regarding something else in your detailed post upthread, I agree that it is problematic that major teams finalists can't play the pairs in the same category. Though it won't affect me personally this time, I find it especially unfortunate that pairs who reach the finals of the Rosenblum won't be able to play in the Open Pairs at all, as they could in the past. As you indicate, I think that was also true in the earlier drafts.
That change is presumably to accommodate both a longer Rosenblum than in Sanya and a longer Mixed event than pre-Sanya. You can't have everything…..
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Having digested it a little further, there seems to be a lot of confusing overlap between the team and pair events, most of which I'm fairly certain differs from the drafts I'd seen previously.

I can't find any information about drop in rules. Those seem especially significant given all this overlap.
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Update: There is now a schedule posted:

http://championships.worldbridge.org/orlandows18
Click schedule on the left.


I haven't fully digested it yet, but there seem to be some changes from the draft I'd seen and (foolishly?) based plans on.
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, please do so - either you or Danny, or both! Thank you.
Jan. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The handful of times I've seen it come up at the table have certainly convinced me that this isn't the case.
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jeff, I agree that there are simpler, better ways to handle this.

At the risk of causing you to regret commenting here, I'd like to ask you a question in your role as a member of the ACBL Competitions and Conventions committee. How should those of us who care go about seeing this and similar changes effected?

Another member of the same committee has indicated to me privately that C&C might be the right place, but there are “bigger fish to fry”

Who is responsible for frying the small fish?
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
People find a way to get the boards and start. I assure you it happens all the time. I don't play as many regionals as some others do, but I play enough to know this is true. I'm sure others can confirm.
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Seriously, the sensible thing is to ask the N-S pair you just finished playing against to:
A) Bring the completed boards to our teammates
B) While you are there, please pick up the boards they are finished with, so we can start against the third team.

It's also sensible, and I believe common practice, to ask the E-W pair who is waiting to play against your teammates to do these things. I acknowledge that this may be common only in the top bracket, where everyone is likely to know each other, and understand who is going where.
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In practice that is not true. A table often starts the second half of the round robin, somehow getting boards from the table still playing. Perhaps they bribe a caddy to bring them.
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks, Ping. I agree that only a small change is needed, however, I don't think this suggestion is practical.

Fairly often the table E-W is moving to is ready, and they start playing (mysteriously obtaining some boards from the third table without E-W, who are still playing, bringing them over).
Or they may want to take the opportunity for a restroom break. For other reasons as well, I don't think having E-W hover with boards, waiting until their teammates are finished to deliver them, is a workable solution.

I suggested a couple of possibilities above. Why wouldn't one of those work?

To me, the priority is instructing E-W to stay away from their teammates' table, even if it is their responsibility to see that the boards get there.
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks, Nic. It's a fair point that many of us on here, sometimes myself included, tend to focus on the top bracket(s) of team events, and are less sensitive to what works best for the lower brackets and the directors trying to manage them all at once.

Still, I think in this case a change in procedure is essential to anyone who cares about doing things sensibly, and shouldn't be difficult.

In fact, in the OP when I said “sends the wrong message” I had newer players in mind. They should learn early on that playing the game ethically includes striving to avoid sending or receiving UI.
Instructing them to walk right over to the table where their teammates may still be playing boards they are about to play does the opposite. So in a sense, I think this issue is at least somewhat bigger picture than it might initially seem.
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In a Swiss, there is presumably only one round robin for the director to deal with.

In a KO, there are often multiple round robins, and I can buy that it would be difficult for the directors to move all those boards. I also (somewhat) buy how it could be problematic to have the caddies be responsible.

How about:

“At the conclusion of the first match, N-S moves the boards to the appropriate table. E-W shows them where it is if needed. If for any reason N-S is unable to move the boards, E-W instructs a caddy where to move them, and watches that they go to the right place”

Or even

“At the end of the first match, E-W is responsible for getting the boards to their teammates, but (obviously) should not go anywhere near the table where their teammates are playing”
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I couldn't agree with Kit more that this really is a bad concept.

I'd like to add that bids (or doubles) don't have inherent meanings. Pairs make agreements to artificially define bids and doubles, and then they regularly forget those agreements, when not first reminded by an insufficient natural bid.
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, Richard. It seems silly to be investing thousands of dollars into anti-cheating technology, while making little or no effort to minimize opportunities for softer cheating. That should probably be the subject of another post. I could give lots of examples.

With this 3 way match issue, personally I am more bothered by it being, as Michael Bodell describes, “…awkwardly setup from a process/procedure point of view..” than I am concerned with security.
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Don, I just had a director explain that rationale to me yesterday.

I'm not worried about security so much as it being a silly policy that I must walk to my teammates table backwards (see Phil's comment below) to make sure not to see anything. Why am I being told to go to my teammates' table?
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I act similarly, Phil, but I see plenty of players who don't. I'm not saying they are trying to see anything - I'm sure most are not - but they are also not bending over backwards not to. It just seems silly to me that we are put in this position as a matter of policy.
Jan. 15
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My opponents wouldn't dare, Jay.
Jan. 13
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
E has a normal double. At least that's what I always say after -690.
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Christina, do you mind saying here what that huge conflict is?
It seems some people have made plans, including booking flights, based on the outlined schedule. So changing that could be a huge problem in itself.
Jan. 12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 59 60 61 62
.

Bottom Home Top