Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Debbie Rosenberg
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 69 70 71 72
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not so teensy, imo, Peg. I've been finding this annoying for years, i.e., that one can hover to see the rosters on the results page, but not the running scores.
Sept. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've now confirmed that they were Transnational in Montreal. See this list:
http://db.worldbridge.org/Repository/tourn/Montreal.02/Rosenblum_Teams.pdf
Sept. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good question. I happened to notice the placement of teams 97 and 95 in the Rosenblum (all good friends of mine), and I imagine they were surprised, and had a good laugh, at their relative seeds. When I saw that, I assumed that below a certain number it must have been completely random.

Btw, Sabine, did you ever get an answer to your question on a previous thread about play requirements?
Sept. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Iirc, the first time it was transnational was Montreal in 2002, though I'm not sure about that.
Sept. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you to Marion for posting this. Her statement has my full support.
Sept. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nic mentioned packing light because it will be warm outside even in the evening. No doubt this is true, however it also tends to be very cold indoors in Florida, so do have something warm to wear while playing bridge, and for restaurants. Ime many Europeans find the sort of air conditioning typical in Florida quite uncomfortable.

Thanks for all the info, Nic.
Sept. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It seems to me that most commenting here are misunderstanding the point of the OP, or else I am.

The way I read it, the author isn't drawing a comparison between cheating and table feel, or making any sort of judgment on the propriety of efforts to read opponents. He is saying that statistical evidence which, on the surface, might point to illegally getting info from partner (especially collusive cheating), could at least theoretically be explained by legally reading the opponents.
I think this is a good point. I doubt many, if any, players really have this degree of table feel, but it does seem plausible.

I agree with those commenting that anyone able to read this much from their opponents, can surely read way more from their regular partner. Yet that seems like a separate issue from the point of the OP.
Sept. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jordan, I did see that for Hawaii (optional, as Michael points out), but I'm pretty sure I also saw something about resort fees being waived for Orlando when I made a reservation many months ago. It's possible I'm mis-remembering, though given that Sabine is certain, and has proof, I assume not.
Sept. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you, Al. Even if a significant increase is not expected, I do think an official and detailed statement in advance of the event would be welcome, rather than potentially deciding format after the event starts (which, irrc, happened with the McConnell in Philadelphia).
I know there was talk of a 3 day RR or Swiss to come down to 8 teams, and at least some players strongly preferred that. I was wondering if that was still an option if the entry size increases at all. While 2 days to qualify 8 seems acceptable to me with exactly 17 teams, I suspect many players will be unhappy if it's a bigger cut than that over just 2 days.
Sept. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Understandable mistake, David.
Sept. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Gloating.
Sept. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Before David causes mass (alas, maybe not so mass) panic, this is not correct. The Open Pairs starts Monday. The Women's and Seinors pairs start Tuesday.
Sept. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tom, it could be both those things contributing, for sure.

One tiny data point: Today I spoke with a pair at my local club in California, and they are still considering going for the Mixed Pairs. They played that event in Philadelphia 2010 and enjoyed it.
One reason they are hesitant is the venue (Orlando). Another is having heard from friends that the registration process is onerous (that might include the drug regulation issue - I don't know).

Something else I have no evidence of, but feels like an issue to me, is the fact that there is no user-friendly detailed explanation available of the various events. For those contemplating playing in a WBF event for the first time, I would suspect that trying to figure things out on the WBF website might deter them.
Back on a thread early this year I'd suggested that details be made more accessible for players not used to perusing CoC. I don't think I've seen anything like that, or really much marketing at all. Have targeted emails gone out to all ACBL members, or at least all members who attend NABCs? Has anything even gone out to USBF members? Again, I don't recall seeing anything like that.
Sept. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bernard, I also recall reading that somewhere, and then also saw the fee on my confirmation. That was part of the reason I decided to stay elsewhere, and canceled my reservation.
Sept. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks, Al.

What happens if the women's teams has 18 teams? Or 20? Or much less likely, 25? Will it still be 2 days cutting to 8 in all those circumstances? I really think that should be covered, and had expected you would be providing those details, not only what would happen if entry size stays exactly as now. Afaik, there is no registration deadline.

Similarly, what if the Rand gets over 32? Will it still cut to 16 in 2 days?
Sept. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I saw the trump squeeze I believe Ken intended, and will detail later if Ken hasn't done so. It was based on the OP having told us that RHO had both Kings.
Clue: no diamonds are played until all the trumps but one have been run.

And I agree with Ken that it's more fun than just setting up diamonds.
Sept. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm not generally a hyper-aggressive preemptor. I find they “don't work” about as often as they do, and I feel more comfortable with a style whereby both my partner and I have some idea what is going on.

This hand reminded me of an exception I made a couple of years ago. I was first seat favorable at IMPs with QJTxxxx of diamonds and out (some 7321 shape, I forget exactly which).

I thought, what the heck, I'm pure, everyone is doing it, blah, blah, blah. So I opened 4D. It went X all pass. My RHO had the remaining 6 diamonds. “Everyone” was not in my seat at the other table, and this was not a success.

I should stick to my own style.
Sept. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Ken - I believe the term Criss-cross trump squeeze belongs in the Dept of Redundancy Dept. At least all positions I call a trump squeeze involve a criss-cross element.

@Craig - really, how?

@OP - To be fair to those other 20 declarers, they may have gotten a less favorable lead. Can you make 13 tricks on a trump or club lead? It might depend on the specific diamond layout, and perhaps also reading the position.

Edited to fix typo. Also, I'd like to add that when I wrote my comment Craig had said only “you can play for both”. He added the rest of his comment later.
Sept. 12
Debbie Rosenberg edited this comment Sept. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Another thought about the statistics…

If there is any concern at all for the degree to which the event (A GLM eligible NABC+ event, I believe) is being weakened, I realize it's important to examine what percentage of players winning or placing in the overalls play in the Vanderbilt, not just the overall percentage.
Sept. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mark, before making this decision, did the BoD examine what percentage of IMP pairs entrants have also played in the Vanderbilt in recent years? If so, would you please share those numbers?
Anecdotally, I know of at least some strong pairs who prefer the IMP pairs to the Platinum as a warmup for the Vanderbilt. And surely there would be even more such pairs if the event were held Sat-Sun.

If the sole reason for this scheduling was to give the Senior Ribbon and 0-10000 players something to play in Sun-Mon, it really seems that a new event should have been created for this purpose. It's true that the IMP pairs was already a secondary event, but eliminating anyone playing in the Vanderbilt makes it more like 0-10000 event, doesn't it (even eliminating some of the strongest 0-10000 players)? As Peter points out, this was the ONLY Nationally rated IMP pair event, and now a large group of players can't ever play in it.

On the other hand, moving it to Sat-Sun, where people who didn't qualify on the first day of the Platinum Pairs could also participate, would have made a stronger event than before at the top, and still a popular option for those who don't qualify in the secondary (or tertiary) Fri-Sat events. It seems to me that this option could drive attendance. It feels a lot more attractive to come for a long (Fri-Sun) weekend when one can guarantee at least two days of the three in National events.
Sept. 12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 69 70 71 72
.

Bottom Home Top