Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Jan Martel
1 2 3 4 ... 45 46 47 48
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The wonderful people at BBO tell me that they did in fact record last month's match and the video is available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gwy_2iu2FB4
They hope to be able to record this month's match as well, but this type of Vugraph is still being developed, so an actual person has to set things up and also set up the recording.
April 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'll see if there's any way we can record and post the audio, if it isn't included on the BBO archive.
April 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, it is. If a team is reduced to fewer than 4 players because some or all of the players qualified for the Bermuda Bowl, it can withdraw and receive a full refund of the entry fee. It a team loses players because they qualified for the Bermuda Bowl, it can of course replace them.
April 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There isn't video of this event (the players are playing online, from home), so I don't think youtube makes sense, does it? You can see the record of play and at the table comments on the BBO Vugraph archive at http://www.bridgebase.com/vugraph_archives/vugraph_archives.php. I'm not sure whether those records include the voice commentary, however.
April 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think eliminating the Open Flight would make the other flights less attractive - one of the nice things (I hope) for players in lower flights who get a chance to go to the NABC is that they play for a few days in the same room as the “big boys & girls” and have a chance to socialize with some of the people whom they previously only knew by name and from seeing them on Vugraph. Surely we don't want to lose that, do we?
April 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Phil - I thought the proposal was that anyone who has won once at the National level or 3 times at the District level would be barred. I actually meet both of those criteria, although I don't play any more, so am not actually protesting on my own behalf, just using myself as an example.
April 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You aren't seriously suggesting that I should be forever barred from the GNT because I won it at the National level once, are you? I can't tell you how wrong that feels to me!

Back in the dawn of time, when I won the GNP (now the NAOP), I was unhappy not to be allowed to defend without having to qualify (I think ACBL changed that the next year); are you seriously suggesting I wouldn't even be allowed to try to defend a title?
April 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Plus having it start on Wednesday already makes the Summer NABC a very long tournament!
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Reading this poll made me a little sad. Looking back over my bridge life, the two wins that have meant the most to me (apart from my first Sectional, Regional & National wins, which of course will always stand out because they were the first) are the GNP and GNT. They wouldn't have meant nearly as much to me if those events had been limited. Even in years when I didn't win, I always enjoyed playing in those events because of the great competition.

I know that one of the reasons I won the GNT was because Peggy Kaplan and her teammates beat the Florida team in the first or second KO round; obviously Peggy didn't win that event, but I'll bet it's on her “all time favorite” list too - she beat a team of superstars in a long match; what can be better than that?

I would be saddened if up and coming bridge players preferred to win a limited event rather than having the opportunity to play in an unlimited one, and I am glad that the answers to this poll suggest that most BridgeWinners readers, at least, don't feel that way.
April 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree that the reasons weren't wonderful, but I voted for that answer anyway :-).
April 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've sent these issues to the DICs for decision, so am closing discussion. I have also added this whole issue to my list of things to discuss for the future (probably it's only going to be relevant in the 2-team years).
April 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've sent these issues to the DICs for decision, so am closing discussion. I have also added this whole issue to my list of things to discuss for the future (probably it's only going to be relevant in the 2-team years).
April 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've sent these issues to the DICs for decision, so am closing discussion. I have also added this whole issue to my list of things to discuss for the future (probably it's only going to be relevant in the 2-team years).
April 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've sent these issues to the DICs for decision, so am closing discussion. I have also added this whole issue to my list of things to discuss for the future (probably it's only going to be relevant in the 2-team years).
April 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've sent these issues to the DICs for decision, so am closing discussion. I have also added this whole issue to my list of things to discuss for the future (probably it's only going to be relevant in the 2-team years).
April 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You mean 28 IMPs per board at the 3/4, right?
April 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That may be true, but we aren't writing Conditions of Contest here - they're already written, we're trying to advise the directors about how to interpret them in this very unusual situation where we have a 3-way match with 2 survivors.
Qualifying a team partway through such a match is already a radical departure from normal procedures. Having teams decide to withdraw from one match and continue in the event is really unusual.
Maybe we could consider including such a provision in the future, but I just don't see it as an interpretation of Conditions of Contest that say nothing about anything remotely like that.
April 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Except in the situation where a team with draws partway through a match, and I suppose you might argue for the round robin sit out match, we never charge entry fees to a team for boards that are not played. Even though this is a somewhat unusual situation, I think that rule would apply, and we would refund the session fees for however many boards team A doesn't play.
Of coarse that doesn't answer your questions, and I don't know what the answers should be. I don't want this to get too complicated, however.
April 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It seems clear to me that we all like early qualification, so the issue is what should be needed for a team to qualify after half of the boards have been played and after 3/4 of the boards have been played. I'm going to “call” this for early qualification, and start a new poll on how far ahead.
April 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just two quick comments here - if we decide to qualify a team that is sufficiently far ahead after day 1, I would next suggest that we also qualify a team that is sufficiently far ahead half way through day 2. What “sufficiently far ahead” should be would of course be different with 56 boards remaining and with 28 boards remaining, but there should be some reasonable way to decide that.
And the reason I originally proposed that we only qualify a team that is substantially ahead in each of its matches was to avoid the unfairness you discuss if we throw out the IMPs against the qualified team. I'm not at all sure that makes more sense than your suggestion, I'm just mentioning it.
April 12
1 2 3 4 ... 45 46 47 48
.

Bottom Home Top