Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Margaret Devere
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
University of Denver (DU), CU Denver, and Metropolitan State University of Denver (Metro).

Any other suggestions would be welcome.
Oct. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wasn't thinking of using BBO during the visit, just telling people about it if it seems appropriate. I have a vision of four bridge players sitting around a table playing bridge, with a small sign saying “Bridge.” Bidding boxes and boards optional.

But it wouldn't hurt to have a laptop available so we could pop up BBO and do demos. Thanks for the idea :)
Oct. 11
Margaret Devere edited this comment Oct. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've just realized that, for what I'm calling mental engagement, some applicable concepts from psychology are “subjective self-awareness” and “being in the flow.” A hand of bridge, from the time I take it out of the board to the time I put it back, is a quick dip into that state of consciousness, which I enjoy very much.

@Jeff: The process of figuring out the nice play is what I'm trying to point to. I agree that there are other sources of gratification – results, admiration, putting one over on someone, beating a rival, …
Oct. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Being dummy doesn't have to be boring. You can try to figure things out, just as if you were holding cards yourself.

And if you want to have any chance in the post-mortem, you'd better be tracking :)

Joking aside, it's a great opportunity to practice watching the cards and counting, with no penalty for mistakes
Oct. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For me, the gratification is in the experience as much as the result. I enjoy the mental experience that I have during the bidding and play. I think this is the same thing as the “puzzle” reference above.

So … make the game as much about the experience as the outcome. Try to find and attract puzzlers and sell the mental engagement aspect. Don't put a lot of marketing energy into people who don't have this characteristic.

Results … most of us will lose most of the time anyway. You have to be able to accept this and come back smiling. Almost all my bridge conversations revolve around good results/bad results and how/why. This doesn't strengthen the “experience” aspect.

As I write this post, I'm realizing that all mentoring sessions I know of, including my own, have focused on bridge skills. I guess we all assume that if somebody shows up, they have the experiential gratification so there's no need to mention it. In fact, many players may never have articulated their experiential gratification to themselves. I think we're missing something if we fail to identify and sell this aspect of the game.
Oct. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That might have been my suggestion – or at least I'm one of the people who suggested it.

My proposal was for a 30-60 second statement/reminder, not a “presentation.”

Topics to include, on a rotating basis:

- tempo, UI, and partner's obligations
- calling the director is not a punishment
- keeping your hands still until you're ready to bid (telling people not to touch the bidding box isn't enough)
- how and when to correct mis-explanations

And maybe table etiquette:
- table space – who owns which corner, how big is a corner, don't put all your stuff on the table (This happens to be a sore point with me)
- taking your trash with you when you leave the table (another sore point)
- who touches the boards

I think that learning might occur over time. At least, people will be introduced to the idea that bridge ethics exist.
Sept. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Points that decay over time: I bet that most very good bridge players who haven't played for x years are still pretty darn good. and will mop up the lower-level events that they're now eligible to enter. (Assuming no catastrophic mental issues, of course.) Rusty is not the same as mediocre.

This has probably been addressed somewhere at some time, but I haven't seen it.
Sept. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Pair teams. Our unit (Denver) has discussed this a couple of times but hasn't tried it. The idea came from Kansas City, I think. Works like this:

After the entries are closed, group the pairs into A, B, and C so that A and C have the same number of pairs and B has twice that number. Play a normal pairs game. While that's going on, the directors create BAM teams by randomly matching an A pair with a C pair, and a B pair with another B pair. At the end, teams do a standard BAM comparison. Matchpoints are awarded for both pairs and BAM results, so you have two shots at scratching.

Side benefit: creating opportunities for interaction, esp. between A and C.

I like the idea, but it was turned down by the board as too confusing for the players.
Sept. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Doesn't seem right. You never know when a work is going to make a comeback. No examples come to mind, but what if there have been no revenues for 10 years, then suddenly there are revenues? Or what if there are a couple of sales one year, then none the next year, then another couple.

Trying to define “no revenues” is tricky. And then, of course, one would have to get the data to prove it, which might be difficult for a lot of reasons. Better to stay out of that.
Sept. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One small addition: You've described US copyright. Copyright varies by nation, as does the initiation of copyright protection. This makes it all worse :(
Aug. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wrote up a caddy/caddymaster guide a few years ago. It's not as daunting as the ACBL version. If you want to look at it, send me your email address.
Aug. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Denver? Center of Silly Mountain (the front range, from Fort Collins to Colorado Springs)
Aug. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was trying to guess the adjective you'd use for Wednesday, and I got it right!

Enjoying your series :)
Aug. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If the ACBL is going to assert rights to the term “masterpoints,” they have to defend it vigilantly to prevent its lapsing into a generic term. This includes sending a notice to everybody who uses the term without appropriate attribution. I'd say that they lost it years ago.
Aug. 2
Margaret Devere edited this comment Aug. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, true. But surely people were thinking ahead.
July 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How many fantasy brackets just went down in flames? :)
July 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
OP here. No data so far, but we're sending out a “how's it going?” email soon and I will report back.
July 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was North at this table. As I remember it, East held AKJxxx, no hearts, and a smattering of minor suit HCP. And, as I see it, this increases the likelihood of a spade call. I'm not sure that the director was counting the spades – only the HCP.
May 30
Margaret Devere edited this comment May 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've never heard that you have to have agreed on trump.

Your quibble is accurate. I changed course in the middle of my sentence and forgot to go back and edit. Fixed now.

If partner can respond positively to the question I ask, they have to bid six of the suit I'm proposing. Without prior trump agreement, if I'm asking the O or U question, the partner has to assume that I've got trump covered.

2-way NMF or XYZ would have been good also, but I couldn't sneak them onto the card in time:(
May 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Lovely story – thanks.
May 15
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
.

Bottom Home Top