Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Max Schireson
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1. You partner not having asked is UI to you. Your partner having not asked clearly suggests that partner does not know. Therefore it seems clear that you *must* play for partner to have bid based on their actual agreement. I think “we all get to figure this out on our own” is absolutely not allowed; our side has UI and therefore does *not* get to figure it out.

2. Meanwhile, I believe it is UI to partner that you asked before you acted. Your having asked suggests to partner that you took partner to have bid according to their actual agreement. Therefore partner must play for you to have bid as though you thought the bid showed majors. That it actually did not is AI to partner, but the fact that you heard that explanation is not. I believe partner does not get to know by your question what type of mixup the two of you are having.

3. I think you and partner both need to explain to opponents the nature of what is going on, even if that adds more UI. To just explain your actual agreement, when you have UI that tells you partner didn’t follow it, seems like insufficient disclosure to me.
July 3, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Al,

Certainly it won’t cover all cases, but it could help.

It might turn out that your second case (of a team adding a pair) is frequently also the first case (a pair was looking for a team).
July 3, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think tying the SSF to the date they are added doesn’t make sense, since I believe they could simply wait until the SSF is ready to be added.

My inclination would be to say that if by some date you haven’t filed your SSF, and you want to play unusual methods, your opponents get seating rights in the RR.

I understand that this may be challenging since right now lineups are submitted blind. Here is a an attempt to handle some of the obvious complexities, which you might decide are too much and the cure is worse than the disease.

For these purposes I will call any pair who a) submitted their SSF late and b) is playing unusual methods (determined by USBF systems committee) an “offending pair”. Someone else might come with a better label.

1. Any team with an offending pair playing must submit its lineup x (maybe 10?) minutes early, with some additional info (see below).
2. Any opponent without an offending pair playing who is playing such a team shall be notified on submission of their lineup of the offending pair, where they are sitting, what unusual methods they are playing, and what other pair is playing, and shall have the right to adjust their lineup, provided that they may not substitute in an offending pair
3. (Optional, perhaps not worth the complexity) If both opponents have at least one offending pair playing
- if one opponent has two offending pairs playing, their opponent may choose to switch the directions of their entered pairs
- if both teams have one offending pair, or both teams have two offending pairs, the opponent of the team with the pair that submitted SSFs last may choose to switch the direction of their entered pairs

One thing worth considering is whether interested pairs could be allowed submit SSFs prior to being on teams. That way if eg players in the open is plan to enter another event if they don’t win (which usually means with high likelihood because the vast majority of teams don’t win) but perhaps the team they will play on depends on which team wins the open, they can still file their SSF. This could generate extra work if the pair winds up not entering, but might on balance be helpful.
July 2, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So xxx, xxx, xxx, xxxx is worth -3 high card points, and Axxx, Axx, Axx, Axx is worth 13?

Simplest would be to start with 40 if you use a subtraction method.

If you want to start with 37, it should work if you do as you describe except you would also need to a) add one for each suit beyond the first in which you have more than 4 cards and b) only subtract one for the J in suits where you have 4 or more cards.
June 23, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My daughter’s regular partner had to miss the last couple days in Penticton so she was playing with a pick up partner who wanted to play 199er.

Her opponent with KJ9x sitting under her decided to double 4S. I guess this is rule of 9 with one to spare and a trump spot?

The defense was entirely unsuccessful: she took all the tricks.

No rule of 9 for me :)
June 17, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Cool position.

Not that you would have wound up in the same contract, but if hypothetically you had gone crazy and bid the same way with the ST and the SQ switched, I think you might have been more likely to make it??
June 12, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can’t live with either 3C or 3N, so I feel like I have no alternative.

On a good day I will plan for this in advance and bid 2D in tempo. I don’t always have good days, so I might also “eventually” bid 2D.
June 4, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve,

You are right the analogy is flawed.

A better analogy is that Olympians are allowed to enter NCAAs, as well as age group (old or young) events that are not concurrent.
June 3, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Melanie,

Do you think the same partnership, if eligible and the events were not concurrent should be able to play in both open and mixed or open and women’s? Is it only the seniors that should ban open competitors?

How about juniors? Last cycle I think a player who had played in the Bermuda Bowl played in U21, and previous Bermuda Bowl winners have played in U26.
June 3, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Melanie,

While I agree with David in principle, I agree with you that two at a time is a good practical step.

I prefer Oren’s sequence in part because of the greater conflict between open and seniors, but also because of the conflict you cite between women’s and mixed. To be precise I don’t see it as a fairness issue relative to female competitors but an issue of trying to allow both the women’s and the mixed to have the strongest field possible.

I do disagree with you about prohibiting open competitors from entering other non-concurrent events. I prefer the other events be designed to have the strongest eligible team won, not to give others a chance… that’s fine we can each have our own opinion.

Randy,

I absolutely don’t think that someone should be able to play 2 concurrent world championships I was just making an observation about what could be possible
June 3, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Melanie

I agree that the age is probably too low, and a higher age would have less overlap, which would probably be better. Maybe 65 is old enough, I would try that for a while, but maybe your 72 is right. Even today it does exclude many of the top pairs, but certainly includes quite a few.

If Bob Hamman can win at 70, more power to him. As far as “past his prime” goes, Bob Hamman at 50% of his prime might still be enough to win a Bermuda Bowl.

Regardless of where you set the age, I think you set it and there it is. Just because Donati and Klukowski are good enough to play in the Bermuda Bowl doesn’t mean they can’t play juniors or that the age limit should be 17 instead of 25.
June 3, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael:

Yes, based on the current schedule one can’t* play more than one WBF event.

My point is not about what is, but what should be. I think Meckwell should have as much chance to play open and seniors as Phelps had to swim in the 100 and 200, which are not concurrent.

* I guess given 1/3 play requirement someone could in principle be on multiple teams during concurrent events but even if not prohibited by CoC this is impractical. I think impossible may be a slight overbid but it is definitely impractical at best.
June 3, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Melanie: I think the point of seniors, women’s etc is to hold a world championship that determines, as accurately as possible, what team if eligible players is strongest. I think that the point is *not* to give others a chance and if the very same team that won the Bermuda Bowl was eligible for seniors or mixed they should absolutely be able to play in that category. They should no more stand aside to give someone else a chance than Michael Phelps should have to choose between swimming the 100 and the 200.
June 3, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Interesting question.

I think these issues have relevance beyond seniors (which is years away for me…)

It would be interesting to look at

1. Correlation between seeding points and KO results
2. Correlation between RR finish and KO results

I think this should inform the weighting.

It is not clear to me the extent to which the trials as an event unto itself has been prioritized vs sending the best team.

It is also not clear to me whether it is more or less attractive to what I will call the more casual teams to have a chance at a middle seed or to play a top seed. I suspect that it varies by team: Dave might want to play a middle seed thinking he might advance, whereas I would prefer to play a top seed thinking I am likely to lose either match. We will see if my view changes if/when I think I might beat a middle seed :)

Another thing to consider about seeding is the extent to which you are trying to be accurate about seeding:
1. Primarily the top of the field (to prevent top seeds from meeting early); this is probably most important for sending the best teams
2. Primarily the top and bottom of the field (to give top seeds easy matches, also giving less hard matches as teams move up from the bottom)
3. The whole field

My instinct is that seeding points is not perfect but quite accurate at the top of the field, which I think is most important. Perhaps a system that continues to work primarily off of seeing points, but allows top seeds to pick first round opponents and exempts the top RR finishing non-top-SP teams from being picked would do well at the top and bottom. I think the middle is hard and murky, but I think allowing RR finish to have more impact there (50/50?) would probably improve the event itself with minimal impact on the quality of teams selected.

I do think that thinking separately about the top, middle, and bottom of the field might let us have our cake and eat it to in terms of optimizing both the quality of team sent and the experience of the event itself.
June 3, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mostly with you but on the second hand I don’t think I promise anything at all beyond the trump Q, since I have no other way to show the Q.
May 31, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Melanie,

What order do you think would be best overall?
May 31, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not all teams are composed of pairs. For example the on the Rosenthal team, Debbie played half the boards with Michael and half the boards with Andrew. Requiring three pairs would disallow this structure.
May 31, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sue,

My understanding is that the losing USA2 finalist is considered the team that lost last in the selection event; I believe the mixed USBC is considered the “selection event”, rather than USA1 and USA2 being considered separately for this purpose. Donner may still go to China…

This language could have been clearer.
May 31, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Interested” is perhaps not the ideal word since partner will be the one deciding, “encouraging of partner’s potential interest” might be a better word.
May 31, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, that is simple.

Simplicity is a virtue, which argues for that policy.

But sometimes other things win out over simplicity- most of us play RKC in many situations when old fashioned Blackwood is simpler.

Reasonable people can differ on what policy is best, but I thought it was important to share some reasons other than pandering to paychecks why one might want to allow entering multiple events.
May 31, 2019
.

Bottom Home Top