Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Mike Cassel
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hand Evaluation
Jeff Rubens' principle of in and out evaluation.
why honors in long suits make your hand more offensive
and honors in short suits make your hand more suited to defending.

don't overload new players with too many concepts at one time.
Aug. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
First Time Ever

Unfollowing this discussion
Aug. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How does your turning up for a tournament translate into a director contacting your child?
There must be something more than what has been presented.
Aug. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The BOD
http://web2.acbl.org/documentLibrary/about/192LasVegas/LVWebMotions.pdf

Item 192-15: 4-Session Regional Events
Second Reading
Codification Chapter XIII – General Tournament Information - Appendix 13 B - Masterpoint
Computations, Sectional/Regional Tournament Events, C. - Regional Events – Unrestricted Events,
3 - Four Session Regional Event is amended as follows:
For those unrestricted four session Regional events, other than Knockouts, the Masterpoint awards
shall be computed by formula increased by 60% and not to exceed 50 masterpoints.
Effective August 1, 2019
Aug. 5
Mike Cassel edited this comment Aug. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1. Flip flop the International Fund month (Sept) and the Grass Roots Fund month (May)
2 Use September to promote both Grass Roots events: the pending NAP district finals and the start of that year's GNT cycle.
3A Hold an ACBL-wide Grass Roots Fund Game during the month WITH a nice glossy booklet with both hand analysis and promotional materials encouraging participation in Grass Roots events. The top five finishers in each of the NAP style B & C brackets win invitations to
4 The Grass Roots National Swiss Pairs starting two days before the Platinum AND Red Ribbon pairs the first weekend of the Spring NABC.

3B Offer B & C players who play in at least 3 Grass Roots Fund ‘Qualifiers’ District-wide? that month an invitation to the Spring NABC event if their average for their 3 best scores is in the top ‘x’

3C Let districts decide how to nominate up to four pairs in each flight based on participation/performance during the Grass Roots Fund month.
Aug. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can generally agree with many of your points, Steve, but find the tenor to be a bit paternalistic.

The membership skews intelligent. We do a disservice by assuming that we can decide for them what kind of top down smaller BOD decision making is best.

I am orders of magnitude more knowledgeable than most about ACBL governance and have doubts that rejiggering zones into more equal populations with one BOD rep is a viable future.

I don't think we need a more exclusive club of highly recognizable district reps. We need management to manage by giving them the resources and room to do so effectively and a BOD that helps set the direction and vision of the mission.

And we should be listening and nurturing the members we have as much or more than seeking new ones.

More focus on potential and less on product marketing?
Aug. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For many years there has been an oligarchic quality to how the ACBL is directed.

I think the league could do well to randomly poll the membership on a regular basis on topical issues like governance, offering daylight NABC+ events (Senior or SuperSenior?), prime motivating factors encouraging tournament attendance (hotel, schedule, dining, location, etc.), and member attitudes on local and broader issues.

We would do well to also be working on issues from our base to the top of the pyramid rather than from the top down. We could do a much better job managing some of our issues if we don't make assumptions of what the base wants by finding avenues to reach out and soliciting regular input from them.

Wouldn't it make sense to find out how we can encourage the members we have who either aren't, or are only infrequently playing by being more in contact with them?
Aug. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Lebioda
He was a gentleman at the table in 2008.. and a rock.
http:// deleted

and certainly someone who should not have been eligible for a MP-limited event.


Lukasz LEBIODA Poland
WBF Code: POL&500346

Playing Record (Team Events)
Year      Event                       Rank     Team
1970 28th EUROPEAN TEAM CHAMPIONSHIPS
Estoril 1970 - Open Teams 2 POLAND
Open team
1972 4th WORLD TEAM OLYMPIAD
Miami Beach 1972 - Open Teams 13 POLAND
Open team
1976 5th WORLD TEAM OLYMPIAD
Monte Carlo 1976 - Open Teams 4 POLAND
Open team
1979 34th EUROPEAN TEAM CHAMPIONSHIPS
Lausanne 1979 - Open Teams 7 POLAND
Open team
July 31
Mike Cassel edited this comment July 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike raises a good point re. foreign juniors who have represented their countries. Where do you set their level of attainment?

Georgiana
a distinction without a difference? Foreign players who have represented their countries in WBF Open competition should be non-eligible for ACBL limited point events, not because they it will be years before they get 10K MPs, but because they are head & shoulders a level above the general level of attainment of the 10K target clientele.
July 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
in Q3 of the Spingold SF Blass vs Spector Driver took 8' at T4 after his J held T3.
Then Joel took 10' after winning the A at T4 to lead the singleton he held in partner's first chair preempt suit.

Shortly thereafter one table in the other SF had finished their 15 boards while this table was still on bd. 4.

Maybe if Joel hadn't doubled 3 hoping for +100 instead of +50 we would not have been tortured.

I think after ~8' Brink did get up to find a director while Joel was ruminating.
July 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Marty,
btw congrats on the miniSpin win.

What do you suppose the over/under is on ACBL members with less than 10,000MPs and more than 500 Platinums?

Not foreign players holding ACBL memberships.
There are about 1,000 ACBL members with more than 6K and less than 10K MPs some of whom probably are foreigners.

As I mentioned in the Vegas thread would you deny Josh or Sylvia the right to book dates for 10K events? Seems to me they are entitled to ply their trade as they see fit.
July 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Barry,

You had a lot of Spingold teams practicing on the first weekend.
Bracket 1 paid 62
Bracket 1 paid 57
Your bracket 44

Playing tough opponents is your reward.
Not too surprising that you are in the company of teams averaging 44K masterpoints
July 30
Mike Cassel edited this comment July 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A few springs ago, in Reno, we met the Bulgarians, Jerry & Dani (or was it Dodi?), in the quarterfinals of a 10K KO on a team that Ken Gee put together for Hannah Moon.

I complained to the DIC. This was a couple of years before they won the Cavendish. I think Sol conferred with Barry and they decided the pair, weren't too strong!?

So we played against them. In fact, they were beatable and we did beat them. I don't think these opponents played in limited events after that.

I think that some kind of valuation procedure that assigns a MP value IS warranted. It seems to me that if you have represented your country in an unlimited WBF event that alone should disqualify you for a limited MP event in the ACBL.

In the matter of a Josh Dunn or Sylvia Shi you have a different issue. I've played in a number of 10K events that have featured fine players who are probably being compensated for their participation with less experienced partners.

I'm not sure it is fair to restrict them from opportunities to earn their living at NABC events. It's rather impossible to draw a line re. potential considerations that are offered to expert players who choose to play with ‘advancing’, less experienced or competent players.

Restricting participation in 10K events only to non GrandLM eligible players is ‘bridge too far’ imo.
July 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can count on one hand the number of times I've been behind screens. That being said I would surmise that deference is extended to opponents who have a problem to solve. If you call a director on them, what happens when you have a tough problem and need extra time to try to solve it?

From the cheap seats I can claim that no boards should be started more than ‘x’ minutes following the expiration of a session's clock. Should that be 5', 10', 15'?

We should hear from players who are ‘on the field’ re. slow play.
July 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It should not go unnoticed that a foursome captained by Gary Donner was playing the final round in contention for a top 10 finish.

Playing with two juniors: Anam Tebha and Jacob Freeman and Yoko Sobel this team not only survived but thrived over the three day event.

As well, the Hendelman team, who played Kasle in the last round, included Sam Amer and Ben Kristensen.

It fine that we honor NABC+ winners for sure, but let's not fail to recognize outperformance by others.
July 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As the bulletin editor for the Gopher Regional I am quite mindful of the costs of publishing a printed bulletin. People like to see their name in print. They like pictures, particularly the GR winners. I try to present hands every day, not too often from the tournament unless there is a truly notorious one that everyone is chatting about.

Over the course of the year I take screenshots of great hands with items of interest on bids, plays, defenses, sometimes featuring conventions that advancing players might get a lesson from. Our bulletin offers instructive teaching points, links daily to articles relating to those points.

When there is copy that would extend the size of the issue, a second pdf, with extended articles, interviews, handouts from I/N mini-lessons etc. can go to our blog and the online bulletin while the smaller file, fitting within the confines of predetermined issue size goes to the printer. http://100.26.88.51//FastResults/D14/DailyBulletins/DBD14190502020190525.pdf

You can have the best of both worlds. More hands online without blowing the print budget. Extra copy appended to an online issue that gets emailed to participants.
We've been able to shrink the print run size when folks get their daily bulletins in their email.


The fact remains that WBF events with larger entry fees and more columnists can do reportage that is beyond the NABC bulletin capability. Who, at the NABC bulletin office has the time to edit a bunch of hands if they WERE submitted. And where would they go in the limited space?

I'd tear my hair out if I had to leave daily holes in my templates for hand submissions from players. I like to play during the tournament. Who doesn't?

I also edit a weekly bulletin for a local club. I beg for copy and hands from the players. Endlessly.
July 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There were 4 sections in your event Mike and 14 pairs who sat N/S both sessions. There was a section with no fewer than six NSs who were stationary.

You may have been hampered by the lack of interest on the part of other seeded EW pairs to accept a double EW. Would it be fair to put two #3 seeds into the same section such that your section in the second session had no top seed?
July 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
i can watch as many tables as I choose. using bbo web and shrinking windows on a larger monitor.

in this quarter the quality of play markedly deteriorated after it took an hour at his table to finish 3 boards.

As much a ‘homer’ as I am for teams with all U.S. players you almost think about not rooting for the boys.

The Zimmerman quarter ended while Joel's table was still on bd 8 I think.
July 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Does Joel know that bridge is a timed event?

Ruins the vugraph experience and must be maddening for his opps as well.
July 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner had the opportunity to pass instead of bidding diamonds
Or double before bidding diamonds
Then sitting for the double would be automatic.
When it is clear that the unusual NT likely has only shape (LHO opened and RHO took a free call over 2N) the 3 call, imo, suggests a sacrifice.
A jump to 4 followed by a double could be a trap laid by partner forcing the opponents into the last guess and pulling would be simply wrong.
imo, 3 is the only call encouraging a sacrifice.
July 27
.

Bottom Home Top