Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Peg Kaplan
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 453 454 455 456
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Daytona. (Guessing, Debbie. Some of these regionals might not HAVE team events, though, there are so many tournaments during that time frame…)

I share your concerns, too. Many regionals today are a fraction of the size SECTIONALS were when I started going to tournaments!!
Aug. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Out of tempo or not, I've got an ACE where I might have had nothing of value. Cannot imagine pulling this…
Aug. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tom; I sure wanted to do that! But - didn't think it was kosher….
Aug. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I were to share all my views of how talented AND fine young men Adam and Zach are, Bridgewinners would run out of space.

So let me simply congratulate these two amazing brothers on their exceptional accomplishments - with one extra gold star to Zach for taking over Justin's impressive achievement. WAY beyond VWD!!
Aug. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No, I am not saying that, Ray. I am saying that it is better to have x number of people who are not members attending a tournament and playing for a number of sessions with a modest ($2?) upcharge rather than very few people without memberships attending at all, or those who would play more playing one day only due to a large upcharge.

And again; some of the people I know who no longer have memberships do not because of significant frustrations with certain aspects of the League. I know it is far easier said than done. But perhaps if some significant improvements could be made to such issues, we would be able to attract more people to become members. A side issue to the surcharge, to be sure. But one that I think might well make THIS issue less significant.
Aug. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kevin, if you wished to include only activities that required indoor space or staffing, then you should have mentioned it. I responded to your question about what you could do for $5.50/hour.

And in any case, some of the items I mentioned do indeed have indoor space and/or staffing. And some of those items are $5.50 (or less) for more than one hour - or free.

But - as I mentioned before - part of the issue is making bridge as attractive as possible - and the other part is fairness. Charging people that much more for an entry fee because they choose not to be an ACBL member in my view likely costs the League more than it gains.
Aug. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jim, to some degree, you are raising another issue. Essentially you are commenting about what might happen in a club game, or an I/N sectional, etc. etc. You are correct that I do believe that we should have at least “2 levels of players” with different standards, rules, etc. for each level.

But - while I could be wrong - I did not think that Yu was inquiring about what would happen in a 49er game.

“Standard” would be fine for me in these entry level situations or club games (though I myself would actually notify customers if a club game was “expert level” or “social” etc…)

But for those who play somewhat more serious or advanced levels of the game, I would think that they would respond with what their agreements are, and not “standard”.

As we can see from what happened to Yu, her “standard” was not the same as what her opponents think it is. Much easier if they state WHAT it is when she asks, rather than (potentially) needing a director to sort things out after the fact…
Aug. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And some don't, Jim. I still think it's better then to say “never discussed” than “standard”.
Aug. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm sure that (yet again) I am being dumb. But - aren't you really supposed to say something like “we lead the king from AK or KQ and the queen from KQ109 - or KQ10x(x)” etc. etc.

“Standard” can be one thing for one pair and something else for another.

So explain what your understandings are for such a lead - assuming that you do have an agreement about this.
Aug. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think that there is a “standard” lead. And in any case, to weigh what I think the BEST lead is, I surely would need to look at the rest of my hand.

Clearly with no other bids, I don't see how one can make a choice without knowing all 13 cards.
Aug. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually I did mean what I stated. Perhaps I should have added that this is due to the fact that others must approve the changes, even if the committee feels they are appropriate.

I'm not 100% certain that last statement is accurate. But others are saying that it is so; I am assuming they are correct.

All that being said, you are correct that they can rewrite and correct …. but without the ability to show to the public without the OK from other entities, doing so would be moot.
Aug. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I prefer double. I can understand 3. But pass? That I do not get ….
Aug. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I want to make clear that I understand Wayne's points. I simply think that always achieving the ideal is not easy. And additionally, authors do not have the ability to rewrite and correct when they realize something could have been stated a bit more clearly.

So Wayne, I did not mean to disparage your statements. Only elaborating my opinion.

I did indeed, however, intend to agree that Stefan's comments were uncalled for.
Aug. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Wayne - the best players in the world sometimes make errors. And the finest and well intentioned people serving on committees don't always have ideal wording.

I'm not sure what the process is (or might be if not in place) for rewriting when something perhaps is not as clear as it might be. That being said, I agree with Mike Ma's statement about Stefan's unnecessary belittling of those on the committee.

Constructive criticism or positive suggestions are fine. Insulting others is not.
Aug. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael - one of the best posts ever on Bridgewinners! Thank you!
Aug. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would like “double” if it meant “I have a big hand; want you to know…”

But does it? I always play that it's just a hand with very good diamonds, some extras but not the sun, moon and stars.

Am I off base here? (Hmm; maybe not a question I should ask….)
Aug. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What can you do for $5.50 - or less?

Go to the cheapie theaters (we have them here; I assume most decent sized cities do) - have coffee with a friend, walk around a lake, bike, run, swim, play ANY card game at home with friends or family, other games, listen to music, volunteer for a good cause, work out at a health club (low cost ones or free if you are of a Certain Age), have people over to your home or go to theirs and socialize, go to a museum, attend your kid's ball game, window shop….

But in any case, what you can do for a modest amount of $$ really isn't the overall issue for the poster. It's more a combination of what value people are getting for their membership, are they happy with what the ACBL provides, its policies, etc. - and - are many willing to belly up to the bar and pay more than a modest surcharge for entry fees because they are not ACBL members.

I do not know the stats for this last issue (how much more they will pay). But my GUESS is that even if a surcharge were still in place, if it were not as much as it is now, more non-members might attend more tournaments. And if some of the other issues could be better addressed…. we might even get more people signing up for a membership.
Aug. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
East has 14 (or am I miscounting again?)
Aug. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve - people who come to a tournament do not get to play for free. They must pay the designated entry fee. And remember; I think many are willing to pay a modest surcharge if they are not a member. But today, the upcharge is not modest.

Also note; players who aren't members do not receive all that members do. No monthly Bulletin. No recording of masterpoints.

Plus - I cannot speak to why my friend and some others want to play bridge but not be members. Perhaps, however, if some time and energy were spent into discovering why some people feel this way, then more might sign up…

In any case - back to my original point. Seems to me better to have some of these people attending tournaments and paying $28 to $42 a day… than staying home.

No?
Aug. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Timo! What a tortuous problem!

This is one I do by elimination.

After a jump by partner, I think I have too much to pass.

I rule out 2 as I should have a much better suit than what I do have for this call.

I rule out 2; partner almost surely doesn't have 4 and I'm 5-4 in the majors…

Not raising to 3 with only 3.

So - what is left other than 2NT? Shows extras and a club stopper - both of which I have.

And hoping that the Silence of the Opposition means that partner has a few clubs in his possession, too.
Aug. 11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 453 454 455 456
.

Bottom Home Top