Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Richard Willey
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 144 145 146 147
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This comment has been marked as inappropriate by the moderator(s).
Nov. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1. I have heard multiple competing claims from the ACBL. It would be nice if they would make a public statement rather than forcing us to rely on hearsay.

2. The program that the ACBL advertised and the Compton's administered didn't seem to make any effort to pre-register participants. Indeed, from the sounds of things, they actively discouraged people from doing so. As such, having one family pre-register might be a data point, but it doesn't provide any useful information in evaluating how many people planned to use the program.

I would be much more interested in understand the ratio of ACBL National participants to child care use over time.

3. If there really was a single person planning to use the child care service, than it seems as if the ACBL could have avoided a massive black eye had they simply agree to eat the difference between the rate that they were advertising and the actual cost of hiring a baby sitter. What's an extra couple grand loss when the tournament is going to loose 500K+ already…
Nov. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> Facts please

Chris Compton and Jay Whipple both read and post on BW…

They are in a damn good position to provide facts.
And if they chose not to, that too is a useful data point…
Nov. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd also like to know whether the Quinns were registered for childcare given the ACBL's current claim that only one person had registered?
Nov. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Looks like a status quo appointment who can safely deliver the horse to the glue factory
Nov. 19
Richard Willey edited this comment Nov. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Its a brand new convention chart and an edge case.

I am happy that they responded with an answer that seems to make sense.
Nov. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Received a response

“As I read the convention charts, these bids would be illegal both under the Basic and Basic + charts, and legal under the Open and Open + charts. The only caveat there is that the range must not be greater than 9 HCP in 1st or 2nd seat. They do not fall under the category of requiring a suggested defense.”

The advice offered corresponds to my understanding of the new convention charts

I find it surprising - the abrupt transition from “inherently destructive, no defense will be approved” to “no defenses are necessary” seems abrupt

but what the hey…
Nov. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Here is my current understanding

1. Only if the event features segments whose length is six boards or greater

2. I am not aware of any pair games that feature 6+ boards per round, so this would suggest “no”

3. Depends on whether the event is using the Open+ Chart. If it is using the Open+ chart, it depends on the number of boards per round

4. Both a pre-alert and a written defense are required.

The key language from the new convention charts is


“7. In segments of fewer than 6 boards, an Artificial opening Preempt below 3NT that does not show at least one known suit.”

“Pre-alerts and Written Defenses
Two classes of methods are particularly difficult to defend against, and these methods are allowed only in events governed by the Open+ Chart, and then only in segments of six boards or longer. These methods, based on #3 or #7 of the Opening Bids section of the Open+ Chart, require both a pre-alert and a written defense.”
Nov. 18
Richard Willey edited this comment Nov. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> With players paying several weeks after they play, I could
> see frequent occurrences of the following:

Ever heard the expression fail early, fail often?

There is value to identifying players who are going to drift away after a trivial setback
Nov. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
FWIW, the ACBL later announced that they had revised their original opinion and that posting inside Bridgewinners are not subject to the ACBL's code of conduct.

While they refuse to drop the original slap on the wrist that I received they also claimed that they would not waste time and effort with similar prosecutions.
Nov. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> From this I assumed the ACBL CTO had some involvement
> in what is posted on the ACBL website. I'm open to correction.

Webmaster (webmaster@acbl.org)
Nov. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
then what, pray tell, was intended by his post?

Because to me, at least, it sounds like he is suggesting that there is some causal link between the ACBL not hiring a CTO and their inability to make a change to their web site…
Nov. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> Has a new CTO been hired by the ACBL?

Ray, do you have the slightest clue what a CTO does and how said job differs from, say, a webmaster?
Nov. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One minor quibble: You mention International Competition as a duty for the BoD.

I believe that it is better off if that devolves to the USBF.

A more interesting question is whether representation on various WBF Boards should also fall under the USBF's balliwick…
Nov. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> Why do you think these new players are being fleeced?

Because other people on this thread claimed that the value of the social players is to provide dues and table fees.

Moreover that we should not separate the two games because (presumably) we need said cash flow to subsidize the competitive game.

I'm beginning to believe that the costs of trying to reconcile the two user bases far out weigh the benefits.
Nov. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> Richard, we agree. However they pay dues and table fees.

1. Keeping a bunch of suckers around who only exist to be fleeced strikes me as morally objectionable

2. The dues and table fees that we collect aren't spent well or wisely. I think that the competitive game would be much better off transitioning to a smaller and more focused user base that can be sustained with a much smaller budget.
Nov. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> we have a majority of our failures from newcomers who
> play open games and feel horribly mistreated by players
> who prefer to concentrate on the game than socialize
> at the table.

> These newcomers haven't found enough fun and are not
> competitive enough to suffer through anything, let along
> behavior they are not equipped to understand.

I'm going to repeat my previous comment: I don't believe that the social players that are being created from the clubs are playing the same game as the competitive players who frequent the tournaments.

I think that the two systems have skewed enough from one another that trying to reconcile them is a waste of time and effort.
Nov. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> my point was ok ACBL sucks but rather than 100 people
> write this can we all start looking for a solution?

Randy, there is more than one problem here:

The “small” problem is that a bunch of ACBL members made the mistake of trusting the organization and got screwed over for it.

The “big” problem is a membership organization that appears to be grossly incompetent of managing its affairs.

You seem concerned with the first problem. I suspect that most of the discussion on this list is focusing on building consensus that something needs to be done to address the root cause.
Nov. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> If I had a choice, I'd also choose to have hundreds of
> 20 somethings with four-plus free hours on their hands
> three times a week and the ware-with-all to pay for
> those sessions.

> Sadly, I don't. But isn't that the province of online bridge?
> B&M clubs and Uday can certainly coexist.

Hi Jeff

I posed a couple questions to you:

1. What portion of your players transition from your club to playing tournaments?

2. What portion of these players continue to play once they have placed out of “Gold Rush” events?

Based on your response, I am guessing that the responses are (approximately) slim and none.

To me, at least, it sounds as high level tournaments, as represented by sectionals, regionals, and Nationals are now separate and distinct from the clubs. And, while I agree that the two types of games might be able to co-exist, its unclear to me whether there is any benefits to trying to co-ordinate between the two groups. In actuality, it feels as if trying to do so might be deleterious.

The conventions, regulations and even attitudes that are appropriate for competitive bridge don't seem as if they are useful for the social game and vice-versa. And IF, as you say, there is virtually now progression from the social game to the more competitive variant, why shouldn't we go our separate ways?
Nov. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> 60 Minutes is the perfect show for us. 60 year olds
> who still enjoy thinking. Almost my perfect
> target audience.

Jeff, 60 year olds may be the perfect audience for you to make money for club. I very much doubt that they are a good audience for the game of bridge.

Two simple questions:

1. What portion of your players transition from your club to playing tournaments?

2. What portion of these players continue to play once they have placed out of “Gold Rush” events?
Nov. 17
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 144 145 146 147
.

Bottom Home Top