Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Barry Dehlin
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This rule creates a fascinating incentive for the ACBL.

Getting ONE additional team beyond 64 creates an extra day of play and an extra day of revenue. This would mean at a minimum $6500 (assuming all teams have only 4 and only one extra team beyond the 64) beyond what a field of exactly 64 would produce.

If they are nearing the sign-up deadline and are close to but not quite at 64, they should be offering passers-by big money to form an ad-hoc team and push them over the line.
March 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm shocked that “Winning multiple national championships” is the leading vote-getter. How does someone who wins 3 national championships in Lithuania automatically make the “world class” cut?

(With due apologies to Lithuania…I could use any non-elite bridge nation to make the same point).
March 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
GF hands with 4/6m would Stayman and then bid the minor if no heart fit was found. So 8-card fit is guaranteed.
March 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Because bidding 2, 3, and finally 3 to show your rough (but accurate) shape gets you perilously high in bidding space…and you still don't have your full strength off your chest. Some clearly believe it's worth misleading partner a bit on shape to get accurate level of strength across at a lower level. I fully recognize that there are drawbacks, and it may well work out poorly.
March 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would need to know whether “standard Australian methods” include the possibility of opener raising on 3 spades before I made any of the decisions over 2S.
Feb. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Link doesn't appear to work. Can someone please relay further details…Who were the identified cheaters? What was the event? Who organized it?
Feb. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Golf seems a poor comparison, as the golfer is playing against a constant (the course), yet bridge players are playing against a changing field as it gets whittled down in size. It's certainly possible for a reduction in carryover to be too much, but the concept of de-emphasizing results obtained while playing against the broader/weaker field makes sense to me.
Feb. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, I would rather open 2N than 1N.
Feb. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How much of the data that is fundamental to the ratings comes from the ACBL? My understanding is that participating clubs send club results directly to the ratings operation. I guess ACBL must be involved in sharing tournament results (fundamental), and masterpoint totals (NOT fundamental to ratings), but seems like the majority of data may come from clubs.
Jan. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have referred to these ratings regularly for years, and am confident that for intermediate/advanced/low-expert levels they are reasonably accurate measures of general bridge skill (when enough data is present).

I have used them for all of the following:

1. A useful (if perhaps slow/lagging) measure of my own improvement, or lack thereof.

2. To assess the strength of potential opponents in situations where I was not familiar with the field (e.g. going to national GNT competition).

3. At partnership desks, I've referenced the ratings by phone to assess potential fits for individual players, or other pairs for teams.

If the website stays dark, I will most off thank Chris Champion for putting out such a useful tool for as long as he did with no apparent compensation. But I will also regret/mourn the loss.
Jan. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Jeff B,

I understand why tournaments that offer Gold Rush events need to limit themselves to players w/ 750 MP, but why do you do so in your club? If you think that a different threshold makes more sense to “keep a community together”, why not offer your 3rd-tier club game using that new threshold?
Jan. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't understand how people can give meaningful answers without…
(a) seeing the full hand, especially club spots (KQT9xx is very different from KQxxxx), and
(b) knowing whether it's teams or pairs
Jan. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Can you please share the evidence? Or cite the article?
Dec. 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mine doean't, but others' answers might vary depending on whether you're in a one- or a two-winner movement.
Dec. 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Correct. Edited so hopefully is more clear.
Dec. 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As ONE general strategy to improve the bottom line of bridge tournaments (not just NABCs), I think the concept of price discrimination is sound. But I don't think most of the “price discrimination” ideas suggested so far are the right approach.

Price discrimination is everywhere, but a version with explicit price INCREASES based on demonstrated income (or a proxy) is seen practically nowhere. I suspect most customers would see this as “unfair” and it would do more harm than good.

Instead, you'll much more often see price discrimination based on discounting, using characteristics that are rough proxies for price sensitivity (willingness to clip coupons, discounts for certain age or other demographic groups, etc.). Maybe we should be pairing our future NABC session increases with more extensive discounting targeted at those likely to be more price-sensitive (youth, locals, those willing to fill in volunteer roles at the last minute, out-of-towners willing to do volunteer work…probably many more and better ideas others would have).

Additionally, we could look at the “premium offering” sub-strategy of price discrimination…where willing customers (usually higher-income, but not necessarily always) are induced to pay more for a product or service that is ostensibly “better” than the baseline offer, but where the increased price likely overwhelms the incremental cost involved. It's too late for me to think creatively, so I'll just ask smart people here…what would a “concierge” approach to a bridge session or tournament look like, and what do we think the targeted subset be willing to pay for it?

I also really want to emphasize that the cost-cutting measures people are suggesting as “alternatives” should really NOT be thought of as alternatives to the revenue-enhancing price discrimination ideas. They are separate decisions that should be made on a separate track. It's certainly possible that some version of both ideas make sense…or neither. But they are separate discussions.
Nov. 30, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To clarify, E can show SOME void, but the 5N bid wouldn't specify which one.
Oct. 29, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Do you not get the sense that this will be one of those sequences coupled with long trances and much (metaphorical) much furrowing of brows with anxiety and perplexity.”

This is a good description of the auction as it actually happened.
Oct. 28, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For what it's worth, 5N in our partnership would/should have been pick a slam.
Oct. 28, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top