Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Martin Fleisher
1 2 3 4 5 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is true that the person who asked is quite close to an influential board member. That person argued strenuously against the rule change.
June 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The original request was from a woman who wanted to play with her husband in the mixed but didn’t want to lose her chance in the women’s to do so.
Perhaps she was looking for an extra paycheck, but that was not the impression of the board.
June 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And to the best of my knowledge it has not.
June 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
all teams are fully funded
June 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve, this is simply not possible. For one, the open and seniors take more than a week. and a seperate week cannot be allocated to the women's alone–the field is too small. However, there is at least one committee focused on these scheduling issues. I'm sure they would welcome your joining. Please let me know and I can add you as a member.
June 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Adam, I don't understand. Anyone who wins Open cannot enter a new event or be added to another team under current rules. Are you suggesting that some players cannot enter a new event even if they lose in the open?
June 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
BTW, I am the only open sponsor involved in this and I was against there being an exception for the open.
May 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Because there were people who preferred to play in the seniors, for example. Karen macullum won the women's but prefers to play in the seniors if she wins that.
If there were some obviously correct answer we would have come to that.
May 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have no problem with people disagreeing with the ultimate decision.(I'm not saying that we could have been better about publicizing the forums.) But dozens of people spent countless hours on this issue.
Anyone who feels that the answers are so simple that any rational person would come to the same conclusion as they have should just lie down until that feeling goes away.

By the way, no one on the USBF board has entered multiple trials.
May 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Per jeff Meckstroth's comment:
1. Winners of the open trials were not eligible for a future event
2. Even, if #1 were not true, if Jeff won the senior trials he would be ineligible to play in the Bermuda Bowl. I presume his team would be unhappy about this …
May 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The USBF made this decision after the rule change was requested by a member. It was debated at the technical committee level, then by the board on several occasions. There was a forum on bridge winners where everyone could weigh in and vote. If you were going to be outraged by this, you had your chance.
May 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Between now and then we plan to have a good time and win a few events.
March 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hampson-Greco told me that they will be playing with the Nickell team as of July 2020. This was very disappointing as they are great players and terrific teammates and friends.
We are thrilled, however, that Thomas Bessis and Frederick Volcker have agreed to join Chip Martel, Brad Moss, Joe Grue and me.
March 5
Martin Fleisher edited this comment March 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's strange that the ACBL singles out the NAP and GNT as things in which players not in good standing cannot compete. Why can those players enter, say, the platinum pairs and the Vanderbilt.
Jan. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This really is a terrific article max!
Jan. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In 2013, I was POY with 746. This year, 5th with 809.
Dec. 6, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Congratulations to a great player and teammate.
Dec. 6, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
ok, this is my last response to this sort of thing. I frankly no longer care about the substance of the issue. But I totally object to all this griping. the numbering below corresponds to the mike's post.
1. No, we did know about this procedure. I think it would be a good idea if Mike or Peter briefs each new board on these long-standing procedures.
2. see 1. I doubt active members even know the ITC exists.
3. we responded to what we believed members wanted and our judgement what was good for bridge. If you would like to be on the board you can certainly now have my spot.
4. what makes you think it was a rush? we spent lots of time on it. this is the same as 1.
Nov. 9, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
why would we have changed them if not in response to requests of the players? So that brad could drop off our team if we win and play in something else (now that you mention it, Joe said he liked playing with Anam . . .)
Nov. 9, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If Mike wants to argue that doing what we did violates the USBF bi-laws I'm ok with that (but this doesn't I'm sure). But to say that we shouldn't have done it because of some agreement between an old USBF board and ITTC and embodied in minutes during the founding of the republic makes no sense to me. I'm happy to have a discussion about substance but not about precedent.
Nov. 9, 2018
1 2 3 4 5 6
.

Bottom Home Top