[pclayton]

Anyone else getting sick of some of the 'contributors' to the NABC Daily Bulletins bragging about the accomplishments of their clients?

[TimG]

pclayton, on Mar 11 2008, 12:04 PM, said:

Anyone else getting sick of some of the 'contributors' to the NABC Daily Bulletins bragging about the accomplishments of their clients?

I noticed one this morning (though I don't remember the names).

I don't have much opinion in the matter, but that's probably because I stopped reading most of the hand reports a long time ago. But, if it makes the pros and clients happy, I don't think it is a big deal. The amount of bridge reporting that happens would be severely reduced if the submissions could make no mention of one's own good play or partner's good play.

[keylime]

Phil,

I frankly want to barf over the self-promotion admittedly.

[han]

Come on Phil, that doesn't qualify as rant. How about this:

Anyone else getting sick of some of the 'contributors' to the NABC Daily Bulletins bragging about the accomplishments of their clients? Well I am! Every morning I wake up and the first thing that I do is get myself the new bulletin to see if any nice plays have been made. And what do you think? 99% of the time it's some f*cking pro who posts some ridiculously obvious play made by their f*cking client. Of course, the only reason they do this is to please their client, who probably can't see that they get laughed at behind their back by the same pro. I find this so annoying! The worst of it is that sometimes the actual nice plays that get made, like the one submitted by my partner yesterday, don't make it to the bulletin because the editors think that PLEASING THE CLIENTS IS GOOD FOR BRIDGE. Well let me tell you, if any of those clients can find the trump squeeze that I found yesterday then I will EAT EVERY F*CKING BULLETIN OF THIS WHOLE CHAMPIONSHIP!!!!!


Now that Phil, that is a rant.

[pclayton]

han, on Mar 11 2008, 09:15 AM, said:

Come on Phil, that doesn't qualify as rant. How about this:

Anyone else getting sick of some of the 'contributors' to the NABC Daily Bulletins bragging about the accomplishments of their clients? Well I am! Every morning I wake up and the first thing that I do is get myself the new bulletin to see if any nice plays have been made. And what do you think? 99% of the time it's some f*cking pro who posts some ridiculously obvious play made by their f*cking client. Of course, the only reason they do this is to please their client, who probably can't see that they get laughed at behind their back by the same pro. I find this so annoying! The worst of it is that sometimes the actual nice plays that get made, like the one submitted by my partner yesterday, don't make it to the bulletin because the editors think that PLEASING THE CLIENTS IS GOOD FOR BRIDGE. Well let me tell you, if any of those clients can find the trump squeeze that I found yesterday then I will EAT EVERY F*CKING BULLETIN OF THIS WHOLE CHAMPIONSHIP!!!!!


Now that Phil, that is a rant.

Down boy, down.

[awm]

I've heard from several different sources that there is often a shortage of material for these articles.

While I agree, in principle, with Phil's complaint... I think the simple solution is to submit hands you or your partner played well (or encourage your friends to do the same). I don't think there is really bias in which hands get included -- I think in the time I've played with him Sam Ieong has submitted two hands and both made it to the Bulletin; in fact I suspect few reasonable hands get excluded.

There'd be much more reason for complaint if (as Hannie suggests in his "rant" which likely does not reflect real experience) actual nice plays were being turned down for the bulletin in order to highlight the clients.

[han]

No, my post does not reflect real experience. In fact, I don't care and I don't know any squeezes, let alone trump squeezes.

[TimG]

I used to edit a Daily Bulletin for New England Regionals. I know it is very different that an NABC. But, I received very, very, very, few submissions. By this I mean that it was an unusual regional when there was as much as a single submission. And, some of the submissions were of the my-opponents-did-something-crazy-and-we-collected-1100 type (i.e. inappropriate for publishing).

I suspect the NABC Bulletin editors are thankful for any submissions they receive and that they publish almost 100% of those that are appropriate.

[keylime]

Han,

Dare I say, epic.

[finally17]

keylime, on Mar 11 2008, 01:25 PM, said:

Han,

Dare I say, epic.

Come on Dwayne, that doesn't qualify as epic. How about this:

[Epic rant thought better of and deleted]
[Really I was just too lazy to come up with something epic]

[jchiu]

pclayton, on Mar 11 2008, 05:17 PM, said:

han, on Mar 11 2008, 09:15 AM, said:

Come on Phil, that doesn't qualify as rant. How about this:

Anyone else getting sick of some of the 'contributors' to the NABC Daily Bulletins bragging about the accomplishments of their clients? Well I am! Every morning I wake up and the first thing that I do is get myself the new bulletin to see if any nice plays have been made. And what do you think? 99% of the time it's some f*cking pro who posts some ridiculously obvious play made by their f*cking client. Of course, the only reason they do this is to please their client, who probably can't see that they get laughed at behind their back by the same pro. I find this so annoying! The worst of it is that sometimes the actual nice plays that get made, like the one submitted by my partner yesterday, don't make it to the bulletin because the editors think that PLEASING THE CLIENTS IS GOOD FOR BRIDGE. Well let me tell you, if any of those clients can find the trump squeeze that I found yesterday then I will EAT EVERY F*CKING BULLETIN OF THIS WHOLE CHAMPIONSHIP!!!!!


Now that Phil, that is a rant.

Down boy, down.

Werf! Werf! Werf!

[foo]

TimG, on Mar 11 2008, 12:34 PM, said:

I used to edit a Daily Bulletin for New England Regionals.  I know it is very different that an NABC.  But, I received very, very, very, few submissions.  By this I mean that it was an unusual regional when there was as much as a single submission.  And, some of the submissions were of the my-opponents-did-something-crazy-and-we-collected-1100 type (i.e. inappropriate for publishing).

I suspect the NABC Bulletin editors are thankful for any submissions they receive and that they publish almost 100% of those that are appropriate.

Hear Hear.

Barry Rigel is a very approachable fellow. Give him better material if you do not like what you are seeing.

OTOH, I think I smell some inappropriate elitism, or perhaps sour grapes for not getting their pet article published, here.

Did not one of the recent Detroit NABC DB have an article where Declarer set up a Stepping Stone Squeeze? Just how high level are you looking for?

The reality is that the Bulletin is intended for an audiences where most readers do not know such esoteric techniques. Nor are they interesting to that level of player.

It should also be noted that the reason such technique is so impressive is at least partly because the situations for them are =rare=. You could easily play every Regional and NABC of a year and never see the board position for a Stepping Stone.

That rarity also has the direct implication that these esoteric techniques, while definitely fun and the mark of true expert card playing ability, are NOT often the deciding factor in how often one wins events or scores well.

So if you want more articles on things like trump squeezes and Stepping Stones, or the equivalent defensive issues, what you are really asking for is a new section in the Bulletin called something like "for experts and expert wanna be's only". Said section will have a difficult time finding material appropriate to it and only be of interest to a small minority of players.

But people should talk to Barry and the other Bulletin editors about it if they feel strongly about it.

[joshs]

Well,

I have tried to submit hands but:
a. I can't ever find the bulleton room
b. If I do find it, I can't find someone to submit to
c. there is no published email to submit to, so I usually need to email someone, who knows someone, who....

[TimG]

joshs, on Mar 14 2008, 12:03 PM, said:

Well,

I have tried to submit hands but:
a. I can't ever find the bulleton room
b. If I do find it, I can't find someone to submit to
c. there is no published email to submit to, so I usually need to email someone, who knows someone, who....

I bet a director could point you in the right direction. But, your point that it could be made easier is probably a good one.

[cherdano]

joshs, on Mar 14 2008, 11:03 AM, said:

Well,

I have tried to submit hands but:
a. I can't ever find the bulleton room
b. If I do find it, I can't find someone to submit to
c. there is no published email to submit to, so I usually need to email someone, who knows someone, who....

Pick up a daily bulletin, and look for the NEW LIFE MASTERS. They always mention where to find them to report about new life masters. I guess reporting new life masters is the most important function of the bulletin, after all.

[han]

I think cherdano is jealous, he is not a life master.

[TimG]

Yeah, I can attest to the fact that new life masters will find a way to report this to the Bulletin editor. Also new Bronze Life Masters, Silver Life Masters, etc.

[pclayton]

Dammit foo, you're putting me in a bad mood before my plane leaves for Detroit...

Quote

OTOH, I think I smell some inappropriate elitism, or perhaps sour grapes for not getting their pet article published, here.

I've never submitted an article, but maybe I'll try. Elitism? Yeah, I'm the asshole here.

Quote

Did not one of the recent Detroit NABC DB have an article where Declarer set up a Stepping Stone Squeeze?  Just how high level are you looking for?

The reality is that the Bulletin is intended for an audiences where most readers do not know such esoteric techniques.  Nor are they interesting to that level of player.

Foo, once again you exhibit you can't maintain a thought for more than 10 seconds. These thoughts completely contradict each other.

Quote

Mindless rambling follows....

[foo]

pclayton, on Mar 14 2008, 02:38 PM, said:

Dammit foo, you're putting me in a bad mood before my plane leaves for Detroit...

Quote

OTOH, I think I smell some inappropriate elitism, or perhaps sour grapes for not getting their pet article published, here.

I've never submitted an article, but maybe I'll try. Elitism? Yeah, I'm the asshole here.

Quote

Did not one of the recent Detroit NABC DB have an article where Declarer set up a Stepping Stone Squeeze?  Just how high level are you looking for?

The reality is that the Bulletin is intended for an audiences where most readers do not know such esoteric techniques.  Nor are they interesting to that level of player.

Foo, once again you exhibit you can't maintain a thought for more than 10 seconds. These thoughts completely contradict each other.

Quote

Mindless rambling follows....

I was more picking on Han than you.

Han's rant was aimed at trivial play by clients while his more deserving trump squeeze was not published.

He then went on to complain about the overall low level of bridge in the Bulletin articles. I countered that by mentioning the recent Stepping Stone article, and noted that such hands are both rare...

...and that "trick plays" like trump squeezes and Stepping Stones are not of interest to the average Bulletin reader. For good reason.

Thus if folks like Han want more such articles
1= they have to go out of their way to provide them
2= they have to realize they are a small minority of the readership
3= it will probably require setting up a special section in the Bulletin for them.

There is no contradiction except perhaps in your mind.