[dburn]

Article discovered in the Toulouse Daily Bulletin circa 1640:

I have discovered a truly marvellous stepping-stone squeeze operated by my partner, but unfortunately the margin of this bulletin is not large enough to report it.

[hrothgar]

dburn, on Mar 17 2008, 05:04 PM, said:

Article discovered in the Toulouse Daily Bulletin circa 1640:

I have discovered a truly marvellous stepping-stone squeeze operated by my partner, but unfortunately the margin of this bulletin is not large enough to report it.

Somehow I doubt that the pursuit of said squeeze will inspire quite as much effort as Fermat's theorem...

[vuroth]

dburn, on Mar 17 2008, 09:04 AM, said:

Article discovered in the Toulouse Daily Bulletin circa 1640:

I have discovered a truly marvellous stepping-stone squeeze operated by my partner, but unfortunately the margin of this bulletin is not large enough to report it.

[FrancesHinden]

Well I can't speak for ACBL bulletin editors, but as both a contributor to EBU bulletins and the editor of our county magazine I can tell you that:

- Every hand I have ever submitted to a bulletin has been published, with topics varying from criss-cross and more obscure squeezes to amusing beer card hands. None has ever involved either a named professional nor a named client.

- Many of them have subsequently appeared in newspaper columns (where do you think columnists get their material?)

- As editor, I publish virtually everything I get sent. I wish I was sent more. I think in total I have rejected 1 article out of all the unsolicted submissions so far, and that was because it i) had no bridge merit nor interest, and ii) did not involve anyone from the county. I spend half my time trying to persuade people to write things.

It is true that in published articles I have rarely seen a named client make a particularly poor play.

[JoAnneM]

cherdano, on Mar 14 2008, 05:40 PM, said:

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.

Well this is very condescending. It's a shame that some of you were never non-life masters and didn't experience the thrill of becoming one. Of course you were all too cool to want anyone to know when you made it, and when you make Diamond, Platinum or any of the other steps I assume you will make sure that will not be announced either.

[TimG]

JoAnneM, on Mar 24 2008, 11:20 AM, said:

Well this is very condescending. It's a shame that some of you were never non-life masters and didn't experience the thrill of becoming one. Of course you were all too cool to want anyone to know when you made it, and when you make Diamond, Platinum or any of the other steps I assume you will make sure that will not be announced either.

I did not experience a thrill when I became a life master. I did not even know when it happened. When I got my point confirmation card, I did figure out what points put me over -- turns out I won the points in the consolation of a regional Swiss (yes, there used to be a finals and a consolation in many regional Swisses).

[awm]

I remember getting life master because it involved a crazy situation in a sectional tournament. I had a team of four and we were all playing a strong diamond system. We were all college students and wanted to play against good opposition. Unfortunately, we discovered on arrival that the swiss wasn't stratified -- it was flighted/bracketed (so everyone was put into groups by masterpoint holding and played a round robin). We requested to play up, but were put in the bottom bracket anyway. Then the first round, our opponents complained that we were playing a weird bidding system. The directors conferred, told us that even though our methods were general chart legal, we should not be playing them in the bottom bracket of the event. My response to this was: "this situation is your fault, we requested to play up" -- the directors realized that this made some sense and quickly shuffled us into the next higher bracket.

Anyways, I think getting life master is a thrill for some folks. Obviously the title probably sounds like more than it is (in fact almost everyone at the local club is a life master, even people who clearly have never had a clue about the game) but bridge has done a good job providing incentives to players who are unlikely to ever be top flight.

[pclayton]

Getting my LM was a big deal 20 years ago when it really meant something.

I'm being a little elitist here. For many run of the mill players, this will likely be their lifetime achievement and we should not belittle it.

[matmat]

I find the concept of masterpoints to be rather silly. They'd be more worthwhile if i could trade them in for something useful, like a toilet brush or a music player.

Does the bulletin really not have a catch-all email address one can send hands to?

[TimG]

pclayton, on Mar 24 2008, 12:30 PM, said:

Getting my LM was a big deal 20 years ago when it really meant something.

I think you have to go back a little bit further than that. I became a life master in ~1990 and then, as now, you could win all the gold points you needed in Flight B events. You could even do it in Flight C events (if you stuck to the GNT and NAP) though it would take a bit longer. In my opinion, a meaningful life master title would include a requirement of success against open competition.

[TimG]

matmat, on Mar 24 2008, 12:35 PM, said:

Does the bulletin really not have a catch-all email address one can send hands to?

Not everyone has the means to send e-mail while attending a bridge tournament. I know that unless there are free internet terminals in the hotel lobby, I seldom have internet access when I travel.

[JoAnneM]

Thank you, pclayton. At the San Francisco NABC, on the first day, in the I/N room they had set up for about 60 tables. I forget exactly how many but it was around 175 tables that showed up. The I/N programs at most tournaments are flourishing and these are the future of bridge. I am very happy to see it.

I take great pleasure in playing with someone who is on their way to Life Master, and the most fun of all is being at the table with them when they go over. I try to keep them out of the knock-out so it will mean something but the draw is very strong. At least the points are being evened out a "little bit".

Back to the topic of the thread, since pro's are promoting themselves with these articles maybe they should pay for them - as ads. ACBL can use any money it can get.

[mycroft]

I/M games are the future of our game - provided that the numbers aren't artifically maintained. Then they're the death.

I assume this has been fixed by now, but 10 years ago, a district's I/N numbers were staggering. Incredible, in fact. That's because the I/N coordinator instilled fear of those evil open players, and you want to play where it's nice and comfortable. Keeps the table count up, but none of them migrated into the open game.

Of course, what also happened was they learned a lot of bad habits that work against I/N, and when they finally got their 200/300, they were butchered in the open. A lot. So they stopped playing. That's assuming they actually played the open at all to get butchered, still in fear of those evil open players.

It's not the I/N table count that matters for the future of bridge; it's the count of I/N that stay playing when they migrate out. Even if they do it one game each sectional and go back to their I/N the rest of the time.

[jtfanclub]

mycroft, on Mar 24 2008, 02:13 PM, said:

I/M games are the future of our game - provided that the numbers aren't artifically maintained. Then they're the death.

I assume this has been fixed by now, but 10 years ago, a district's I/N numbers were staggering. Incredible, in fact. That's because the I/N coordinator instilled fear of those evil open players, and you want to play where it's nice and comfortable. Keeps the table count up, but none of them migrated into the open game.

Sorry for going even further off-topic...

I don't understand why only people with 299 points or less can play in 299er events. Let anybody play in them, but only pairs where both players have under 300 points count for masterpoints and rankings (so if you came in 4th, but the top three all had a 300+er on them, then you'd come in first and get the points for it). Since you can't get masterpoints any more for playing in them, I would hope the only people who would take advantage would be 299er graduates who aren't ready for the big time and mentors.

ACBLScore is already set up for this, since if you have an odd number of pairs in a 299er event you can add a strong pair and have them not count.

[Elianna]

JoAnneM, on Mar 24 2008, 09:45 AM, said:

ACBL can use any money it can get.

I've seen several people say this, but ACBL also gives away money to charities. This seems rather incongruous (that ACBL is either a charity, or gives to charities, but why both?)

Sorry for continuing the digression off topic.

[JoAnneM]

Huh?? ACBL only gives money to charities that its players have donated.

[jmc]

When I first started playing I played in the 0-20 beginer duplicate and the 0-200 limited games. After a year I rarely ever or never played in those games, but I noticed a funny thing: I never saw the players I met in the limited games anymore. I figured they'd quit or didn't play much. I was playing tons. Then I went back and played in those games when my dad started playing. It was all the same people. They just didn't play the open games.

I then noticed that the floor for the limited games started going up. 0-200 became 0-500, which soon became 0-1000. The directors didn't want to lose their players or the income, or both. They have no worry about people moving from the open games down now that the ceiling has increased because most open players dont care and they don't publicise the increase.

This trend does not seem good for bridge in the local area. I mean seriously 0-1000? I try and play in one of these games a few times a year as a protest to the increasing floor. I figure if they get tired of playing against weak nt, precision, etc. that some of the players will demand protection again and the floor might drop back to 0-500 or something reasonable.

Jonathan

[jtfanclub]

jmc, on Mar 25 2008, 03:04 PM, said:

This trend does not seem good for bridge in the local area.

Why?

[olegru]

JoAnneM, on Mar 24 2008, 12:45 PM, said:

Thank you, pclayton. At the San Francisco NABC, on the first day, in the I/N room they had set up for about 60 tables. I forget exactly how many but it was around 175 tables that showed up. The I/N programs at most tournaments are flourishing and these are the future of bridge. I am very happy to see it.

I have funny experience with limited game.
During the NABC in NY (2004) I asked if I can play in I/N game with my 6 year old son.
Of cause my concern was that boy having just a very few ideas how to play will create too many ridicules results and corrupt game for other participants.
Answer was NOT. We can’t play because … I have too many masterpoints. But we can play in Open
PS Now my 10 year old son does not ask me to play bridge anymore.

[jmc]

jtfanclub, on Mar 25 2008, 02:20 PM, said:

jmc, on Mar 25 2008, 03:04 PM, said:

This trend does not seem good for bridge in the local area.

Why?

If people feel that they should remain always in limited events, they never progress into "adult" bridge players. They get used to the sandbox and never want to play in the open games. This hinders the growth and continuation of real bridge. I just noticed the San Diego sectional has a 0-499'r pairs. 499'r?!? These are people point shy of life master and they can't play in an open game? stunning.