[jillybean]

Other than watching the occasional VG, I am not following the World Championships but this post on that other site did catch my attention

Kitty Munson Cooper said:
My thoughts on the current world championships:

Love bidding on tablets behind screens, so nice to not have trays.
Like that we all play the same boards at the same time so when you finish you can watch the table you are going to… problem though of too many people yelling at their partners in foreign languages … likely some understand and could get a wire.
Like having standings and seat assignments on large computer screens.
Like being able to print hand records and personal results via a scan of badge.

Dislike how little time there is between rounds, hard to get enough rest, this becomes an endurance contest favoring younger players.

Have any bridge organizations considered having fewer boards and longer breaks for senior events?



And cameras and screens at every table, allowing the Directors to verify events independantly.

[pescetom]

Bridge is coming home as a mind sport, now half way there

Trays and the related Laws are embarrassing by comparison.

And the emphasis on endurance is a deterrent not only to ageing players but to younger players who actually have a life/job/family too.

[jillybean]

"Trays and the related Laws are embarrassing by comparison."

How many boards/sets are these teams playing?

[paulg]

jillybean, on 2026-September-02, 09:04, said:

"Trays and the related Laws are embarrassing by comparison."

How many boards/sets are these teams playing?

In the teams events they are playing four 14-board sets per day.

The advantage of tablets for bidding, over trays, is that bids are made silently and delays are automatic.

[paulg]

pescetom, on 2026-September-02, 08:40, said:

And the emphasis on endurance is a deterrent not only to ageing players but to younger players who actually have a life/job/family too.

It is a World Championships so I think it is reasonable that each event runs for a few days. For example, the Open Teams runs for eight days which is only a day longer than comparable events at the ACBL Nationals.

The real deterrent to younger players is the cost of playing, cost of attending, as well as getting vacation days from work. I think we passed the point some time ago when the majority of players are sponsors, professionals or retired people.

Amateurs are few and far between and, in these events, are primarily retired locals.

[jillybean]

paulg, on 2026-September-02, 09:41, said:

In the teams events they are playing four 14-board sets per day.

The advantage of tablets for bidding, over trays, is that bids are made silently and delays are automatic.

Keep going, the benefits don't stop there.

paulg, on 2026-September-02, 09:51, said:

It is a World Championships so I think it is reasonable that each event runs for a few days. For example, the Open Teams runs for eight days which is only a day longer than comparable events at the ACBL Nationals.

The real deterrent to younger players is the cost of playing, cost of attending, as well as getting vacation days from work. I think we passed the point some time ago when the majority of players are sponsors, professionals or retired people.

Amateurs are few and far between and, in these events, are primarily retired locals.

Like any sport, the top levels are elitist and inaccessible to the majority of the population. For the vast majority of bridge players, these events do not serve them in any way.

On the bright side, I am thankful for some interesting hands to discuss here on the forums and thankfully, kibitzing is still "free"!

[paulg]

jillybean, on 2026-September-02, 10:51, said:

Like any sport, the top levels are elitist and inaccessible to the majority of the population. For the vast majority of bridge players, these events do not serve them in any way.

Unlike most sports, the top level is accessible to the majority of the population even if they only want a taste of the competition.

Any bridge player in good standing with their NBO can play in World Bridge Series and can play against the best players in the world. Particularly in the qualifying Swiss you may stand some chance of beating them! The same is true for the Spingold, Vanderbilt and other events.

In 2010 my amateur team won our qualifying group in the World Bridge Series (there were groups rather than qualifying Swiss): we were the only team in our group I'd never heard of and we played the World Pairs champions on vugraph.

It could be you! (as the advertising for our national lottery says)

[jillybean]

And the odds of that are something like 1 in 47,857,474

Yes, yes, as I discovered at the 2011 Seattle NABC Women's BAM!

Still, the costs to compete at this level make it prohibitive for most and I'm only talking about North America.
Realistically, the WBS is out of reach for most of us. Sure, we can go and play and have a great time, but it is not sustainable due to cost and time.

And there's no better feeling than beating the known players, at the local tournament or the WBS

[mycroft]

So, if someone would have to qualify for this event (say, by being USA II in the Seniors), they would be playing (using 2025 information, 2027 schedule or format isn't posted yet, and no qualification happens this year)

• 9 matches of 12 boards over two days (108 boards, I assume 60 the first day and 48 the second).
  
• Now, two cases:
  • If you make top 4, you get to continue in the USA I event, so 60 boards a day for two days.
    
  • If you don't make top 4, Stage 1 is 10 matches of 11 boards over the two days of the semi-final (55/day)
• Now, whether you're in the final of USA I or the quarters of USA II, 60 boards a day for two days, then
  
• another 4 days of 60 boards a day for the semis and the finals of USA II.

Similar timing and action (tablets and "screens"), and similar competition - at least they tell me the top 5 USA teams are as good as any in the world on the right day! Also note that this is the "nice" schedule - if they had had 13 teams (okay, say 14 - I'm sure they'd have tried to twist someone's arm to leave the tournament if there were an odd number, especially 13), then add two days to the schedule for the round-of-8.

Now, in this case, if the player in question wanted to play the Mixed as well, they've played *the exact same schedule* the previous week for USA I and II Mixed.

In exchange, we get the "strenuous and cramped" 4 sets of 14 for three days to qualify, then another 3 days of KO. So, 4 boards *less*/day, and 6 days instead of 10. Frankly, I'm surprised the final (at least) wasn't two days.

Tell me, did I see this gripe at the USBF seniors last year? Or just "the time for a round is too short, and we shouldn't get penalties for trying to play good bridge" (or, in one case - legitimate, even if they knew in advance and didn't test to confirm if it was a problem - "the extra time our blind player gets to deal with the tablets and the mouse wasn't enough")?

I mean, serious question. But if one is going to complain about seniors timing and endurance, I'd start with your NBO?

And of course, the counter-argument for "endurance" has always been "that's what 6-person teams are for".

(I will absolutely be on her side, however, about the lunch break. With 60 minutes for players, and dealing with that last table (and assessing late penalties, if any), cleaning up/checking/putting out the boards, and any of the other things that happen between sessions (thankfully no sales!), I can't imagine what the directors get. Maybe the team who make the boards are responsible for collecting and presenting, and the directors get a wind-down too. But with 9-hour days already, I can sure see "let's not make it any longer than we have to". Having said that, USBF rules would be similar timing (if I read the CoC right, 14x8 = 112 minutes per 15-board session, 20 minutes between sessions, longer lunch. WBF is giving 115 minutes for 14 boards.))

I'm high on bidding-on-tablets, too. Especially if the WBF uses the chess-clock (specifically, the "3 seconds Fischer") game the USBF has. I still don't understand how they handle skip-bid-pauses (surely, I'm allowed both to hide the fact I have something to think about from the opponents and give them time to bid in tempo (hiding a problem from me) from skip bids on the other side of the screen?) or system explanation/queries; but I assume they have thought it through better than I.

[mycroft]

Re: playing against the best:

One of the joys of bridge is that you *can* play against world champions, and every once in a while, in a short round, beat them, too. Happens all the time, in fact.

I would argue, however, that there *should be* some events where the barrier for entry is high ("elitist", if you will) and there is no "dead money". Even if that requires pre-qualification, invitational tournaments, or whatever. Frankly, given how bridge has been professionalized, it's fine if, for some events at least, "elitist" has the world meaning - the Cavendish in Monaco comes to mind here, as does (in a different way) The Big Game at TGRs or the Portland Club (or Blades, the fictional equivalent).

I will admit, that although I fit in that category (maybe somewhat less than a decade ago, but still), the number of bridge players that are "want to play against the best, at least some of the time, and have the time and money to do so" is really small. I'm taking odds on the number of people who complain that Flight B this weekend is back to its standard 1500 (we had a 0-750 event running concurrently, so B/C got raised to 2000/1000 from 1500/750) because they shouldn't have to play in A...