Team Matches

[onoway]

I'm not sure if this belongs here but it looked the closest..

 

On Sunday, the IAC club ran two sessions of team matches. Both had had a fairly good number of people confirming they wished to play. However, when it came time to set tables, at the early session almost a third of the confirmed players did not show up. This led to a great deal of chaos and delay and two teams never did play, for which I apologise.

 

The later session was better, but still 2 players were no shows, one of whom has since apologised and explained. Now, we need to get some input as to how to deal with this, because obviously what we are doing now is not satisfactory for anyone, but since we have had such positive reactions from those who have played, we hate to cancel them.

 

Part of the problem may be that we were trying to make it possible for people who

may not have even a regular partner, to play in team matches, in the hopes that partnerships and friendships would develop. In a few cases that has happened in just two weeks. In other cases the groupings have not been so fortunate, but in probably 70% of the groups people are still looking to find their niche and the "team"membership is fluid. So no'"team captain" exists, because in fact, no team exists. I don't know if that has a large, little or no impact on whether or not a player turns up for his/her match.

 

so..if anyone has any ideas about how to deal with the absenteeism (why do people sign up, later confirm they are coming and then not show??) suggestions would be very welcome. I would hate to abandon this`whole effort

and shut the matches down, because of a few .

[vuroth]

Honestly, as one of the team captains, I really think the responsibility belongs with the teams, not the tournament director. You've volunteered your time and effort to put everything together.

 

The success or failure of the endeavour is really going to depend on the teams.

 

I know our team has been VERY happy with the team matches so far, and we appreciate the effort that has been put into them.

 

V

[peppygal]

Almost any new endeavor can run into obstacles. The IAC Team Challenge is a worthwhile project, I believe enthusiastically received. One method of dealing with no-shows may be to blacklist them (unless they have a good excuse) as some of the free tournaments do.

 

I would not like the team games to be eliminated and I believe the majority of the participants feel the same way.

[dee_dee_20]

I agree with vuroth, responsibility belongs with teams and a team captain is the first step. Teams must be encouraged to select a captain and a team name (mandatory even). Share e-mail addresses and use of BBO mail is also encouraged.

Players' responsibility is to inform their captain of their availibility and time slot, ie: 1:00 edt. or 8:00 edt. before Friday morning, log in 15 minutes prior to games time on Sunday, open a table in the IAC club, were they can all meet and discuss and be visible to the TDs that are setting up.

 

Now as this is not a perfect world ----* happens. So what do we do if we can't make it? We are adults, we are intelligent adult as we are all bridge players :).

So first step is to inform you captain as soon as possible and let your captain do his/her job.

 

Captain's responsibility is to find a sub within the group and if not successful then outside the group, can't find anyone willing and able? I think that would be almost impossible, as we have an extensive membership, use all the resources available and if you still can't find one ask THE CAPTAIN of another team if they have someone available. The reason I say the captain is that I have been asked by my own team mates permission to sub for another team as they feel their loyalty is to their team first. As a last resource, I feel that for the good of the TEAMS it is permissible. Hope this will be helpful Pam :) Keep up the good work!!! GO TEAMS!

[onoway]

One of the suggestions made privately was that someone from each "team" be responsible for coordinating with the captain of the opposing team which one of them would set the table for the match. Another suggestion was that teams be responsible for finding their own subs. Both would be enormously helpful in that the teams functioning as teams could then proceed and those of us presently involved with setting ALL the matches would be free to help with problems.

 

We are presently trying to figure out a way to do a group session on how to set up the tables for anyone interested..It isn't hard but there are a few points to go over and it takes too much time to do it individually.

 

The question still remains as to what to do about no shows for the people who may not have a large number of BBO friends to tap for subs. Yesterday I ended up looking for subs for the SUBS, which is just ridiculous and was when things were brought to a halt. To be fair, this is more of a problem for the advanced and advanced+ teams than for the intermediates. Few of the advanced groups are structured into any sort of team setup, but are mostly pairs who float as they are needed to fill the match, and a number of single players who get arbitrarilly tossed together. This makes it difficult to assign responsibility to anyone, but I am reluctant to say people HAVE to have partners or HAVE to have teams to participate. Part of the idea of these matches was to provide a place where people without either COULD be involved. Is this not a reasonable plan? Should we insist on at least a partner? Looking over the no shows it does seem as though they mostly are people who didn't register with a pard, but then some of the most cooperative people we have came in without pards, and would have been unable to play had that been a requirement.

[zasanya]

Why not register pairs, not teams and arrange matches for those pairs who report on time?The singles if there are 8 of them can be accomodated in a separate match.Otherwise they play in club and wait for some players to make up teams .

[TimG]

How long does it take to rearrange matches once you know for certain how many teams/pairs/individuals will show up? I would suggest a mandatory check-in 15 minutes prior to game time so that the organizers have an accurate count of entrants and can arrange the game from there (assuming 15 minutes is enough). Teams that miss the check-in could be included if accommodation is easy, otherwise a "sorry, the movements is set based upon the number of confirmed entries".

 

I think it is a fact of online life that some people will treat a sign-up as an intention to play, but not a commitment to play. I don't think your efforts will be served well by blacklisting any player who signs up and misses the game.

[onoway]

Theoretically we have a mandatory 15 minute lead check in time. In reality, when a team is there except one member is finishing a tourney elsewhere, or another has one person late, and another has gone to get a last minute coffee so they seem to be there but aren't it creates a good deal of difficulty..in two of these scenarios you don't know that someone is missing until the match is set and someone rejected by BBO.

 

This problem would be dealt with most effectively by having one of the two teams set the table for the match as then it wouldn't mess up all the other teams waiting for tables....when there are 5-10 matches waiting to set up it doesn't take much to cause a traffic jam

[jocdelevat]

nice idea to have team matches. the problem you encounter has no solution in my opinion. Always some players will not be present. I play in yahoo league (ladder league) and they organize team matches in BBO and they still have to deal with absence even players has to register to a web site to create teams and be able to participate.

By the way the only thing I do not like is to make an online friend which ambush me with questions like where do you live;how old are you; what's your job etc instead to play bridge and discuss about bridge. That's why I avoid to have a regular online bridge partner.

[kenberg]

Not having set up anything like this myself, I am not sure where the logjams are. However, here is a thought (along lines suggested by others).

 

15 minutes before, the team captain opens a "spot". Maybe the chat room could be efficiently used in this way. Or the bidding room. As his team arrives, they join him in the chosen spot, visible to the organizer..

 

 

As the time to play nears, he either does or does not have his team intact.

 

 

The organizer, Pam in this case, looks to see who has a team and who doesn't. She starts tables for the teams that are all together. I am assuming that starting a table for intact teams can be done fairly quickly if the organizer is not distracted by trying to deal with partially fielded teams. If this is not true then I am at a loss as to how to handle it unless the players can seat themselves.

 

 

So: The teams that are present are now seated and playing. Teams that have stragglers coming in can, after the on time teams have been seated, also be seated and matched if it is practical and if the organizer does not run out of patience.

 

The idea: Teams that arrive on time, ready to play, get seated and playing fairly quickly. Those who are only partially formed may or may not get to play. I see no reason to blacklist anyone (although I might if someone regularly says that they will play and often doesn't show) but it simply stands to reason that if a team is not ready to play when the game starts then the boat might sail without them.

 

The above is intended as a plan as I understand the software. But:

 

It would be great if teams could seat themselves while still playing within the event sponsored by the organizer. I have no idea whether this can be done. In f2f, there is a moment when teams are told to have their EW pair move to the corresponding table, sit down, play the hands. No one comes to help them sit down. If the software permits the online analog, great.

[peppygal]

One of the problems that can arise is an individual promising to appear and play, but for one reason or another cannot access an online. Sooner or later most people have problems with connectivity. But if this happens the team captain can set a deadline for his members to sign in, and if they are not there at the deadline the team captain should be allowed to find a sub elsewhere.

[onoway]

Lots of good ideas, thank you all. So, what we have looks something like this:

 

The teams CAN set themselves within the sponsorship of the club and I think that is the direction we will be going. Right now, it looks as though we will be asking each team to have at least one person who knows how to set tables. I will be online 45 minutes before the match to walk anyone who is not familiar with doing this, through the process. Fifteen minutes before start time, teams will be asked to go to the club and open a table with their team name, so we can see which teams are ready to go. Then the designated reps of opposing teams will set the table, one setting and the other providing the player names from his/her team. Director will either be one of the IAC volunteers or someone mutually agreed upon who is NOT playing and NOT connected with either team.

 

We will continue to ask teams/or pairs/OR individuals ( if not part of pair or team)to confirm that they intend to play by the Friday noon deadline, and will probably start to enforce that. That would solve the problem of looking for 3 more pairs on Sunday morning to fill out a match. We will also continue to do the matchups between the teams and post them in club news Saturday night or Sunday morning.

 

It would be extremely helpful if teams would bring their own subs, even if the subs just stayed until the match is underway and it seemed they would not be needed. It would be appreciated if the subs were consistent with the level of the other players in the match. Right now, we have set a limit of one advanced per playing intermediate team. The advanced can have anyone they want.

 

This would leave us free to help where needed, both before and during the matches. Have we missed anything? Does this sound better?

[neofito]

You want commitment that counts? Create a tournament; it generates a lot more interest, and team commitment.

[vuroth]

...and more work, on her part.

 

V

[onoway]

A round robin or full team tournament is a great idea for settled teams, and probably would generate more interest for some of the teams. It would require someone else to do the "bookkeeping" as that is beyond what I am able to do, for both time and expertise reasons. This arrangement would require a good deal of both, as far as I can see.

It would also mean that this would have to be a "subgroup" of the IAC TMs as these things have no provision for people who cannot or don't wish to have a regular time commitment, or who don't have regular teams. If someone else wants to take this on, it is certainly something which we can discuss. We certainly have no problem if teams wish to do something of the sort and use our Sunday sessions in which to play, and we would be happy to help run them. But at this point at least, we are not prepared to abandon the individuals and pairs who like to play in team matches and otherwise would be unable to do so.

[cdt]

Thanks Pam for taking on this wonderful idea and while I am unable to make a commitment to play on a team I can usually last miute sub in one of the time slots if needed.

[babalu1997]

There is one aspect that is being overlooked.

 

It is that team matches, just like tournaments can have co-directors.

 

The captain of a team maybe designated codirector with Pam.

 

What the members of our team did last week was to setup a table and wait with the designated partners.

 

Once the mebers of the second team arrive the deisgnated codirector may announce to the club and set the team match

 

Whi know, maybe they can even match at a later time of theur convenience if the captains of both teams agree.

 

To review:

 

Two teams will be matched ahead of time

 

The captains of both teams will agree to meet at a certain time during a period of seven days and report to the team match coordinator

 

they will report result to a a * team match coordinator*

 

they call the team match bboiac team match

[rq4mulae]

I think some of us are missing the real issue here. These are TEAM matches we're trying to run. So TEAMS are the consideration, not pairs or individuals. Therefore, TEAMS must be established as such, with captains selected to represent the TEAMS to the league/club and to be responsible for the participation of the TEAM.

 

Any pairs or individuals who are not on a team may either join an existing TEAM or form their own. This should be the only basis for inclusion, as pairs and individuals can play in the club at any time of their choosing. But TEAMS are to play at an appointed time & day. Furthermore, if captains arrange the matches, the director would only be needed to direct!

 

The remaining issue of fulfilling commitments should impact the TEAMS as TEAMS. We all play matches in competition. We have the Relaxed Bridge Club or Main Lounge to mess around in. For competion there needs to be rewards and penalties. For that reason, I believe the league needs to be set up in a ladder format. Not with a great deal of structure and formality and it's own website as Geof's league's had - which I miss greatly, but understand why they no longer exist.

 

The ladder needs to be no more than a heirarchical list of teams in Club News. Simple rules might be like no team can challenge down, and teams can challenge only up to 2 or 3 places above. Failure to be available to play results in a drop in rank, as does a forfeit for failure to show for a committed match. Standing otherwise would just be based on winning percentage, perhaps with IMP differentials as tie-breakers. (All teams start tied for #1 at the outset! So everybody can be #1 at least once in their life! :) )

 

Those TEAMS not playing will drift down to the bottom to rot - as they should. And perhaps a champion could be crowned after a period of time such as 6 months - and feted to a saucer of chocolate fish from hoki?

 

Is this proposal not sufficient?

Bob

[TimG]

Sort of like this?

 

It used to be very active, but doesn't appear to be anymore. You'll need to allow challenges more than 2 or 3 rungs up, otherwise you will have a very difficult time scheduling matches.

 

I think a great idea would be a team league night. Teams sign up by a certain hour and commit to x boards (maybe over multiple matches) or a certain amount of time. You'd want to keep a league roster so that people don't sign-up and disappear.

[babalu1997]

Hit the nail on the head rq.

This past sunday one of our team mates was unavailable, so we did not sign up as a team.

 

In team matches, your team mates affect the result, so I do not see why any team would even want subs.

 

In fact some players have joined the team matches and do not even know what conventions their partner plays.

 

I do not think team matches are the place for "First dates" in Bridge.

 

The club tables or tournaments, maybe.

[onoway]

Well if someone wants to do the bookkeeping, I dont see the problem with teams who want to do a ladder thing going ahead and doing it. I am not prepared to put that amount of time in, frankly, although I think it's a great idea. I don't know if there would be some way to tap into Ray's Bridge Ladder, and still host the things or not, but that site is set up for tracking this sort of arrangement.

 

However, as I said before, I am not prepared to abandon the singles and pairs who like to play team matches and for one reason or another do not have a regular pard or team. It may not be ideal for a "first date" but on the other hand, it may give a somewhat better idea of whether or not a potential partnership has promise than playing with random partners and random opps at a random table. Some of the pairs may be using the matches as practice for their partnerships, the other pair on their team is of little concern to them. Others are looking for partners who may have the same interest level or expertise that they do. People play in these things for different reasons.. It isn't always easy to find a compatible partner, much less a team. Hopefully, after a while this will tend to sort itself out into more settled teams forming from the people who come in alone or with a pard, though probably there will always be some. This seems to me to have value and I don't really see why it has to be one or the other.

 

One thing to consider, is if there even are enough settled teams at the moment to make this even feasible. Certainly there aren't in the advanced section. I can't see the advanced getting a great deal of satisfaction playing the intermediates week after week, which is why we divvied them up.

 

And, sorry, Bob, but I can't see forcing new people to join a functioning team, it wouldn't be fair to either the team or the newcomer. If a team won't play because one member is unavailable, how happy is that team going to be to have someone who may not even play the same system foisted upon them, and how much play is the newby going to get? It makes much more sense to me to put the newcomers together and see if they can make something of it...that has happened , but also had everyone scatter asap. The thing is, that if only a structured competition is ongoing, new teams would have no place until after the competition was done, and that is absolutely not the idea for the Sunday sessions.

 

However, if someone wants to take on the job of bookkeeping the teams who DO want to play in a ladder style competition, I will be happy to have them play in the Sunday sessions. Perhaps after they have got one series under their belt, a club challenge could be made to other clubs??

[kenberg]

I suggest continuing on as you are, if you are willing. Possibly, with time, it will morph into a more structured event but at this moment I doubt there is the needed level of participation.

 

I have been a sub in three of the four events. I have enjoyed my First Dates, I think it went well, I see no harm that was done.

 

An active ladder, sustained mostly by technology, can be a long term goal but I see what you are doing right now as a fine attempt to get more people actively involved. I believe quite a few people appreciate it.

[dee_dee_20]

For those Teams that rather not play than ask a sub, for fear that they won't do well, then IAC may not be the spot for them.

 

For those players who want to be rated rather then enjoy a friendly competiton, IAC may not be the spot for them.

 

For those individuals who cannot commit every week, but are thrilled to be able to play in a Team and be part of a regular group with whom they can play and practice with and perhaps solidify a partnership in the making, then IAC, IS their spot.

 

Many have made valid and workable solutions, let's adopt them and see the outcome.

 

I think Pam has an idea now as to what route she wants to follow, I trust her judgement and wish her well. I also offer my co-operation, I am willing to set up Matches for my Team as well as other Teams if available.

 

Good luck all !! I am looking forward to many "First Dates". :unsure:

[paulg]

I have a lot of experience of captaining online teams (including Last Gunslingers, Funky Gibbons and Blue Lightning) so I thought I'd just share some thoughts.

1. It is always harder than it sounds to run a league or captain a team.
   
2. You need a large pool of players in the team, more than 10, if you intend to play on a regular basis
   
3. It is very rare for a player just to 'no show'. There is normally a good reason and you just have to live with this. Make sure you have subs available.
   
4. If you have a large pool of players, then if you get a lot of acceptees then play 2 teams.
   
5. Matches that consist of two halves are best. This allows a team to involve more players in a match, plus switch line ups and let reserves play the first half and late comers the second.
   

Paul

[babalu1997]

For those Teams that rather not play than ask a sub, for fear that they won't do well, then IAC may not be the spot for them.

 

For those players who want to be rated rather then enjoy a friendly competiton, IAC may not be the spot for them.

Well, Dee-Dee, All members were invited to state their opinion. I stated mine.

Many disagree with mine and it is their prerrogative.

 

I am surprised that you took upon yourself to suggest who should be or should not be a member of the bboiac club and I ask you to withdraw your statement.

 

To suggest that one may elect not to participate in a team match where random partners are encouraged would be one thing.

 

I checked the club description at BBO and there is no stipulation that members must play team matches or be excluded as members.