Team Matches

[rq4mulae]

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 (paulg)

 

Thank you, Paul, for some very good points.

1. I've been a captain and it was a lot of work to begin with, but as the team settled down into who was reliable - for showing up, more than ability - it got simple. Parts became interchangeable, playing mostly SAYC, and some pairs could play 2/1 or extended SA with mutual availability.

2. I disagree here. Much more important than the size of the pool is the degree of commitment. But it definitely helps to have a couple of spares.

3. True, committed teammates are almost never "no-shows" without an emergency. But in that case, there is often another teammate who was planning to kib who can sit in. Worst case is a pickup sub, but most who've been on BBO any time can find someone to invite as partner. The main thing is for players who become unavailable to notify their captain ASAP so alternative arrangements can be made. This is why captains are essential.

4. I'm not quite sure to what you refer here. If you're talking about a sub list with specific dates/times available attached, that would be something helpful to captains. If you're talking about people standing around who may or may not be available at any given time, the search for subs could be quite aggravating.

5. This one is HUGE! For one thing, it provides captains with ability to put (almost, or) all available teammates to work on any date. Less chance of hurt feelings or time conflicts or extensive search for sub for emergency "no-show." People are much more likely to feel a part of a team if involved every date.

 

Pam:

 

The ladder to which I've referred could consist of no more than a simple spreadsheet, as I envision it. Send me the results and I would maintain it, and submit updates to you for posting in the Club News. It need not be any more complicated than baseball or football standings, with the additional impact of noplay penalty. If 1 or 2 sessions missed, a team loses a rung. Captains make/accept challenges and arrange for teammates' appearance. Of course a team would not have to be on the ladder if not interested, but then would have no feedback on performance.

 

As far as a pool of individuals wishing to play a match on any given date, why not have interested people appear in a chat room to work out pairings & teams ... amongst themselves. If any 4 agree to play together, they can notify the director to have a match set if another team is formed. Those on a team but not scheduled to play a given session may join this group for that session. I in no way meant the ladder to be prohibitive of participation in matches, but as a means of establishing a goal for settled teams. As far as pickup matches go, they could happen anytime rather than at scheduled sessions. I'd be willing to set such spontaneous matches up on many occasions, if one person took it upon themselves to identify the 8 participants. Most people on BBO are too old to be spoonfed, however.

[dee_dee_20]

Well Babalu, I have re read my post and nowhere do I suggest who should or should not be a member of the ICA_BBO club, I only stated it may not be everyone's spot. If you read carefully Teams not Members were mentioned.

So you are asking me to retract a statement that I never made.

 

I never made any stipulations of inclusions or exclusions either, but if you can find right cause in my statement that I have offended you or anyone else for that matter, I will gladly apologise

[onoway]

First of all, I appreciate Dee's comments, I don't believe she suggested anyone should not be a member of the club if they didn't play in team matches. She was trying to make a point which I have also been trying to make, so far with stunning lack of success it seems.

 

What I believe Dee was trying to get across was that if you are looking for a very structured team match situation with ratings and standings, then you may well be discontented with the current format for IAC team matches. From what I read from Babalu and Rq4mulae this seems clearly true, as both are advocating something quite different from the way the matches are currently run, with no carryover and many teams shifting memberships from session to session, as well as week to week.

 

It depends on your priorities. My priorities are to try to organize the team matches on Sundays so as to allow the participation of anyone who wants to play. I am not going to be hijacked by people who want this to become a ladder event only , especially since neither have teams currently registered to play this week and neither had teams play last week.

[paulg]

2.  I disagree here.  Much more important than the size of the pool is the degree of commitment.  But it definitely helps to have a couple of spares.

 

4.  I'm not quite sure to what you refer here.  If you're talking about a sub list with specific dates/times available attached, that would be something helpful to captains.  If you're talking about people standing around who may or may not be available at any given time, the search for subs could be quite aggravating.

The two are linked actually. My experience is based on teams from around the country (world) who play a fair amount of tournament bridge. At weekends there would always be players unavailable and so a large pool was necessary. Playing at a fixed time on a specific day probably works better.

 

[4] just meant that, with a large pool of players, then if 8 said they could play then you could enter two teams into the event. So having a large pool of players would not mean many of them would not play if they wished to.

 

Finally, in a non-serious event like this there is no reason why players cannot belong to multiple teams. In fact it should be encouraged.

 

Good luck.

[jillybean]

Congratulations on your initiative, it is difficult enough arranging groups of real, live bodies without the added problems of the Internet, so good luck. B)

 

On the day, why not first put together teams of IAC members then fill any vacancies from the general BBO pool. You may get players with less experience than the team but then you will also get players with more experience. Far better imo to use random subs than have a team sitout completely. And you may attract more members.

[rq4mulae]

... From what I read from Babalu and Rq4mulae this seems clearly true, as both are advocating something quite different from the way the matches are currently run, with no carryover and many teams shifting memberships from session to session, as well as week to week.

 

It depends on your priorities. My priorities are to try to organize the team matches on Sundays so as to allow the participation of anyone who wants to play. I am not going to be hijacked by people who want this to become a ladder event only , especially since neither have teams currently registered to play this week and neither had teams play last week.

One would hope and expect membership shifts to diminish quickly as members get to identify and know one another.

 

My prioity was never a formal structure, but merely to bring some order out of chaos. If the director wants to accomodate anyone expressing an interest in playing, that's fine. But then the director should not whine about how much work is to be done. The idea of responsible captains was to spread the load.

 

As far as participation last week and this is concerned, the aforementioned shifting has left my association vulnerable. But I will be making myself available for participation - with or without a predetermined partner/team - in the future, and leave it to the director to fulfill her priorities.

[onoway]

Bob:

If you read the initial post, you will see that the "whining" had to do with people committing themselves to showing up and then not doing so, and asking for suggestions on how to deal with this.

 

The only thing I believe I have said about the workload is that I am not willing to take on any more, and if others wish to see more done, they are welcome to go ahead. If that is whining, then you have a different take on the meaning of the word than I do. To my mind, it is whining when people want things arranged differently and complain when people choose not to adapt to their ideas.

[babalu1997]

Pam, in your first post you identified absenteism as a problem and even listed the practice of allowing spur of the moment teams and subs as a contributing factor.

 

You asked for suggestions, you got them.

 

My team did the right thing and informed bboiac in advance that we would not be available these past weeks we believe as a team in partnership bridge and that is what we practice what we preach. We hoped it would relieve you of your burden.

 

In reality,the people who agree or are trying to form teams should meet, and play a social game at those empty tables at the club and actually show some commitment. They will not do so if there exists a godmother who will find then subs from the lobby

 

My last post on this issue is to inform you that there exists a game where people can meet multiple new partners-- it is called an INDY, run one.

[onoway]

I guess I will have to stick with the role of godmother looking out for the Cinderellas of IAC, and giving them the opportunity to participate in things that others would try to deny them :P

[sceptic]

I have a suggestion that may or may not work or even be acceptable to some, but may be worth considering

 

why not agree a universal system that each team plays (somewhat less than an expert standard, to keep it easy for subs to join and play as the team would like them to play and post the cc online).

 

I do not think that is too difficult, this would then allow a regular group of subs that wont commit to the team matches because of time contstraints, but would enable them to fill in as best they can and also give them some idea of what is expected of them, (it is easy to toggle between a web page and BBO using Ctrl +Alt keys, if the sub needs to peek to remind yourself what conventions you are playing or of course you can print of a cheat sheet

 

The cc could be a basic outline and contain stuff like

 

we play 4 suit transfers 2D = Hearts 2H = spades 2S = clubs 2NT = Diamonds this means to invte a 3nt HAND, you will need to go through stayman which is non promisory and does not guarentee 4 of a major so is alertable

 

I think if this was in place it would at least come someway as a compromise to the people in a team that are waryabout subs they have never played with before

 

I do not think this would be unworkable as it isa club for non beginners

[kenberg]

As to sceptic's suggestion: I doubt it would work to require teams to play a set system. People just won't. But there is a variant on this idea. There could be an understood set of defaults. BWS for example. http://www.bridgeworld.com/default.asp?d=b...rdmainpage.html

 

If people have the time/inclination to discuss a system, they can play the system that they prefer. But if a sub comes in then the bids are to be understood as in BWS.

 

SAYC of course was designed to fill this role, and BBO Basic is a minor variant, but often people want something more snazzy and BWS would be a reasonable choice. Without the tabs, or whatever the add-ons are called.

 

My own experience with partners is that they want to play their way and they cannot understand why all of their choices are not also my choices, so I don't have a whole lot of hope for this. Its main attraction is that it is a lot easier to say BWS than it is to write up a default IAC cc. If people are not going to use something it's better if they don't use something that didn't require much effort.

 

To switch back to the main topic: I support what Pam is doing, I see no reason to either force subs on teams that don't want them or discourage subs if teams do want them. Of course an excessive number of bidding screw-ups can be a problem but some things go wrong at the highest levels. Watching a jec team game the other day I saw an auction (by the visitors) go 2N-3C-3D-3N. Opener held two four card majors and apparently thought they were playing puppet, responder held four hearts and apparently thought they were playing standard. It happens. The world doesn't end.