Vanderbilt organization

[marcD]

While I am enjoying watching the event on BBO on my sleepless nights , I am very much surprised

1/ there were no screens used for round of 32 (at least that's what i understood during the bbo broadcast, hard to believe) . I cannot imagine having a field of that caliber in Europe playing without screens.

2/ Also, there are no running scores or hand records available (no bridgemates or equivalent?, may be all tables are not plmaying the same boards).

I remember following on the web a championship final in Poland where all the results where streamed on the web and hands records were available ; It is a great complement to BBO. I cannot imagine this not being done is due to lack of technology skills in the US . Is this because of security concerns ? (I do not think money can be the real issue either)

[Hanoi5]

I can't believe what you're saying, can someone confirm/deny this?

[Edmunte1]

No screens????

[hrothgar]

The ACBL has wisely decided to invest its time and energy eliminating cell phones from the playing area.

[Phil]

I don't think I've ever seen screens used in the R32 in any of the big events in the US. Maybe someone can comment on the trials.

 

In the R16, screens are used. I don't know if the R16 has a closed and open room, but my recollection is that it doesn't (could be wrong on this).

 

It's shuffle, deal and play in the R32 too. Hand records start the next round as well.

 

Without screens and segregated rooms, perhaps its a good idea the boards aren't the same.

[matmat]

I am sure none of them have cell phones, tho!

[TimG]

I don't think I've ever seen screens used in the R32 in any of the big events in the US. Maybe someone can comment on the trials.

I would not be surprised to learn that the ACBL did not have enough screens for a round of 32.

It's shuffle, deal and play in the R32 too. Hand records start the next round as well.

The vugraph operator one of yesterday's matches, commented before the 4th quarter started that the players were all there, but that the directors had not brought the boards. That suggested to me that the board might well be duplicated. Maybe that was just for the single match that was being broadcast on BBO?

 

It would not surprise me to learn that Phil is right and duplication starts later in the event. There seems to be resistance on the part of the ACBL directors to spend a lot of time duplicating boards. And, there is likely a reluctance on the ACBL's part to spend the money needed for the dealing machines, bar coded cards, and extra director pay.

 

I was happy to read the 3rd quarter scores early the broadcast of the 4th quarter last night. But, striving for real time scores throughout seems like overkill to me. (Though I understand likely a trivial matter once electronic scoring devices are placed on each table.) As a spectator from home, it would be nice simply to have updated quarter scores online a few minutes after the quarter ends. I don't think there was anything available on the ACBL website between the end of the play last night and when the online Bulletin was made available. (I see that the Vanderbilt pairings are included in the "daily results" file. But, there are no scores, and I don't know when the results were posted relative to end of play and Bulletin publishing.)

 

As an aside, I think 25 masterpoints for a first round bye plus a round of 64 win is a lot. It also seems a bit strange to me that the #3 seed gets the same number of masterpoints for beating the #62 seed as the #62 seed gets for beating the #3 seed. (Even overlooking that the #62 seed had to survive a first day match instead of sit on the sidelines with a bye.) Certainly beating the #3 seed is a much bigger achievement than beating the #62 seed and should be worth more "rating" points*.

 

* Yes, I know that masterpoints are not rating points. But, not everyone does.

[keylime]

For the D.C. tourney, there's plenty of duplimate machines around to prevent the shuffle and deal.

[bid_em_up]

For the D.C. tourney, there's plenty of duplimate machines around to prevent the shuffle and deal.

That does not mean that it will not be done that way though....

 

:)

[Hanoi5]

You no longer need bar-coded cards with the new dealing machines.

[TimG]

You no longer need bar-coded cards with the new dealing machines.

I believe the dealing machines that the ACBL has are the bar code reading variety. But yes, they could buy new machines that don't need bar coded cards. I believe they are more expensive, right?

[Hanoi5]

Well, you don't need bar-coded cards, so in the long run I don't think they're more expensive.

[JanM]

The reason there aren't screens in the Round of 32 is because of playing space - screens take a lot more space. Screens start today, with the Round of 16.

 

Different boards are played in each match until the semi-finals. That's for security reasons. Starting today, I believe all of the boards will be pre-duplicated, but each match will have a different set.

 

Yesterday we had duplicated boards for the Vugraph match because you have to do that to have the boards available to be shown. The rest of the tables shuffled and dealt.

 

I believe that ACBL is planning on a serious test of electronic scoring devices (Bridgemates and Bridgepads) in Washington, but at the moment they're not using them, so can't have running scores. It isn't completely trivial to post the scores online in real time even with the Bridgemates - for the Trials, where we used Bridgemates last year and will this, a human being has to make sure the Bridgemate results make sense and then push a button to upload to the website - I know that it is possible to have the computer automatically upload for a "normal" kind of movement (in the Trials one we have KO matches all of them are on BBO so we don't use Bridgemates any more).

 

I wish that the quarter by quarter scores were posted on the ACBL results page - it would save me the effort of having to get them and then type them in in order to report in the Vugraph theatre, and I recognize that isn't as good as having a website where they're posted. Hopefully by Washington we'll have them posted somewhere online.

[JoAnneM]

Jan, thanks for all the good info that you give us, and for all the hard work that you do.

 

Jo Anne

[TimG]

I wish that the quarter by quarter scores were posted on the ACBL results page - it would save me the effort of having to get them and then type them in in order to report in the Vugraph theatre, and I recognize that isn't as good as having a website where they're posted. Hopefully by Washington we'll have them posted somewhere online.

Yes, I saw you post the 3rd quarter results last night. Then I switched tables and saw the vugraph operator there say "please don't ask for match scores". She/he wasn't going to type them in. Which seems perfectly reasonable to me. (I tried copying the results you had posted, but the windows client doesn't seem to allow for copying chat.)

 

Doesn't really matter, though. The ACBL should not rely upon a BBO vugraph to post the results. And, what happens if I'm late tuning into the 4th quarter and have missed your score update?

 

BTW, checking the scores to see that they make sense and then pushing a button sounds trivial to me. But, to repeat, up-to-the-minute scores seems like overkill for the moment.

[mrdct]

The reason there aren't screens in the Round of 32 is because of playing space - screens take a lot more space. Screens start today, with the Round of 16.

It sounds to me like you need a bit more playing space.

 

Yesterday we had duplicated boards for the Vugraph match because you have to do that to have the boards available to be shown. The rest of the tables shuffled and dealt.

I find that really bizaare. It would have to be a good 15 or 20 years since I last played a session of bridge where cards were shuffled and dealt manually. In Australia most bridge clubs use predealt hands for club duplicates and there certainly wouldn't be any tournaments which don't provide hand records.

 

How to players at ACBL tournaments discuss the hands at the pub after play if they don't have hand records?

[Hanoi5]

How to players at ACBL tournaments discuss the hands at the pub after play if they don't have hand records?

 

Maybe that's the problem, there are no pubs in America but bars.

[nickf]

How do players at ACBL tournaments discuss the hands at the pub after play if they don't play the same hands?

Easy.

 

Fred: What did you do on Board 1?

Jim-Bob: We made slam of course.

John-Boy: oh we played in partscore.

Mary-Ellen: We beat them in game.

Grandpa: huh? We passed board 1 in.

 

Fred: What about board 2?

Jim-Bob: normal game

John-Boy: game? what game?

Mary-Ellen: 800 against a freely bid slam

Grandpa: I think we beat 1H

 

 

nickf

sydney

[hackenbush]

A significant point to keep in mind is that the NABC is not dediated solely to the Vanderbilt event. For every Vandy table, there are at least 20 other tables in play of Mixed Pairs, regional KOs and pairs, and I/N events. ACBL - reasonably for once - avoids reserving more space for marginal benefits with increased costs that would surely equate to increased entry fees.

 

I have no idea who updates the NABC website. Maybe they can have somone camp out by the Vanderbilt wallchart to give the scores more promptly.

[BillHiggin]

How to players at ACBL tournaments discuss the hands at the pub after play if they don't have hand records?

That is what napkins were invented for.

 

And, if you are good then you fill in all the spot cards on your napkin (making them up works - nobody else remembers them).

[PrecisionL]

How to players at ACBL tournaments discuss the hands at the pub after play if they don't have hand records?

 

Ahh, but pairs events are ALL duplicated by the players at the tables, so there are hand records.

[Gerben42]

I have only 1 experience being at an NABC event. Before the 2002 junior camp, organized by the ACBL, I was in DC. Since it was my first time there, I went sightseeing rather than play bridge inside, with one exception. One day it was so scorching hot that I preferred playing bridge instead of sightseeing, so I went to play in some 2-session side game.

 

I think it was not really well spent money. It cost me $34, but didn't exceed the level of a club game. Anyway, with my partner, who btw was very pleasant to play with, we got some good position in flight B (apparently this was a tournament where the different groups A B and C played together) and I won some masterpoints and some reward. Ah, I thought. Perhaps I win something nice to remember D.C. by. This hope was quickly thrashed upon receival of my prize, which was some pin which probably cost way less than a dime.

 

I'm not falling for that again. I hope for the participants that the big games are nicer.

[jdonn]

So you had a nice partner, but didn't enjoy the game because the level was too low (in a side game) and your prize wasn't good enough?

 

I'm all for ACBL bashing, but whatever happened to playing because you enjoy bridge? You entered a side game and got exactly the type of field I personally would expect, and then got more prize than I would expect.

[keylime]

Last time that I can remember, when I played a side game, I was wondering what hands people were bidding on!

[Gerben42]

  So you had a nice partner, but didn't enjoy the game because the level was too low (in a side game) and your prize wasn't good enough?

 

I'm all for ACBL bashing, but whatever happened to playing because you enjoy bridge? You entered a side game and got exactly the type of field I personally would expect, and then got more prize than I would expect.

 

I don't know, maybe I had the wrong expectations, then. It just didn't seem value-for-money at the time, after all it is advertised as being something extremely special.

 

Maybe it's that around here there is a large difference between a "club game" and a "tournament", and this was more like the first when I expected the second. Of course if the number the ACBL wants to maximize at NABC is "tables" then this is what one expects, but that was not my expectation of a nationals.