JLOL Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 Whatever, if you're good you'll make the top 6 whatever the format is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awm Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 There isn't worry that strong players wouldn't be discovered because if they are strong enough to matter then they have some non-junior results to show for it. While it's true that many of the members of the recent junior teams have some strong non-junior results, it's worth mentioning that: (1) In most, if not all, cases these results actually came subsequent to being first selected for the junior team. (2) There are a number of eligible juniors who had strong results in national events who were not even seriously considered for the junior teams. (3) If you ask most people who's a better player, their answer usually does not have much to do with the results those players actually get. Looking at (1) and (2), there is no particular reason to think that the people selecting the team do it on the basis of performance in non-junior events. If USBF wanted to select things based on results, they could easily do something like: (1) Add eligible pairs who have finished 16th or higher in a national open event in order of their best placing.(2) If this is not enough, add eligible individuals who have finished 16th or higher in a national open event in order of their best placing and allow them to select any eligible partner.(3) If this is still not enough, start going through the limited events with a similar approach. But this is not how the selection is done, and I see no serious arguments for it. Everyone wants to substitute their personal belief about who is good for any concrete measure. And it's easy to see by talking to various bridge players that these personal beliefs have little relationship to reality (since they differ so widely, it's not necessary to have the "real" ranking of players to determine this). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 Adam you are losing me. They don't select the teams other than having previous winners of the event return. Your 2 and 3 make no sense, you are talking like they have been selecting the teams all along. With 1 I completely disagree, but should clarify I don't think it means you should be winning stuff. If you regularly scratch in national events then people will know who you are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mycroft Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 Whatever, if you're good you'll make the top 6 whatever the format is.I would guess "if you're in the top 3, you'll make the top 6 whatever the format is."Which is fine for USA I, at least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awm Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 My impression was that the last two cycles, the returning medalists selected additional players to augment the team, replacing those medalists who had become too old. So there is a selection process beyond just having medalists return. Also, the youngest age group seems to be frequently selected (not that there are so many choices). I do not remember there ever being a "trials" for the U21 team. We had some discussion of the process for this team on these forums previously. If the idea is to select the youth players with the most platinum points (or some other weighting of high finishes in major events) then such a selection process seems okay to me. But I don't think this is what people who suggest "just picking a team" have in mind -- it's more that some committee of "experts" will decide who they think is good based on their own experience. I think that kind of selection method is unfair, very biased, and likely to pick the same people year after year because once they've been on the team everyone knows who they are. By the way, outside of people like Justin who are already multiple-time medalists in the youth events, which eligible players are regularly scratching in national events? I looked up some of the people who (as far as I know) are supposed to be among the better youth players and didn't see any of them anywhere in the overalls of national open events. They did have some high finishes in limited events like the 1500 spingold and the red ribbon pairs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLOL Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 Adam, I would think of Shane for junior with recent successes. TBH I am more concerned about how the 2 teams will be picked once the 6 pairs are selected. Top 3 and bottom 3 is a horrible format. Top 2 picking the third is more reasonable, but still not great. I think if once the 6 pairs are selected a committee reviews the results of the trials and picks the top 2 pairs to pick their third pair is the most fair and accurate way to get the best two teams. Note that this is better than that committee picking the top 3, as we SHOULD know by now the top 3 pairs do not necessarily make the top team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 My impression was that the last two cycles, the returning medalists selected additional players to augment the team, replacing those medalists who had become too old. So there is a selection process beyond just having medalists return. That's a whole different story, I thought we were discussing the USBF choosing the players. Do you think either team overlooked a much stronger available pair or player in making their selections? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 If at all feasible, and this plan is feasible, I strongly prefer not simply selecting a team. If the actual result is that we get 6 eager but average level juniors, so be it. Let's fix the trials next year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elianna Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 Adam, I would think of Shane for junior with recent successes. TBH I am more concerned about how the 2 teams will be picked once the 6 pairs are selected. Top 3 and bottom 3 is a horrible format. Top 2 picking the third is more reasonable, but still not great. I think if once the 6 pairs are selected a committee reviews the results of the trials and picks the top 2 pairs to pick their third pair is the most fair and accurate way to get the best two teams. Note that this is better than that committee picking the top 3, as we SHOULD know by now the top 3 pairs do not necessarily make the top team. Every pair could submit a list of two pairs (of the other qualifying five) that they'd want to play with, and a pair that they wouldn't want to play with. (Said somewhat tongue-in-cheek) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mycroft Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 I stand by my statement in the last thread. Qualify the six pairs, then do intensive group training. Unless you're supremely unlucky and have one pair no-one can stand, teams will form. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLOL Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 I stand by my statement in the last thread. Qualify the six pairs, then do intensive group training. Unless you're supremely unlucky and have one pair no-one can stand, teams will form. Turkey is in August I think, these trials are in may, how much training are you expecting? Also what do you mean "teams will form" I'm stupid so I don't get it lol. Eventually with 3 pairs will be on what team? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mycroft Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 So, I don't know the timing. I'm the black sheep here - deep in the wilds of no special events (no juniors, no seniors, oh yeah, no US) - so I didn't pay too much attention to it. What I said last time: "As far as team chemistry is concerned, if you qualify 6 pairs to make 2 teams (wow, what a luxury. Okay, stop it Michael, Jan said not to go there), AND you then have concerted training sessions between then and the event, teams will form, and unless things are really unlucky (i.e. there's one pair of idiots nobody wants to be with), the chemistry will develop. That is a unique advantage over anybody else's trial procedure, and I see nothing wrong with going with it." Don't know how much training, but in 4 months if the 6 pairs play together and against each other, one is likely to be able to see which way the wind's blowing. Note that I didn't recommend this for any of the U>21; the chemistry will have been operating in the relevant teams, and a better idea of who are available and their skill level exists to self-select relevant teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vaider14 Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 so with the trials coming up fast, does anybody actually have a partner to play with? i mean, ive been using BBO for a while now and i havent found any juniors to play with regularly. if anyone's interested in creating a partnership for the trials, let me know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted April 30, 2009 Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 Having major events on line, like this junior trial, can be a tremendous cost savings to the players (especially since this three session event has zero entry fee). But with the possibility of a pandemic swine flu outbreak, playing from "home" (well with a mentor in a club or where ever) has to be safer than all the juniors travelling to one location and playing. I think I read where the deadline to signup is May 9th. Check out the USBF webpage, including the draft condition of contest, by clicking here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 The first session is in the books... 18 pairs, leaders at 1/3 mark are: kdwyer-MiniMeck 65.74%jlall-jjbrr 61.34%bballrace-jmarriott3 56.48% A lot of bridge left.... A webbased hyperlinked result sheet with all bidding and play can be found at:Full hand records thanks to stephen pickett for helping get these webpages up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hanp Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 Thanks Ben, very nice to see the results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLOL Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 Thanks Ben, very nice to see the results. Thoughts on my line in 4H on board 10? Certainly felt a bit stupid afterwards but my dad played the same when I gave it to him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 Thanks Ben, very nice to see the results. Thoughts on my line in 4H on board 10? Certainly felt a bit stupid afterwards but my dad played the same when I gave it to him. Board 10 Easy to see looking at all 4, but maybe the question should be - what were you playing for here? I can see an up if LHO has♠K(x), ♥KQx, / ♦A, but 10 tricks looks likely with ♣A, ♣ruff, ♥A, ♥. Bidding this game looks to be at least 60-70% in most fields (+620 was 87.5% as it was). I think you also get into trouble with your line if ♥K/Q stiff is with RHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hanp Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 Agree with Phil on that hand. And I wouldn't have opened 3D Justin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fred Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 I think you also get into trouble with your line if ♥K/Q stiff is with RHO. I think you are in trouble with any line if LHO has any 4-card heart holding. Fred GitelmanBridge Base Inc.www.bridgebase.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Unofficial first two session overall results kdwyer MiniMeck 123.84jjbrr jlall 118.05olien zman1 114.8bballrace jmarriott3 111.1mtvesuvius goon1407 104.16jchiu kfay 104.16zoogman wolkowitz 103.92bullseye samk 103.23mathmike alya 101.84blakers bradhaas 99.29bdelfs dredog03 96.98moggo yale12 96.29threenobob rogerclee 95.82swim329 mcory0732 90.26jdaming dude42387 87.98ALovejoy jbitts 87.61sflicht CChao 82.86Maestoso amyst 79.16 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 official results after two sessions USBR Junior Trials 2nd Qual Session May 16, 2009 EVENT LEADERS 1 123.84 B 6-E/W Matt Meckstroth - Kevin Dwyer 2 118.05 B 2-N/S Justin Lall - Jeremy Fournier 3 114.82 B 7-N/S Owen Lien - Zachary Brescoll 4 111.11 B 2-E/W Alex Hudson - John Marriott 5 104.17 B 9-N/S Kevin Fay - Jason Chiu 6 104.16 B 3-E/W Adam Kaplan - Cameron Shunta 7 103.94 B 8-N/S Daniel Wolkowitz - Peter Zoogman 8 103.24 B 9-E/W Robert Glickman - Sam Katz 9 101.85 B 6-N/S Michael Lieberman - Alevtina Asarina 10 99.31 B 7-E/W Bradley Haas - Blake Haas 11 96.99 B 8-E/W Andre Asbury - Bryan Delfs 12 96.29 B 1-N/S Monica Guo - Argenta Price 13 95.84 B 4-N/S Eric Mayefsky - Roger Lee 14 90.28 B 3-N/S Matt Cory - Angela Collura 15 87.50 B 4-E/W Jason Daming - Adam Bohlmann Kunz 16 86.57 B 1-E/W Alex Lovejoy - Jonathan Bittner 17 82.87 B 5-E/W Constance Chao - Sam Lichtenstein 18 79.16 B 5-N/S Chen Li - Jocelyn Bloomfield Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vdoubleu Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 so with the trials coming up fast, does anybody actually have a partner to play with? i mean, ive been using BBO for a while now and i havent found any juniors to play with regularly. if anyone's interested in creating a partnership for the trials, let me know.Vaider14, yes, I might know of one of our Juniors who is free. Send me a BBO message: vdoubleu Valerie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtvesuvius Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Final standings in the USBF Trials for Turkey: 1. Lall-Fournier; 171.762. Meckstroth-Dwyer; 168.663. Fay-Chiu; 156.394. Hudson-Marriott; 155.935. Lien-Brescoll; 155.566. Kaplan-Shunta; 148.987. Lieberman-Asarina; 148.148. Asbury-Delfs; 147.739. Wolkowitz-Zoogman; 146.16 10. Glickman-Katz; 145.4611. Guo-Price; 136.6612. Haas-Haas; 129.68 We're in!! ;) :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jchiu Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Final standings in the USBF Trials for Turkey: 1. Lall-Fournier; 171.762. Meckstroth-Dwyer; 168.663. Fay-Chiu; 156.394. Hudson-Marriott; 155.935. Lien-Brescoll; 155.566. Kaplan-Shunta; 148.987. Lieberman-Asarina; 148.148. Asbury-Delfs; 147.739. Wolkowitz-Zoogman; 146.16 10. Glickman-Katz; 145.4611. Guo-Price; 136.6612. Haas-Haas; 129.68 We're in!! ;) :( Thank that schmuck who passed a takeout double and went for 570 on the last hand, thereby giving you a half board (2.08) ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.