Bermuda Bowl 2009

[NickRW]

A partial, balanced round robin where everyone plays roughly half of the other teams would have almost the same statistical power as a full RR with half the match length.

Yeah. Could even get Gerben to show up and do his zermelo scoring:

 

http://www.geocities.com/gerben47/zermelo/indexen.html

 

Nick

[JanM]

Another problem with an immediate KO is that even if all the favorites win (assuming we know who the favorites are and that they don't play each other in the Round of 16 :blink:), some will have had an easier time of it than others. Thus some will be in better shape for the Quarterfinals than others. So even if you reduced the field, I think a Round Robin is a fairer start than an immediate KO.

 

As for having even more teams - I think that would mean either having a longer event or dealing with separate fields for the Round Robin. Although separate fields seems fair, so long as they are "even," the fact that there is no good way to seed teams from so many different countries would be a serious problem - I would be willing to bet lots of money that most of the teams in the event would believe they were in the "tougher" Round Robin group, and that would make them unhappy. And probably some of them would be right. And a longer event ... well, it's already pretty long.

 

People do periodically suggest something other than immediate KO for the Vanderbilt & Spingold. There is general agreement that the seeding of the bottom half of the field is fairly random, although the seeding at the top, where recent performance in the Vanderbilt, Spingold & Reisinger count heavily, is pretty good, except for foreign players (foreign players are given seeding points, but there's no very good way of figuring out how many a player should receive; then the seeding points decay, even if the player doesn't play in the NABC events, so we have some clearly "wrong" seeding of some foreign players). One of the reason that the format isn't likely to change is that both events have to use the same format (I think that's in Vanderbilt's will :)), so it isn't possible to experiment with something similar to the Rosenblum format in only one of the events. I suppose another reason is that the events are popular and the teams that make it to the end (whatever you define "the end" as - maybe the Round of 16?) are all deserving, so nothing seems to be seriously broken.

[nigel_k]

Decreasing to 16 and starting KO's is a very bad idea, IMO. Seeding would be far too important. Bridge is not deterministic. Chance plays a role, as it should.

I'm for 16 teams, knockout with long matches, with seeding based on previous BB results.

 

I believe this would actually reduce the element of luck. A short match can swing on a couple of hands - several VPs for a slam on a finesse in the worst case. The best teams also risk encountering a weak team on a flat set of boards where they can't 'harvest' as much as their competitors. With a knockout, the best teams would all get first round opponents they could beat and be rested and ready for the second round.

 

Of course knockouts would be unpopular because half the field would be putting in a lot of time and money just to go home after one match. But determining the team that deserves to be called world champion ought to take priority. Maybe there could be a secondary Swiss event that teams join after they get knocked out of the main event.

[MFA]

If you cannot finish in the top six places at the European Championships, you are probably not a great nation currently.

The battle for the 6 spots is quite tough. Look at the finish in Pau for instance.

 

With just one match to play, Italy was struggling big time on 7th and they had to face the leaders from Germany in the last match. In the end they managed a big win to secure the samba tickets as 5th.

 

The Netherlands were also in problems at the end. They were 6th before last match which gave a tie against Israel. They then needed reasonably favourable results in some other matches to make it and got them.

[paulg]

If you cannot finish in the top six places at the European Championships, you are probably not a great nation currently.

The battle for the 6 spots is quite tough. Look at the finish in Pau for instance.

 

With just one match to play, Italy was struggling big time on 7th and they had to face the leaders from Germany in the last match. In the end they managed a big win to secure the samba tickets as 5th.

 

The Netherlands were also in problems at the end. They were 6th before last match which gave a tie against Israel. They then needed reasonably favourable results in some other matches to make it and got them.

The battle for every spot in the Europeans is now tough and even qualifying for the second round robin (i.e., finishing in the top half of the field) is an achievement.

 

The standard is a lot higher than it ever was and there are a lot of good teams, but if a good team plays poorly they can easily lose a match to anyone in the field.

 

I really feel that there are very few great nations now. Even those who are given that accolade are losing their lustre. But we see the same in American bridge, where no-one is now safe in the Vanderbilt or Spingold and upsets are the norm. The general rise in European standards is probably a major factor in this too.

[helene_t]

As for having even more teams - I think that would mean either having a longer event or dealing with separate fields for the Round Robin.

No, just make a partial RR. Splitting the field up in groups is for some reason popular in many sports, I am not sure why people like it. From a statistical point of view it is an inferior design.

[PeterGill]

Nigel K's idea might make Australia (5th in the last BB) the 5th seeds in the 2009 BB. Argentina is another country which sends teams of variable strength to BB's - Argentina's 2009 team looks very strong compared to the last BB in 2007.

 

Returning to the original question in this thread:

In the absence of South Africa, I cannot see anyone beating Italy.

Minor medals to USA2 and Netherlands.

Other finalists: Norway, China, Germany, Argentina, Bulgaria.

Other possible qualifiers: USA1, Brazil, Russia, India.

 

Venice Cup: China

 

Seniors: Indonesia from Poland.

 

Peter Gill.

[3for3]

One of the reason that the format isn't likely to change is that both events have to use the same format (I think that's in Vanderbilt's will ), so it isn't possible to experiment with something similar to the Rosenblum format in only one of the events. I suppose another reason is that the events are popular and the teams that make it to the end (whatever you define "the end" as - maybe the Round of 16?) are all deserving, so nothing seems to be seriously broken.

 

 

 

Another reason it is not likely to change is that players in the top 1/4 of the field dominate the committees that determine such things. The Rosenblum is a far better, fairer format than the V/S, but it just won't happen...

 

Danny

[Aberlour10]

The battle for every spot in the Europeans is now tough and even qualifying for the second round robin (i.e., finishing in the top half of the field) is an achievement.

 

The standard is a lot higher than it ever was and there are a lot of good teams, but if a good team plays poorly they can easily lose a match to anyone in the field.

 

If it's true, and not only as a short-term development....is it not a very serious and main argument for the WBF (leastwise) to think about the format and matter of zonation the spots in the most important bridge event?

 

Robert

[paulg]

The battle for every spot in the Europeans is now tough and even qualifying for the second round robin (i.e., finishing in the top half of the field) is an achievement.

 

The standard is a lot higher than it ever was and there are a lot of good teams, but if a good team plays poorly they can easily lose a match to anyone in the field.

 

If it's true, and not only as a short-term development....is it not a very serious and main argument for the WBF (leastwise) to think about the format and matter of zonation the spots in the most important bridge event?

 

Robert

You have to draw a line somewhere and, I believe, that it is based loosely on the number of players in the zone. This seems an equitable method of allocation.

 

If you permitted too many European teams because of strength, then the USA might reasonably ask for five additional slots given the standard at the top of their game?

 

p

[Aberlour10]

You have to draw a line somewhere and, I believe, that it is based loosely on the number of players in the zone. This seems an equitable method of allocation.

 

hmm, I took a look at the current WBF statistics concerning the total membership in the national federations:

http://www.worldbridge.org/zones/

 

World Total : 693.845

 

Zone Europe Total: 393.134 its about 57 %

 

 

European spots in the BB 6/22 27 %

 

 

There were a lot of changes in Europe during last 20 years, new states have been originated, new bridge federations have been established.At the Europeans in 1987 took part 21 teams (open) in Pau 38....etc etc..

 

Robert

[skjaeran]

Helgemo may not be available as the result of a recent disciplinary action. This rgb thread discusses the matter -- I have not read all the way through it so am not 100% sure that this sanction would make Helgemo unable to represent Norway in Sao Paulo, but it could easily have played a role in the selection process.

The sanction made Helgemo (and the other players) uneligible for a Norwegian national team. However, Helgemo-Helness very early (prior to the incident), decided to play on the Zimmermann team in the transnationals, as did Balicki-Zmudzinski.

[3for3]

You have to draw a line somewhere and, I believe, that it is based loosely on the number of players in the zone. This seems an equitable method of allocation.

 

hmm, I took a look at the current WBF statistics concerning the total membership in the national federations:

http://www.worldbridge.org/zones/

 

World Total : 693.845

 

Zone Europe Total: 393.134 its about 57 %

 

 

European spots in the BB 6/22 27 %

 

 

There were a lot of changes in Europe during last 20 years, new states have been originated, new bridge federations have been established.At the Europeans in 1987 took part 21 teams (open) in Pau 38....etc etc..

 

Robert

I bet the Zone 2 representation is low by those standards as well.

[NickRW]

I bet the Zone 2 representation is low by those standards as well.

For sure zone 2 is under represented as well. It is rigged that way. Bridge is not the only sport to do this sort of thing at world championship level - the reasoning generally goes that you want to promote interest in areas of the world where the game needs promoting.

 

The downside, if you're from zone 1 or 2, is that it can be as hard (if not harder) to qualify than to do well in the actual finals themselves. However, it doesn't really detract from actually winning - as a contestant in any game you can only beat the opponents they put in front of you and, if you made it through all the hoops, you're still the best.

 

Nick

[theli]

Helgemo may not be available as the result of a recent disciplinary action.  This rgb thread discusses the matter -- I have not read all the way through it so am not 100% sure that this sanction would make Helgemo unable to represent Norway in Sao Paulo, but it could easily have played a role in the selection process.

The sanction made Helgemo (and the other players) uneligible for a Norwegian national team. However, Helgemo-Helness very early (prior to the incident), decided to play on the Zimmermann team in the transnationals, as did Balicki-Zmudzinski.

i really think it is a pity that some of the best pairs in the world prefer not to take place in the most prestigious tournament. are the prizes and the sponsor money in the transnationals so much better than the prizes in the BB that they prefer to play there?

[Aberlour10]

i really think it is a pity that some of the best pairs in the world prefer not to take place in the most prestigious tournament. are the prizes and the sponsor money in the transnationals so much better than the prizes in the BB that they prefer to play there?

There are no direct money prizes for achivements in the BB. Maybe particular national federations or their sponsors pay bonus in case of success.

 

B-Z resigned from the national team after +- 20 years of playing. Many in my country get away with criticism and judgement on this, forgetting how much these both players have done for Polish teams and development of the game in Poland during past decades.

 

Robert

[Aberlour10]

This team (Australia) would be hard pressed to win a State championship.

I think that's a mild overbid but I'll be surprised if they qualify.

 

nickf

sydney

Hi Nick, seriously don't you think this is the worst team to ever represent Australia?

The performance in only one short match says not so much...but at least a "dream start" vs USA1, wd Australia!

 

Robert

[cherdanno]

i really think it is a pity that some of the best pairs in the world prefer not to take place in the most prestigious tournament. are the prizes and the sponsor money in the transnationals so much better than the prizes in the BB that they prefer to play there?

There are no direct money prizes for achivements in the BB. Maybe particular national federations or their sponsors pay bonus in case of success.

 

B-Z resigned from the national team after +- 20 years of playing. Many in my country get away with criticism and judgement on this, forgetting how much these both players have done for Polish teams and development of the game in Poland during past decades.

 

Robert

I also find it a pity that so many of the world's strongest pairs are missing in the BB - but I don't meam that as a criticism of H-H or B-Z. Just as a regret that the most prestigious world championship isn't even the strongest tournament taking place this year.

[bidule4]

i really think it is a pity that some of the best pairs in the world prefer not to take place in the most prestigious tournament. are the prizes and the sponsor money in the transnationals so much better than the prizes in the BB that they prefer to play there?

There are no direct money prizes for achivements in the BB. Maybe particular national federations or their sponsors pay bonus in case of success.

 

B-Z resigned from the national team after +- 20 years of playing. Many in my country get away with criticism and judgement on this, forgetting how much these both players have done for Polish teams and development of the game in Poland during past decades.

 

Robert

I also find it a pity that so many of the world's strongest pairs are missing in the BB - but I don't meam that as a criticism of H-H or B-Z. Just as a regret that the most prestigious world championship isn't even the strongest tournament taking place this year.

Which tournament was stronger ?

[cherdanno]

I also find it a pity that so many of the world's strongest pairs are missing in the BB - but I don't meam that as a criticism of H-H or B-Z. Just as a regret that the most prestigious world championship isn't even the strongest tournament taking place this year.

Which tournament was stronger ?

Vanderbilt and Spingold.

[MFA]

i really think it is a pity that some of the best pairs in the world prefer not to take place in the most prestigious tournament. are the prizes and the sponsor money in the transnationals so much better than the prizes in the BB that they prefer to play there?

There are no direct money prizes for achivements in the BB. Maybe particular national federations or their sponsors pay bonus in case of success.

 

B-Z resigned from the national team after +- 20 years of playing. Many in my country get away with criticism and judgement on this, forgetting how much these both players have done for Polish teams and development of the game in Poland during past decades.

 

Robert

I also find it a pity that so many of the world's strongest pairs are missing in the BB - but I don't meam that as a criticism of H-H or B-Z. Just as a regret that the most prestigious world championship isn't even the strongest tournament taking place this year.

I agree it's sad if some of the best pairs doesn't play the BB.

 

"So many" seems like an overstatement, when the actual number is 2. Or do you know of any apart from BZ and HH?

 

One could even argue that BZ are Poles, never have played for Russia in an event such as this before, and were ineligible for the qualifications in Pau. So not really unnatural not to see them in the Russian team in Sao Paulo.

 

Also HH would have been ineligible, had they wanted to play. Helgemo's quarantine expires September 1st, so he couldn't have been selected for the team anyway.

 

While the nationals might have a stronger field since it's deeper, it's an unfair comparison, since the tournaments (BB ct. nationals) are different species. In the BB only one team per country can play, so one has to remember the long qualification process for the pairs/teams before being able to participate at all. In the nationals any slaughter lamb can just write his name on the entry list, if he likes.

[NickRW]

Yes, it may be true that a very few tournaments have a stronger field. But this tends to be inevitable given the nature of the tournament (strong regions only have a relatively few teams etc). This does not alter the fact that the winners will have beaten the best that can be thrown at them through the tournament + qualifying process.

 

Nick

[cRi cRi]

Sadek and el ahmadi are not playing either, and I think, are world class.

[Aberlour10]

One could even argue that BZ are Poles, never have played for Russia in an event such as this before, and were ineligible for the qualifications in Pau. So not really unnatural not to see them in the Russian team in Sao Paulo.

 

 

 

It seems B-Z are going to play for Team Poland once again. I have just read the official communique of The Polish Bridge Union. The captain of the team open appointed them (together with Buras-Narkiewicz) for the Europeans 2010 in Ostend.

 

Robert

[paulg]

One could even argue that BZ are Poles, never have played for Russia in an event such as this before, and were ineligible for the qualifications in Pau. So not really unnatural not to see them in the Russian team in Sao Paulo.

It seems B-Z are going to play for Team Poland once again. I have just read the official communique of The Polish Bridge Union. The captain of the team open appointed them (together with Buras-Narkiewicz) for the Europeans 2010 in Ostend.

 

Robert

Good news for those of us who want to see one of the top pairs in the world playing rather than sitting on the sidelines.