Selecting USA Team

[PeterGill]

I have played for my country in teams selected from Pairs Trials and in teams selected from Teams Trials.

 

Based on that experience, I agree 100% with Fred.

 

Also, the results of Australian teams selected by Pairs Trials are much worse than those selected by Teams Trials. Australia's dismal showing in Beijing last year

after Pairs Trials was not an isolated case. I could add a few hundred lines of actual Australian data for the last ten years here, but I will not. The data exists because we alternate Pairs Trials and Teams Trials from year to year.

Do you think this was more due to the team spirit thing, or due to the teams selected by teams trials consisting of better pairs?

"Do you think this was more due to the team spirit thing, or due to the teams selected by teams trials consisting of better pairs?"

 

Both.

 

Our Australian Pairs Trials for our Beijing Open team produced a team of pairs seeded about 9, 10 and 12 of the 16 pairs. Fourth was the 13th seeds. Our 2008 Women's Team was the 3rd, 4th and 12th seeds, with the 13th seeds 4th.

 

Our Open Teams' team spirit in 2007 after Teams Trials was good, but in 2008 was lacking, in my opinion.

 

Personally, I think that selection of the team by a sole selector (like Norway in 2007, Italy in 2008, even USA2 for one player in 2009) is best if you want good results, but I accept that such a dictatorial undemocratic approach is widely regarded as unacceptable in many countries. Teams Trials 2nd best in my opinion, with Pairs Trials almost useless if you want a happy team that can do well. Pairs Trials should be the most popular method if players are polled, as they give more players a chance to make the team.

 

I look forward hopefully, with my fingers crossed, to Australia's 2010 Trials, which are Pairs Trials.

[Vampyr]

Personally, I think that selection of the team by a sole selector (like Norway in 2007, Italy in 2008, even USA2 for one player in 2009) is best if you want good results, but I accept that such a dictatorial undemocratic approach is widely regarded as unacceptable in many countries.

In the UK selection is done by a committee, and there are no end of horror stories about it.

[phil_20686]

Personally, I think that selection of the team by a sole selector (like Norway in 2007, Italy in 2008, even USA2 for one player in 2009) is best if you want good results, but I accept that such a dictatorial undemocratic approach is widely regarded as unacceptable in many countries.

In the UK selection is done by a committee, and there are no end of horror stories about it.

Of course mostly people don't agree exactly which decisions were the bad ones - at least not until after the event.

[paulg]

Personally, I think that selection of the team by a sole selector (like Norway in 2007, Italy in 2008, even USA2 for one player in 2009) is best if you want good results, but I accept that such a dictatorial undemocratic approach is widely regarded as unacceptable in many countries.

In the UK selection is done by a committee, and there are no end of horror stories about it.

I think you mean in England ...

[gnasher]

In the UK selection is done by a committee, and there are no end of horror stories about it.

Are there? Obviously the decisions will only be as good as the committee, but I can't think of any recent selection decision that looked really silly. Most of the recent criticism has been about the process rather than about the eventual selection decisions.

[Mbodell]

Our Australian Pairs Trials for our Beijing Open team produced a team of pairs seeded about 9, 10 and 12 of the 16 pairs. Fourth was the 13th seeds. Our 2008 Women's Team was the 3rd, 4th and 12th seeds, with the 13th seeds 4th.

 

Personally, I think that selection of the team by a sole selector (like Norway in 2007, Italy in 2008, even USA2 for one player in 2009) is best if you want good results, but I accept that such a dictatorial undemocratic approach is widely regarded as unacceptable in many countries. Teams Trials 2nd best in my opinion, with Pairs Trials almost useless if you want a happy team that can do well. Pairs Trials should be the most popular method if players are polled, as they give more players a chance to make the team.

 

I look forward hopefully, with my fingers crossed, to Australia's 2010 Trials, which are Pairs Trials.

Do you think that is inherit in any pairs trials, or just because the Australian pairs trial was too short? I could see an argument that one reason a team trial might be better than a pairs trial, even ignoring all the "team spirit" psychology would be that it is easier to sort teams than pairs over the same number of hands played. So if "good" pairs tend to team up to form teams (possibly arguable in the sponsored world, but maybe not) then a pairs trial needs many more hands to get the true 3 best pairs while a team trial needs fewer as the teammates will pick each other up.

 

Personally, I think that selection of the team by a sole selector (like Norway in 2007, Italy in 2008, even USA2 for one player in 2009) is best if you want good results, but I accept that such a dictatorial undemocratic approach is widely regarded as unacceptable in many countries.

 

It is interesting that this is the way many sports do it, which as was pointed out in the thread already, involve much more team cooperation than bridge. The national soccer team, basketball team, hockey team, etc. are all formed by having a head coach and/or national selectors and then selecting the team. We don't, generally, have a team trial and pick the winning team from some team competition (although curling in Canada does work that way).

[nige1]

Terence Reese seemed to agree with Peter Gill that the function of a selector is to select and that a selector should rely on his own judgement. I think they're both wrong. I think the function of a selector should be to define and enforce a fair selection procedure, that is as objective as possible; to encourage and vet new partnerships. I don't think selection should necessarily depend on trials alone. For example, selectors may designate other relevant competitions (England has the Premier League) but they could also specify high standard imp pairs events.

 

I agree with Peter, however, when he says that pairs trials are more popular because they give more players a chance to make the team. Pairs trials are good at encouraging new pairs to come forward and hone their skills against established pairs. I would have thought that (sponsors permitting) pairs tirals would produce the best teams (I would like to see Peter's contrary data on the Australian experience). Even if pairs trials are inferior in the short term, they are likely to be more effective in the long term because they sow more seed corn. I feel that they are fairer. Hence more ordinary players are likely to take an interest in their team and support it.

[woefuwabit]

How about a system like this for the strongest possible team with a sponsor:

 

Split the qualifiers into 2 separate pair trials. One group for unsponsored pairs, a second group for pairs that include one player that is willing to sponsor the entire team when formed.

 

The top two pairs from the first group and the top pair from the second group will form the team.

[PeterGill]

Personally, I think that selection of the team by a sole selector (like Norway in 2007, Italy in 2008, even USA2 for one player in 2009) is best if you want good results, but I accept that such a dictatorial undemocratic approach is widely regarded as unacceptable in many countries.

In the UK selection is done by a committee, and there are no end of horror stories about it.

England came 1st or 2nd in the world in all three of the Open, Women's and Under 21 World Championships in Beijing, the most recent World Championships that England competed in, excluding oldies. I connected "good results" to "sole selector". England has mutliple selectors, in my opinion not quite as good an approach as the three countries I mentioned in my previous email, all of whom won the World Championship in the year I referred to.

 

"Horror Stories about Selection" and "Successful Teams" in my opinion often go hand in hand. The horror stories a few months ago about adding Ralph Katz to USA2, as discussed on bridgeblogging.com. are among many examples.

 

Nigel, please email me at petergill909 ..... at ..... gmail.com if you want the Aussie data. I cannot clutter these pages with it - it might fill more than one page here.

 

I think Pairs Trials of about 3 weeks would be long enough, but in the real world that is impractical. Any shorter is too short to sort out the Pairs, in my opinionated opinion. For example, two months ago my sick food-poisoned client and I played in a Butler Pairs Trials of the top pairs in Australia, coming 2nd after 8 days play. Either it was too short to sort out the field properly, or the pairs from 3rd down were woeful. Please do not forward this to my client.

 

I like the comparison of curling to bridge - but me and Reese? I'll have to check how many fingers are visible when I hold my cards. :rolleyes:

[gnasher]

How about a system like this for the strongest possible team with a sponsor:

 

Split the qualifiers into 2 separate pair trials. One group for unsponsored pairs, a second group for pairs that include one player that is willing to sponsor the entire team when formed.

 

The top two pairs from the first group and the top pair from the second group will form the team.

I don't think this is a very good idea, because:

- The winning sponsor pair is the pair which is best able to compete against other sponsor pairs, rather than against world-class opponents.

- If an amateur pair finishes in the top two, you force them to play with a sponsor.

- You remove the option of a non-playing sponsor. Such people do exist, in Italy, England, and no doubt elsewhere. I doubt if there is a bridge pro anywhere in the world that prefers playing with a sponsor to playing with another pro.

- Pros aren't all paid the same, and different sponsors have different budgets. A sponsor who couldn't afford Meckwell might choose to play in the pro qualifier, to avoid a large bill for winning the sponsor event. If he happened to do well, you'd end up with two sponsors in your team.

[paulg]

How about a system like this for the strongest possible team with a sponsor:

 

Split the qualifiers into 2 separate pair trials. One group for unsponsored pairs, a second group for pairs that include one player that is willing to sponsor the entire team when formed.

 

The top two pairs from the first group and the top pair from the second group will form the team.

I don't think this is a very good idea, because:

- The winning sponsor pair is the pair which is best able to compete against other sponsor pairs, rather than against world-class opponents.

- If an amateur pair finishes in the top two, you force them to play with a sponsor.

- You remove the option of a non-playing sponsor. Such people do exist, in Italy, England, and no doubt elsewhere. I doubt if there is a bridge pro anywhere in the world that prefers playing with a sponsor to playing with another pro.

- Pros aren't all paid the same, and different sponsors have different budgets. A sponsor who couldn't afford Meckwell might choose to play in the pro qualifier, to avoid a large bill for winning the sponsor event. If he happened to do well, you'd end up with two sponsors in your team.

Additionally, even in the land of professionalism, the USA1 team for the Bermuda Bowl last month did not have a sponsor.

[NickRW]

I think Pairs Trials of about 3 weeks would be long enough, but in the real world that is impractical. Any shorter is too short to sort out the Pairs, in my opinionated opinion.

Well, that is the problem with any form of trials - be they team trials or pairs trials. A couple of hundred boards is nothing like enough (already circa 4 days play or more for teams of 6). 400 is better, but still not enough. 600 could still suffer from variance.

 

Nick

[mrdct]

Perhaps a way to keep both camps happy would be to run a teams trial where the winner becomes USA1 and the runner-up earns a right to contest a play-off against a team determined from a pairs trial to become USA2.

 

Given that you have a safety net of the runner-up from the teams trial (likely a very strong team of people who want to play together with a playing sponsor) you could get away with a relatively short pairs trial - probably 5 days would suffice comprised of 2 days of qualifying/seeding (perhaps on a weekend so non-qualifiers can fly home on Sunday night) to come down to a field of, say, 12 pairs to play an 11-round butler over 3 days (probably 16-board matches) and then the top 3 pairs form a team to play-off against the runner-up from the teams trial.

 

Despite the economics of top-level professional bridge, I would expect that once the pros have discharged all of their obligations to their sponsors through the NABCs and the teams trial, those that didn't make the top 2 in the teams trial would still have a little bit of fire in the belly to have last-ditch effort to get to a world championship.

 

Scheduling might be a bit of an issue and will probably require the teams trials to be played a little bit earlier in the cycle, but I'm sure all that could be worked out.

 

This is not dissimilar to how my home state of Victoria (a bridge jurisdiction of about 5000 players so comparable to a medium-sized European country) selects its team - basically the winner of the state teams championships plays-off against a butler team selected from a pairs trial. Not surprisingly, the state teams champion usually (but not always) wins but at least pairs that couldn't organise themselves onto a strong team still get a chance to represent their state and it adds another good quality bridge event to the calendar.

[Jlall]

Maybe I've forgotten what was written in this thread, but who is the other camp? As far as I know everyone who plays in the trials is happy with it. I have a hard time believing there are people who don't play in the trials because it's a team trials rather than a pairs.

 

And FWIW a pairs trial would be beneficial to someone like me in particular rather than a teams trial, and I think an open team game with long matches is the best/most fair way to decide this assuming the goal is to pick the best team while still giving everyone a shot.

[Cascade]

Teams trials are no doubt the best way to choose between the teams entered.

 

Self selection of teams is very unlikely to produce the best team.

[mrdct]

Also, the results of Australian teams selected by Pairs Trials are much worse than those selected by Teams Trials. Australia's dismal showing in Beijing last year

after Pairs Trials was not an isolated case. I could add a few hundred lines of actual Australian data for the last ten years here, but I will not. The data exists because we alternate Pairs Trials and Teams Trials from year to year.

Whilst this is a tread about USA team selection methods, Australia is an interesting test case because we dable in both pairs-based and teams-based selection methods.

 

I thought I'd have look at the data myself as it's all published on the internet and it turns out that over the ten year period that Peter refers to, the pairs-based teams have actually performed better than the teams-based teams in terms of average percentile placing in qualifying fields.

 

Since 1/1/2000 Australia has played in 6 Bermuda Bowls and 3 Olympiads/WMSGs. Of those 9 teams, 2 were selected from a pairs trial and 7 were selected from a teams trial.

 

The pairs-based teams contested the 2004 and 2008 Olympiads coming 7th/18 and 11th/18 respectively which on average is exactly mid-field (average placing of 50% of the field size).

 

The teams-based teams have had 3 quite credible performances making the KO stages in the 2000 Olympiad and the 2003 and 2007 Bowls but have had some poor performances also - finishing in the bottom third of the field in the 2000 (in lieu of 1999), 2001, 2005 and 2009 Bowls. On average the teams-based teams have come just slightly below mid-field with an average placing of 52% of the field-size.

 

Not much in it, but the statistics don't really support Peter's contention that "teams selected by Pairs Trials are much worse than those selected by Teams Trials".

 

Another quite telling observation that I've made in compiling this data is that in the aforementioned events Australia has fielded no less that 37 players on its open team whilst in the same events Italy has only fielded 11 players and at no time has ever made more than 2 changes to its line-up.

[gnasher]

The pairs-based teams contested the 2004 and 2008 Olympiads coming 7th/18 and 11th/18 respectively which on average is exactly mid-field (average placing of 50% of the field size).

 

The teams-based teams have had 3 quite credible performances making the KO stages in the 2000 Olympiad and the 2003 and 2007 Bowls but have had some poor performances also - finishing in the bottom third of the field in the 2000 (in lieu of 1999), 2001, 2005 and 2009 Bowls. On average the teams-based teams have come just slightly below mid-field with an average placing of 52% of the field-size.

It doesn't sound as though you have enough data to evaluate the different methods reliably. If this data means anything, however, it means that pairs-based trials lead to mediocre results, whereas teams-based trials give chances of significant success, but at a greater risk of failure. I know which I'd prefer, both as a player and as a member of a national bridge organisation

 

Take England's recent Olympiad performance as an example. I know that we lost in the final in 2008, and in the semi-final in 2000, and I know who played in each team. I have no idea where we finished in 2004 or who was in the team; all that I know is that we didn't reach the knockout stages.

[mich-b]

I thought I'd have look at the data myself as it's all published on the internet and it turns out that over the ten year period that Peter refers to, the pairs-based teams have actually performed better than the teams-based teams in terms of average percentile placing in qualifying fields. 

 

Since 1/1/2000 Australia has played in 6 Bermuda Bowls and 3 Olympiads/WMSGs. Of those 9 teams, 2 were selected from a pairs trial and 7 were selected from a teams trial.

 

The pairs-based teams contested the 2004 and 2008 Olympiads coming 7th/18 and 11th/18 respectively which on average is exactly mid-field (average placing of 50% of the field size).

 

The teams-based teams have had 3 quite credible performances making the KO stages in the 2000 Olympiad and the 2003 and 2007 Bowls but have had some poor performances also - finishing in the bottom third of the field in the 2000 (in lieu of 1999), 2001, 2005 and 2009 Bowls.  On average the teams-based teams have come just slightly below mid-field with an average placing of 52% of the field-size.

 

Not much in it, but the statistics don't really support Peter's contention that "teams selected by Pairs Trials are much worse than those selected by Teams Trials".

 

I think that it is very wrong to compare performance in Olympiad to performance in BB by terms of finishing place in the qualifying stage.

It is obvious that a qualifying group of 18 in an Olympiad (an open event!), would have quite a few weak teams (and only 1/4 of the strong teams), while the BB field has no weak teams and all the strong teams (including 2 from USA).

 

So certainly finishing 11/18 in the qualifying stage of the Olympiad is a poor result, equal to last in the BB. and 7/18 in the Olympiad group is equal to about 25th overall in the Olympiad , which also is far from being equal to average in BB.

 

So , it seems to me that the data as you present it, does very much support Peter Gill's claims.

[helene_t]

Obviously I know nothing from personal experience, but the Dutch model with a core group of 5-7 pairs from which teams are selected based on form curve and availability seems like a good model to me. It is more flexible than a team trial and avoids most of the social issues related to a pairs trial which might select pairs that don't really want to play together.

 

A few years ago there was a 4-handed team (Zia was one of the players I think) in the trials. The reason they didn't have a 3rd pair was that they had been playing with foreign pairs in other big US tournaments, so at the time of the trial it was difficult to find a good 3rd pair. So they hoped to qualify as a 4-handed team and then recruit a pair from one of the non-qualifiers for the BB. That seems awkward but probably doesn't happen too often.

[nige1]

Whilst this is a tread about USA team selection methods, Australia is an interesting test case because we dable in both pairs-based and teams-based selection methods. I thought I'd have look at the data myself as it's all published on the internet and it turns out that over the ten year period that Peter refers to, the pairs-based teams have actually performed better than the teams-based teams in terms of average percentile placing in qualifying fields.  Since 1/1/2000 Australia has played in 6 Bermuda Bowls and 3 Olympiads/WMSGs. Of those 9 teams, 2 were selected from a pairs trial and 7 were selected from a teams trial. The pairs-based teams contested the 2004 and 2008 Olympiads coming 7th/18 and 11th/18 respectively which on average is exactly mid-field (average placing of 50% of the field size). The teams-based teams have had 3 quite credible performances making the KO stages in the 2000 Olympiad and the 2003 and 2007 Bowls but have had some poor performances also - finishing in the bottom third of the field in the 2000 (in lieu of 1999), 2001, 2005 and 2009 Bowls.  On average the teams-based teams have come just slightly below mid-field with an average placing of 52% of the field-size. Not much in it, but the statistics don't really support Peter's contention that "teams selected by Pairs Trials are much worse than those selected by Teams Trials". Another quite telling observation that I've made in compiling this data is that in the aforementioned events Australia has fielded no less that 37 players on its open team whilst in the same events Italy has only fielded 11 players and at no time has ever made more than 2 changes to its line-up.

Thank you Mrdct. I don't think there's enough Australian trials data, especially pairs data, to arrive at a firm conclusion. I dare say we'll interpret them to suit our prejudices; but I agree with Mrdct that there appears to be no significant difference. If some pairs qualified only in teams trials or only in pairs trials, perhaps comparing their butlers would produce a more polarised result. Presumably, more data is available from other places and other years.

[cherdanno]

So aside from the fact that mrdct misleadingly compares Olympiad and BB performances, he also seems to disagree with PeterGill about whether the 2009 team was selected by a teams trial or pairs trial.

[JanM]

Perhaps a way to keep both camps happy would be to run a teams trial where the winner becomes USA1 and the runner-up earns a right to contest a play-off against a team determined from a pairs trial to become USA2.

Something very like this format was proposed for the 2009 US Trials, and was overwhelmingly rejected by the (very large and quite representative of the players in the Trials) International Team Trials Committee after a lot of discussion. At least some of the professional pairs said that they would not play in a pairs qualifying event under this sort of format. The ITTC chose instead to run what was essentially a double elimination KO (the teams that lost from the Round of 16 on played in the USA2 bracket). The winner of the USA2 bracket won the Bermuda Bowl, which probably will provide support for those of us who feel that a team trials is better than a pairs trials :rolleyes:

[nige1]

I have a hard time believing there are people who don't play in the trials because it's a team trials rather than a pairs.

I disgree with JLAll. Suppose God would rank 48 players in order G1, G2, ... G48 (in terms of technical and partnership skills) and they play a tournament of 480 boards. In an individual event, you would expect a poor correlation between the actual results and God's order. In a pairs event where the better players tended to play with each other, you would expect a better correlation. In a teams event, where the better pairs tend to play in the better teams, you would expect an even better correlation. Arguably, this is almost self-selection. But unfortunate consequences of teams trials seem hard to avoid:

• Good teams (season-ticket holders) tend to stick together, year on year. With a practical monopoly on international experience, the top teams become better and better, as their members grow older and older.
  
• Good new pairs (seed-corn) will usually have to team up with inferior team-mates. With little prospect of selection, a good new pair may not deem it worthwhile to enter the trials; this is a pity because trials, themselves, are an excellent training ground. A pair may not even judge it to be worth the hassle to hone their skills to international standard. Hence teams-trials do not encourage new participants.
  

IMO, if you can ignore sponsorship, then pairs trials would produce better teams, in the long term, than teams trials. They would also make the game more interesting and exciting for new players. Sponsorship is here to stay however, so this discussion is academic, unless you adopt a suggestion like MrDict's

[awm]

There's certainly a point of view that says:

 

(1) The main reason to have a pairs trial is to get some good pairs involved who might otherwise not participate. Even though these pairs are in most cases not good enough to actually make the BB team, playing in the trials will be good experience for them, and if they do well it might help them get picked up by a good team in future years.

 

(2) The teams currently participating in the trials clearly find the format acceptable. Adding new pairs to the mix, or having a pairs trial of some form as suggested, would potentially reduce the chances of the currently participating teams winning the trials.

 

(3) The evidence that "everyone is happy with the current system" is based primarily on polls and votes of the current participants. It is unsurprising that the substantial majority likes things as they are, given the first two points.

[fred]

I have a hard time believing there are people who don't play in the trials because it's a team trials rather than a pairs.

I disgree with JLAll. Suppose God would rank 48 players in order G1, G2, ... G48 (in terms of technical and partnership skills) and they play a tournament of 480 boards. In an individual event, you would expect a poor correlation between the actual results and God's order. In a pairs event where the better players tended to play with each other, you would expect a better correlation. In a teams event, where the better pairs tend to play in the better teams, you would expect an even better correlation. Arguably, this is almost self-selection. But unfortunate consequences of teams trials seem hard to avoid:

• 
   
  
• Good teams (season-ticket holders) tend to stick together, year on year. With a practical monopoly on international experience, the top teams become better and better, as their members grow older and older.
   
  
• Good new pairs (seed-corn) will usually have to team up with inferior team-mates. With little prospect of selection, a good new pair may not deem it worthwhile to enter the trials; this is unfortunate because trials, themselves, are an excellent training ground. Thus a pair may not even judge it to be worth the hassle to hone their skills to international standard. Hence teams-trials do not encourage new participants.
   
  

IMO, if you can ignore sponsorship, then pairs trials would produce better teams, in the long term, than teams trials. They would also make the game more interesting and exciting for new players. Sponsorship is here to stay however, so this discussion is academic, unless you adopt a suggestion like MrDict's

I think you are wrong, Nigel, at least as far as the USA is concerned (where you can get plenty of "international experience" without playing in a single World Championship).

 

IMO "good new pairs", regardless of their bridge talent, who are not willing to pay their dues (by playing with inferior teammates during the time in which they improve to the point of being world class and to the point that they are recognized as such) probably do not have what it takes in terms of mental makeup to compete at the highest levels.

 

And, notwithstanding professional considerations, the best teams tend to stick together only as long as they continue to win.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com