Hanoi5 Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 Everyone is NEVER satisfied Truer words were never spoken. But the discussion is not irrelevant. By reading what other people are doing and their complains we can try to get more people satisfied than at the moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 By reading what other people are doing and their complains we can try to get more people satisfied than at the moment. Most bridge players are only truly happy if they have something to complain about. Hence any selection method will do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhantomSac Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 I'm quite happy with how the US open team is selected heh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pooltuna Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 I'm quite happy with how the US open team is selected heh That's easy to say as long as your on it (But I realize you mean you are just happy with the process :) ) and don't have to pay attention to the GCC :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aberlour10 Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 I'm quite happy with how the US open team is selected heh It seems, there is no better way to select considering how the "sponsoring system" in the US bridge works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted March 5, 2010 Report Share Posted March 5, 2010 I'm quite happy with how the US open team is selected heh It seems, there is no better way to select considering how the "sponsoring system" in the US bridge works. I have posted often as a huge advocate of an "open" style for usa bridge. As I have often said the number one goal/priority is not to win it all at any cost. The top priority is that we all, nonexperts, get a chance to compete. AGain I have no issue with seedings, etc.... If nonexperts or non superexperts have to play more boards, matches.....so be it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted March 5, 2010 Report Share Posted March 5, 2010 I have posted often as a huge advocate of an "open" style for usa bridge. As I have often said the number one goal/priority is not to win it all at any cost. The top priority is that we all, nonexperts, get a chance to compete. AGain I have no issue with seedings, etc.... But they do, don't they? At the start of a cycle, don't you have exactly the same oportunity as Meckstroth? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted March 5, 2010 Report Share Posted March 5, 2010 I have posted often as a huge advocate of an "open" style for usa bridge. As I have often said the number one goal/priority is not to win it all at any cost. The top priority is that we all, nonexperts, get a chance to compete. AGain I have no issue with seedings, etc.... But they do, don't they? At the start of a cycle, don't you have exactly the same oportunity as Meckstroth? I HOPE SO...... IN MANY ....NO...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted March 5, 2010 Report Share Posted March 5, 2010 gnasher, I think not since they have #1 seed in all tournaments and so they have an easier route and then they get a very good seed for the trials. Not saying it's unfair but clearly the answer to your question is "no". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted March 5, 2010 Report Share Posted March 5, 2010 Deleted - sorry, talking rubbish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickRW Posted March 5, 2010 Report Share Posted March 5, 2010 gnasher, I think not since they have #1 seed in all tournaments and so they have an easier route and then they get a very good seed for the trials. Not saying it's unfair but clearly the answer to your question is "no". Well, I agree that the answer is no - but isn't that, to a certain extent anyway, a good thing? The reason I say this is that a country (US or otherwise) has made a certain selection for team X, or pairs Y and Z which they are fairly confident is a good choice. Trials matches have significant variance even over as many as 200 boards - so you don't want your "good choice" being knocked out of the selection process too easily. It starts to become a bad thing when the "good choice" people start to get past their best - then you want to be able to knock them off their perch - but no system will ever be perfect. Nick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glen Posted March 5, 2010 Report Share Posted March 5, 2010 Note that the US seeding process involves the results of events where non-US world class opponents are also involved - obtaining seeding points from these events is a good predictor of being able to effectively compete on the world stage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted March 5, 2010 Report Share Posted March 5, 2010 Nick, I agree with the system (or the basic idea at least, maybe byes all the way to the semis are a bit excessive). I just answered Andy's question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JanM Posted March 6, 2010 Report Share Posted March 6, 2010 gnasher, I think not since they have #1 seed in all tournaments and so they have an easier route and then they get a very good seed for the trials. Not saying it's unfair but clearly the answer to your question is "no".Having the #1 seed in the Vanderbilt or Spingold (it's pretty irrelevant in the Reisinger) is helpful in the first few rounds of the event. If any of us were to be seeded #1 in Reno instead of Fred's team, which will in fact be the #1 seed, we'd have a better chance of making the third or maybe even fourth day of the event. But after the Round of 32, the field is sufficiently deep that high seeds don't get easier matches than lower seeds. And teams don't get Trials Positioning Points until the Round of 16, so a high seed may improve a team's chance of getting Trials Positioning Points, but not by much. In order to get a serious bye in the Trials, a team needs to do better than the Round of 16 in the Vanderbilt & Spingold. For example, the Nickell team won the Reisinger and reached the Spingold Round of 16. They have earned a bye to the Round of 8 in the Trials. To earn a bye to the Semi-finals, they will have to reach the Vanderbilt Finals. Yes, teams with byes in the Trials have an advantage over teams without byes, but byes are based only on performance over the previous year (last year's Trials and the three major NABC team games). Everyone who hasn't earned a bye is in exactly the same position as you or I - we get to enter the Trials (well I don't any more because I'm too busy with administrative tasks), if our team does well enough in the Round Robin we get to advance to the KO. If we play well enough to beat all the other teams, we get to represent the US. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fred Posted March 6, 2010 Report Share Posted March 6, 2010 gnasher, I think not since they have #1 seed in all tournaments and so they have an easier route and then they get a very good seed for the trials. Not saying it's unfair but clearly the answer to your question is "no".Having the #1 seed in the Vanderbilt or Spingold (it's pretty irrelevant in the Reisinger) is helpful in the first few rounds of the event. If any of us were to be seeded #1 in Reno instead of Fred's team, which will in fact be the #1 seed, we'd have a better chance of making the third or maybe even fourth day of the event. But after the Round of 32, the field is sufficiently deep that high seeds don't get easier matches than lower seeds. And teams don't get Trials Positioning Points until the Round of 16, so a high seed may improve a team's chance of getting Trials Positioning Points, but not by much. In order to get a serious bye in the Trials, a team needs to do better than the Round of 16 in the Vanderbilt & Spingold. For example, the Nickell team won the Reisinger and reached the Spingold Round of 16. They have earned a bye to the Round of 8 in the Trials. To earn a bye to the Semi-finals, they will have to reach the Vanderbilt Finals. Yes, teams with byes in the Trials have an advantage over teams without byes, but byes are based only on performance over the previous year (last year's Trials and the three major NABC team games). Everyone who hasn't earned a bye is in exactly the same position as you or I - we get to enter the Trials (well I don't any more because I'm too busy with administrative tasks), if our team does well enough in the Round Robin we get to advance to the KO. If we play well enough to beat all the other teams, we get to represent the US.Thanks for the good news, Jan - I had no idea that my team would be the #1 seed in the Vanderbilt. Hopefully we will avoid the "#1 Seed Falls!" headline in the Daily Bulletin early in the event :) Do you know what my team's status is with respect to a bye in the Team Trials? We made it to the semi-finals of the Spingold and came 6th (I think) in the Reisinger. No doubt I could figure out where we stand through the USBF web site, but I am rather hopeless at reading conditions of contests. If you don't know already, please don't waste a lot of time trying to work it out. Incidentally, I think the current system in place for selecting USA's international teams is very good. The USBC has the added bonus of beeing a lot of fun to play in (at least once the round robin phase is complete). It is a great event. The system in Canada (where I used to play) is different - it is similar in nature to the ACBL's Grand National Teams (teams qualify to represent their districts and then play a round robin to qualify for a knockout). For Canada, this is a sensible way to do things IMO, but historically the Canadian system has not done as good a job as the USA system in terms of qualifying what most would consider to be "the best teams that entered". Fred GitelmanBridge Base Inc.www.bridgebase.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JanM Posted March 6, 2010 Report Share Posted March 6, 2010 Oops - ACBL always gets me when I go to their website to look for something quickly - it's the defenders who get the 1 seed, and when I quickly went to the "bracket sheet" on the ACBL website for last year's Vanderbilt I thought that was you (I know, memory failing, you'd think I could remember from a year ago). So I don't actually know who'll have the 1-seed, as the Katz team won't have 4 players playing together in this year's Vanderbilt. As for the Trials bye situation, you don't actually have to read any Conditions of Contest to find out that your team currently has a bye to the Round of 16 and will probably have to make the Round of 8 in the Vanderbilt to earn a bye to the Trials Round of 8 - just go to the usbf website and click on 2010 Open Trials. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aberlour10 Posted March 6, 2010 Report Share Posted March 6, 2010 from the USBF site... The 2010 USBC will select USA1 for the 2011 Bermuda Bowl what about team USA2 for the BB 2011? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fred Posted March 6, 2010 Report Share Posted March 6, 2010 Oops - ACBL always gets me when I go to their website to look for something quickly - it's the defenders who get the 1 seed, and when I quickly went to the "bracket sheet" on the ACBL website for last year's Vanderbilt I thought that was you (I know, memory failing, you'd think I could remember from a year ago). So I don't actually know who'll have the 1-seed, as the Katz team won't have 4 players playing together in this year's Vanderbilt.Rats! I was already making plans to go skiing in nearby Squaw Valley on the day of the bye I was anticipating we would surely have as the #1 seed :) Thanks for the info about 2010 USBC byes. Fred GitelmanBridge Base Inc.www.bridgebase.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JanM Posted March 6, 2010 Report Share Posted March 6, 2010 from the USBF site... The 2010 USBC will select USA1 for the 2011 Bermuda Bowl what about team USA2 for the BB 2011?That will be selected by the 2011 USBC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JanM Posted March 6, 2010 Report Share Posted March 6, 2010 Oops - ACBL always gets me when I go to their website to look for something quickly - it's the defenders who get the 1 seed, and when I quickly went to the "bracket sheet" on the ACBL website for last year's Vanderbilt I thought that was you (I know, memory failing, you'd think I could remember from a year ago). So I don't actually know who'll have the 1-seed, as the Katz team won't have 4 players playing together in this year's Vanderbilt.Rats! I was already making plans to go skiing in nearby Squaw Valley on the day of the bye I was anticipating we would surely have as the #1 seed :) Thanks for the info about 2010 USBC byes. Fred GitelmanBridge Base Inc.www.bridgebase.com Not to worry - I think the predictions are for just a few teams over 64, so lots of first day byes :). Heavenly Valley is prettier than Squaw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aberlour10 Posted March 6, 2010 Report Share Posted March 6, 2010 from the USBF site... The 2010 USBC will select USA1 for the 2011 Bermuda Bowl what about team USA2 for the BB 2011?That will be selected by the 2011 USBC. Thanks. On this occasion another 2 cents.... I wonder a bit, why the acting world champions have to qualify for the next BB. In my opinion they earned with this great achivement the right to defend this title automatically. Would it be not fair? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JanM Posted March 7, 2010 Report Share Posted March 7, 2010 On this occasion another 2 cents.... I wonder a bit, why the acting world champions have to qualify for the next BB. In my opinion they earned with this great achivement the right to defend this title automatically. Would it be not fair?Perhaps, but there are only a limited number of teams in the Bermuda Bowl and I am confident that if any Zone "lost" a team because the defenders were automatically allowed to defend, there would be an outcry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awm Posted March 8, 2010 Report Share Posted March 8, 2010 I do think the Victoria method (teams competition, then pairs competition which the members of winning team cannot compete in, then top three pairs play against winner of teams competition) is quite good. This seems to avoid the problems inherent in both teams and pairs trials. The well-known issues with pairs trials include: (1) teams that know/trust/like each other usually do better than teams composed of unrelated good pairs (2) some players may not want to play on teams with particular others (3) captaincy/sit-out issues on teams composed of pairs (4) imp pairs is particularly random format and may lead to at least one "weak" pair in the top three. However there are also a number of problems inherent in teams trials such as: (1) the best pairs may not end up on the same team due to social and/or sponsorship issues (2) a very strong pair may have trouble "breaking in" to the team if people don't know about them and/or they are not full-time professional players, since they have issues getting good teammates (3) teams competition often favors professional teams since a weak sponsor can hire five strong players and make the national team, even though the team would clearly be stronger if the sponsor were replaced with a stronger player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogerclee Posted March 8, 2010 Report Share Posted March 8, 2010 I do think the Victoria method (teams competition, then pairs competition which the members of winning team cannot compete in, then top three pairs play against winner of teams competition) is quite good. This seems to avoid the problems inherent in both teams and pairs trials. The well-known issues with pairs trials include: (1) teams that know/trust/like each other usually do better than teams composed of unrelated good pairs (2) some players may not want to play on teams with particular others (3) captaincy/sit-out issues on teams composed of pairs (4) imp pairs is particularly random format and may lead to at least one "weak" pair in the top three. However there are also a number of problems inherent in teams trials such as: (1) the best pairs may not end up on the same team due to social and/or sponsorship issues (2) a very strong pair may have trouble "breaking in" to the team if people don't know about them and/or they are not full-time professional players, since they have issues getting good teammates (3) teams competition often favors professional teams since a weak sponsor can hire five strong players and make the national team, even though the team would clearly be stronger if the sponsor were replaced with a stronger player.Why is this a good idea at all? It seems like this takes a long time (adding to logistic costs and making everyone more tired) with no compelling positive reasons to me, other than making some people happy who think they are so unlucky that they are constantly not good enough to get on the best teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickRW Posted March 8, 2010 Report Share Posted March 8, 2010 Why is this a good idea at all? It seems like this takes a long time (adding to logistic costs... In the particular case cited, most of the potential paticipants live in one city - so the costs are much less than they might have otherwise been 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.