Trials for 3 teams

[Fluffy]

Tomorrow we play our NBO's team trials for european championship.

 

3 teams have signed up, and as far as I know we will be playing at 3 tables all the time, in 1 table you play against one team, and in another you play against the other, comparing the results to an IMP escale.

 

After a set of boards there will be a VP escale transformation.

 

I think this is kinda unfair, since there is a sponsor in a team, and out team mates are a junior team not quite strong, it is easy to see how the third team could be affected, if or weak pair played all the time against them, and the sponsor did the same.

 

 

I am suspect that there is a better way, playing sets of more boards (2x, 3x, 4x, I am not sure), where no susbstitutions are allowed, with some board rotation, you will play half (quarter) matches against each team, wich your team mates will complete at another moment against the other pair, and there will be full matches to score so less unfairness.

 

Does anyone know how this rotation works?

[Fluffy]

Ok it was very easy when I tried, nevermind :lol:

[paulg]

Scotland had three teams and the Conditions of Contest are available if you are really interested (PDF).

 

All teams were four-handed, so the problem of substitutes did not arise. However it could easily be done by pre-declaring a substitution at the halfway mark of each session.

 

For us (and I am a selector), the more interesting question was the format. We eventually went for a quadruple round-robin based on 16-board matches. This emulated the form of competition in Ostend (although it will probably be 20-board matches there).

[TimG]

After a set of boards there will be a VP escale transformation.

 

I think this is kinda unfair, since there is a sponsor in a team, and out team mates are a junior team not quite strong, it is easy to see how the third team could be affected, if or weak pair played all the time against them, and the sponsor did the same.

It seems to me that in a 3-way, if one team beats both other teams, they should advance/win. This still seems possible even though each "match" is broken up into segments that are scored by VP; if you score more VP than the other team over however many head-to-head segments you've played, you win.

 

In effect, you would be playing a single match against each of the other teams, if any of the three teams wins both matches, they win. VP would only come into play in the event of each team winning a single match as a tie-breaker.

[Fluffy]

I think I didn't explain this very well.

 

There are 3 tables, supose that for a extrange reason. there are 4 WC pairs, and 2 beginner pairs.

 

If the 2 beginner pairs always play against each other, the team who has 2 WC pairs and not 1 WC pair and 1 beginner pair is having the same % of winning the event than the others, wich is kinda unfair.

 

 

So there is a rotation that solves this problem, for example playing 16 board segments

 

Table 1 has boards 1-8 And holds the match A vs B

Table 2 has boards 9-16 And holds the match B vs C

Table 3 has boards 17-24 And holds the match C vs A

 

It is a 2 round movement

 

R1:

 

at table 1 A1 is NS, B2 is EW

at table 2 B1 is NS, C2 is EW

at table 3 C1 is NS, A2 is EW

 

R2:

 

at table 1 A2 is EW, B1 is NS

at table 2 B2 is EW, C1 is NS

at table 3 C2 is EW, A1 is NS

[mrdct]

Is this a pairs qualifying or teams qualifying?

[paulg]

I think I didn't explain this very well.

 

There are 3 tables, supose that for a extrange reason. there are 4 WC pairs, and 2 beginner pairs.

 

If the 2 beginner pairs always play against each other, the team who has 2 WC pairs and not 1 WC pair and 1 beginner pair is having the same % of winning the event than the others, wich is kinda unfair.

 

 

So there is a rotation that solves this problem, for example playing 16 board segments

 

Table 1 has boards 1-8 And holds the match A vs B

Table 2 has boards 9-16 And holds the match B vs C

Table 3 has boards 17-24 And holds the match C vs A

 

It is a 2 round movement

 

R1:

 

at table 1 A1 is NS, B2 is EW

at table 2 B1 is NS, C2 is EW

at table 3 C1 is NS, A2 is EW

 

R2:

 

at table 1 A2 is EW, B1 is NS

at table 2 B2 is EW, C1 is NS

at table 3 C2 is EW, A1 is NS

Presuming that there is no seeding of the teams, then it would be fairest to have no seating rights.

 

Each team must specify its line up for the two rounds to the Director prior to the start of the movement.

 

(In our trials the teams were seeded based on the pre-trial results. There were four sets of the two round movement and the top seed had a small advantage in the seating rights)

[TimG]

There are 3 tables, supose that for a extrange reason. there are 4 WC pairs, and 2 beginner pairs.

 

If the 2 beginner pairs always play against each other, the team who has 2 WC pairs and not 1 WC pair and 1 beginner pair is having the same % of winning the event than the others, wich is kinda unfair.

Can you give an example of a movement which would result in this?

 

For these purposes, let's call Team A the all world class team. Team B and Team C have pairs B1 and C1 that are world class and pairs B2 and C2 that are beginners.

[NickRW]

This has all pairs meet all opposing pairs if you're prepared to split it over 4 rounds (thus each match has two halves):

 

Round 1

ns ew board set

a1 b1 u

c1 a2 v

c2 b2 y

 

Round 2

a1 c2 v

b1 a2 w

b2 c1 z

 

Round 3

a1 b2 w

c2 a2 x

b1 c1 y

 

Round 4

a1 c1 x

b2 a2 u

c2 b1 z

 

The only slightly annoying feature is that you'd have to stop teammates discussing boards at the half way point - could be solved if you split it still further into 8 rounds - say of 6 if you were, for example, wanting a 48 board match - 4 rounds of 6, break, 4 more rounds of 6.

[mrdct]

Since when in a teams event do the organisers determine the seating?

 

Wouldn't you just play a series of normal triangle movements rotating the seating rights (each set of 2 half matches requiring one team to sit 2 pairs and one team to sit one pair)?

[Fluffy]

Its being very close, with a couple of appeals, 8 (12 board) matches played (4 against each other team) and 2 more (1 against each) to be played tomorrow the satandings are

 

 

T1: 122 VP

T2: 121 VP

T3: 117 VP

 

 

So far no team has managed to win the 2 matches of the same movement. I'd like to say that very good bridge isbeing played, but I would be lieing, the standings are very poor indeed. But for every team.