Another question of ethics maybe?

[h2osmom]

My question is about the GNT's. I know of more than one instance where a player had no intention of attending nationals, was arguably the best player on the team they played on for trials, and that team did, in fact, win the trials. It's likely that without that player a different team would have won. So the district is sending a worse team to represent them when that player The rules do allow for substitutions within certain parameters, as long as there are at least 3 original players. My question is, is this ethical even though it is legal? Just to be clear, I was not affected by any of these instances. I just wonder what the general concensus will be. Thank you.

[Jlall]

No, I have often heard the phrase "you cannot play in a trials where you have no intention of playing if you win." I don't know if that is a rule or just something people say or what.

[CSGibson]

In my district, the winning team would be allowed to add any player(s) on the 2nd-4th place teams without question, or be allowed to add any other qualified player from the district given certain approvals. In that case, they will often be able to substitute a very high caliber of player for their "ace", and not appreciably weaken the team unless the player they lost was the best the district had to offer in that flight.

 

I was in that situation two years ago. The team who won flight B GNT trials had one of their best players going to Norway during the nationals; they knew that ahead of time, but still wanted to qualify with him since other players of equivalent skill in the district were already committed to other teams. I was lucky enough to be selected to replace him, and I didn't feel any ethical qualms at the time at how it was handled, nor do I now.

[Jlall]

I was in that situation two years ago. The team who won flight B GNT trials had one of their best players going to Norway during the nationals; they knew that ahead of time, but still wanted to qualify with him since other players of equivalent skill in the district were already committed to other teams. I was lucky enough to be selected to replace him, and I didn't feel any ethical qualms at the time at how it was handled, nor do I now.

Yes but he is disadvantaging the whole field by playing in an event he's not planning to play in if he wins.

 

For starters he might elect to dump (hypothetical he obv, I don't know this guy). Sure you might say, no he won't, but imagine the ramifications of people playing in events where they do not have a personal interest in the outcome. It's an easy spot to just play in it to dump to your friends.

 

If you choose to play on a team with your friends to win because they aren't as good as you and will have a worse chance without you, you're hurting your district and imo it's very unfair to the field. Sure if you win you might be able to add someone equally good, but so might the guys who won, but so might the other guys who were going to win. Their team might have been better than yours.

 

I mean theoretically if person B is the best replacement, maybe person Bs team was better than your team without the ringer, and person B could add person C who is better than anyone on your team, but worse than person B. In that case you are sending a worse team with your team + person B than person Bs team plus person C would be.

 

But fundamentally I believe it's just wrong to be able to "help" your friends at the expense of the other teams.

 

FWIW my own personal experience with this was the junior trials last time, we were only told that it might conflict with Philadelphia like 2 weeks or so in advance (maybe it was available somewhere before then, but we didn't know). I contacted the appropriate people to make sure I could still play even though I would drop off if it did conflict, I was told that I should play since it wasn't a sure thing yet when the scheduling would be (and the dates were actually changed, but just to a different part of Philly).

 

IMO I was ethically obligated to not play if it was definite that I would drop off the team.

[Mbodell]

It probably depends on your district too.

 

Here (district 21) there are a lot of teams that try to qualify for GNT at all different levels and, despite the screwy format for this year's GNTB, I actually really like the way they let people play in multiple flights without conflict. So we typically have 12+ teams playing in GNT-OPEN, GNT-A, GNT-B, and GNT-C with some players playing in multiple flights.

 

Our winning GNT-C team, for instance, played in the GNT-B trials to get good practice in. And a lot of people play in the qualifying both to get the practice in, because long matches against good teams aren't super common. Another reason to play, even if you know you can't go this year, is to help earn yourself seeding rights. A number of districts, including ours, give you seeding rights based, in large part, on how you've done in past qualifications.

 

So I certainly wouldn't think badly of someone, in general, playing in a district GNT qualifier who wasn't planning on going to the nationals. It is a little weird when you describe it as someone who is head and shoulders above the other players. But if you really want to prevent that, have a pairs (or individual!) trial instead of a team trial.

[awm]

There is perhaps a difference between a situation where the entire team intends not to compete at the next level and where a particular player intends not to compete but the rest of the team will.

 

In the first case, there are a number of reasons a team might want to play, including practicing for other events (GNT trials often bring a good field relative to other local things) and the fact that a lot of masterpoints are handed out. Assuming the team is doing their best to win and not dumping, I don't see a huge issue with it. Usually these teams don't end up finishing first anyway, and if they do the second place team is probably reasonable and will get to compete.

 

The individual player thing is more dubious, because it can easily lead to the district getting a weaker representative. There are occasionally cases when one player really cannot make the trials and I could see it as reasonable for another comparable player to fill in for the guy who can't play in the hopes that he can be substituted later. But if it's really a case of adding a "ringer" who is much better than everyone else but has no intention of ever playing at the national level, I do think that's not ethical.

[bill1157]

If you knew you couldn't play or didn't want to in the next level, why not have a 5 man team, so when you drop there is still a team left to send?

 

Bill

[TimG]

Given that the qualifying and final are often months apart, it's easy to imagine a legitimate conflict. Suppose that you make plans to play on a team and then right before the District event you hear that your sister is getting married and the wedding will make it such that you can't attend the national finals if you advance. It's too late for your teammates to find a replacement for you, but if you compete as a team and win, then they can easily find a replacement. I don't think many people would object to this person playing despite the certainty that he will not be able to play in the national finals.

 

I doubt anyone would consider it unethical to qualify at the club for the NAP with a partner that you have no intention of playing with in later stages of the event. Even if you were paying your (much better) partner to play in the club event, I don't think anyone would object.

 

So, let's make up a scenario on the opposite extreme and see what people think.

 

Suppose that there is a very good pair in my district that is eligible for Flight B -- maybe it is a pair of juniors or a pair that is getting back into the game after a long layoff -- but let's just assume for this exercise that this pair is clearly superior to all the other Flight B pairs eligible for the event. Further, this pair will not play in the national finals of the Flight B event no matter what. I'd like to play in the national finals, so I get together my normal team of four and hire the clearly superior pair to play with us in the District event. The hired pair will anchor the team, playing every board of the event while the two "regular" pairs split playing time so that they both qualify per the CoC.

 

Do you see anything unethical about this? I don't really see anything wrong with it.

 

Some people have suggested that they would consider this unethical because it means the District may have a weaker representative. But, (weaker) clients are a generally accepted part of events like the US Team Trials. Some people would opine that such clients are bad for the event, but I don't think many would go so far as to say their entry is unethical.

[wyman]

I think it's ok to play in the Q with no intention of playing in the next round. Hurting the district is really the least of my worries.

 

I certainly understand (and am sympathetic to) Justin's point, and I'd probably complain if we finished 2nd in such a case. But the R&R allow it, and the qualifier is, indeed, an event of its own.

 

This year in D12, a team won the open flight GNT, and arguably its best player is not playing (and knew he wouldn't be). But this team was a huge dog to win the qualifier, and it was great for them to beat, for instance, Chuck Burger's team in the qualifier. Is D12 going to send their best 4 or 6 to play in GNT-open? No, of course not. But should this individual not have been allowed to play? I don't think so. He and the rest of the team were ecstatic just to win at this level. Nationals is now like a freeroll for them, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that at all.

[hrothgar]

From my perspective, the GNTs are unique in that ACBL districts provide financial support to the winning team.

 

In general, I don't see much wrong with bring in some hired guns to win an event. However, it does feel wrong to

 

1. Taking actions that would adversely affect the selection process

2. Accepting money that the District raised to support a team to represent their interested in a national competition

 

For what its worth, a few years back I did sit in on a GNT team that won the District event and subsequently blew off Nationals.

 

Then again, I wasn't the one taking the money from the District.

[Phil]

For some reason I don't see a big problem with this.

 

If a top player helped you qualify, and you had to replace her, I would think you would find the best available player possible in the District that wants to go. Therefore, we are only discussing the difference between P1 and P2.

 

Perhaps a bigger issue is who the replacement should be. The District has a vested interest in fielding the best team and should have some discretion who gets added, instead of just putting someones 'friend' on the team.

[bd71]

I can't speak to the higher flights, but the purity of approach that Justin is suggesting is just not possible at the Flight C level, and probably Flight B.

 

1. Unlike my impression of the Superflight and Flight A, where there is a more limited field (typically 4-5 teams in the two districts I have lived in the last two years...4 and 14), Flights B and C typically have a large number of teams. Even if there is a favorite or two, this large field randomizes the event and makes it very unpredictable who is going to win. Insisting that any team that plays should feel obligated to go to Nationals would dramatically cut down the field size, and I suspect would detract from the event.

 

2. Most Superflight and A players are probably already committed to Nationals, regardless of whether they win GNT. Completely different perspective at B and C level, where winning the GNT is more likely the catalyst for a team to figure out if they can actually make it to Nationals.

 

3. Much more so than at the higher flights, the district GNTs are probably considered an event unto themselves, where people are competing to do well and win points, not necessarily with the idea of advancing in mind. This is valid and just, and if a team surprises themselves by winning but can't afford to spend close to a week away from family or work, there is nothing inappropriate about that.

 

Last weekend my team finished 2nd in Flight C GNT in our district. The 1st-place team is not sure yet whether they are able to go to New Orleans. I have absolutely no sense that they have cheated us or the event in any way. They deserve the right to go if they can make it -- or if most of their team can make it (I'd be happy to fill in even!).

[hrothgar]

Last weekend my team finished 2nd in Flight C GNT in our district. The 1st-place team is not sure yet whether they are able to go to New Orleans. I have absolutely no sense that they have cheated us or the event in any way.

Out of curiousity, did your qualifier use a single elimination KO at any point in time?

For example, did the organizers use a round robin to reduce the field to either four or eight teams and then switch over to a KO format?

 

Single elimination KOs are great formats to identify the best team.

They are MISERABLE at determining the second strongest team.

 

Using a single elimination KO when there is a high probability that the eventual winner wn't participate in the event is just asking for trouble...

[bd71]

Out of curiousity, did your qualifier use a single elimination KO at any point in time?

12 teams entered. First day was two separate six-team round robins, each advancing two teams. Second day was straight KO with final four teams.

 

For what it's worth, my team finished 2nd officially but was the 3rd-best team over the weekend (I suspect we are 2nd-best team over long-run, however), as we lost the final by 50, and the winner won their semifinal by only 4.

[aguahombre]

Back in the "old days", the District 23 GNT finals had up to 64 teams. This was before flighting. Three or four teams were the class of the event, but it was a great opportunity for the rest of us to play against the best ---with no intention or real hope of actually winning.

 

Four brackets of short matches to qualify 8 or 16. Or 3 brackets to qualify 6 or 12 (plus at-large) for the knockout phase which was held on subsequent weekends. Yes, there was a written condition that we all must intend to continue on if we qualify. Nobody paid any attention to it, and very few could resist playing in the knockout phase if they accidentally made it that far.

 

Substitutions for "sickness" were allowed from the pool of players who had NOT played in the brackets and were judged (by the organizers) equal to the level of that team, which eliminated the possibility for a player to dump in expectation of being selected to another team.

 

But D23 had enough players of all levels to make this workable.

[awm]

Again, there are several different situations here.

 

(1) Team plans on going to nationals, but some members of the team have a conflict which they were not aware of before playing in the trials and must cancel. I hope we all agree there is no problem here, life happens.

 

(2) Entire team plays in trials to get experience and/or masterpoints, and never intends to go to nationals. The opportunity to represent the district (and the cash subsidy) will go to the second place team. Presuming that the team in question is not dumping to help their friends do well I don't see a problem here.

 

(3) A team tries to form but one of their members has a conflict with the trials (but not the nationals). The team tries to qualify without the conflicted person (possibly adding an extra person or pair in order to have four) and then plans to add the conflicted person after the trials if they win. Again, I don't think there should be a problem here.

 

(4) A team which is not very good pays a third pair (or an individual) to join for the trials, with the full intention that this third pair will drop off the team and not play at nationals. This is purely an attempt to get an otherwise weak team to qualify, and the district's cash subsidy may well be sufficient to cover the cost of hiring the pro pair (if the team actually wins, of course). This seems somewhat shady to me, since it leads to the district getting screwed over (giving money to a bad team which is then used to pay off pros who will not be representing the district at the NABC, having bad representatives at nationals).

[jjbrr]

People don't really do 4, do they?

[olegru]

From my perspective, the GNTs are unique in that ACBL districts provide financial support to the winning team.

Really?

[hrothgar]

From my perspective, the GNTs are unique in that ACBL districts provide financial support to the winning team.

Really?

I could be missing something, however, other than the GNTs / GNPs I can't think of any events in which ACBL districts give players money to represent the District in competition.

[Elianna]

(3) A team tries to form but one of their members has a conflict with the trials (but not the nationals). The team tries to qualify without the conflicted person (possibly adding an extra person or pair in order to have four) and then plans to add the conflicted person after the trials if they win. Again, I don't think there should be a problem here.

Not a problem ethically, but it may be a problem with the District CoC's determining eligibility (it's usually only people who played in the trial, with exceptions for those who previously represented the district at the same level).

[Jlall]

I have a problem even with an entire team that is not going to play in the nationals playing in the event.

 

This is a problem if it is a KO from 4 teams. You might beat the 2nd best team in the semis, and beat/lose to the 3rd best team in the finals. In that case your participation has screwed the 2nd best team. These events are for determining the best team, not the 2nd best team.

 

Again I feel like if you aren't going to play in the event you qualify for, you should ethically not be playing.

[TimG]

From my perspective, the GNTs are unique in that ACBL districts provide financial support to the winning team.

Really?

I could be missing something, however, other than the GNTs / GNPs I can't think of any events in which ACBL districts give players money to represent the District in competition.

GNT subsidies are up to individual Districts and vary greatly from District to District. I believe some Districts provide zero subsidy.

 

NAP subsidies are provided by ACBL.

[debrose]

No, I have often heard the phrase "you cannot play in a trials where you have no intention of playing if you win." I don't know if that is a rule or just something people say or what.

The USBF does make it a rule for Trials. It's stated in the general conditions of contest as follows:

B. Players

Each player in a USBF Championship must be eligible to compete and intend to

compete in the WBF championship for which the USBF Championship is a

selection trial.

 

Jan Martel told me of one instance where a player was not allowed to participate in the Trials, even though his team's chances were about zero to qualify, because he was known not to fly. And it's also come up that players who have already qualified in one trials, can't play in another (women's trials is usually held before open).

 

I don't know if the ACBL has any similar rules for GNT.

[gnasher]

The USBF does make it a rule for Trials.

I think that's much more sensible than treating it as a matter of personal ethics.

 

And it's also come up that players who have already qualified in one trials, can't play in another (women's trials is usually held before open).

That, on the other hand, seems pretty unreasonable. A player with chances in both would have to guess whether she was going to qualify in the open before deciding whether to enter the women's. Couldn't they hold the open trials first?

[Jlall]

From my perspective, the GNTs are unique in that ACBL districts provide financial support to the winning team.

Really?

I could be missing something, however, other than the GNTs / GNPs I can't think of any events in which ACBL districts give players money to represent the District in competition.

GNT subsidies are up to individual Districts and vary greatly from District to District. I believe some Districts provide zero subsidy.

 

NAP subsidies are provided by ACBL.

D16 gives no money for superflight, but gives money to the other flights, FWIW. I think the reason is because for a long time a team with a client and Hamman and Wolff won every year so they decided it's dumb for them to give money in that case.