2013 Vanderbilt

[Aberlour10]

Ahem. 33 losses, 1 win. :angry:

 

 

Didn't get it, mea culpa :rolleyes:

[lalldonn]

If I had played the way I did in my forums vs jec match we would have lost by 100 :P

[ewj]

Anyone know what the appeal hand was that Auken's team won to defeat Monaco (last I checked they were 70 odd down so quite some comeback)

[MickyB]

http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/monaco-out-of-the-vanderbilt/

[y66]

So good. More please.

[jogs]

None of the top four seeds made the final 4. Has this happened before?

[MickyB]

I partnered Dennis Bilde for three boards in the Junior Indy in Philly in 2010.

 

On one board, declarer had A987x opposite xx in a side-suit, with the ability to take one ruff in the dummy. Declarer led one to the nine, and holding KJx Dennis won the jack and played the king back, giving declarer a losing option out of nowhere. Ever since, I've been following his progress closely, expecting great things.

[bluecalm]

They are playing very well. Impressive.

[hrothgar]

Over the weekend, I had an interesting idea that we should base Vanderbilt seeding on amount of money that that pros on the team are being paid.

 

Looks as if the New York Times beat me to this insight: http://www.newyorker.com/sandbox/business/ncaa.html

[aguahombre]

Over the weekend, I had an interesting idea that we should base Vanderbilt seeding on amount of money that that pros on the team are being paid.

 

Looks as if the New York Times beat me to this insight: http://www.newyorker.com/sandbox/business/ncaa.html

And do you think someone (anyone) could quantify that? Would they even have access to all the fluctuating travel and expense costs? What would be the seed of a team with (perish the thought) no deep-pocket sponser that decided to win together ---with one or two of the pros paying one or two of the others just because they can?

[billw55]

And do you think someone (anyone) could quantify that? Would they even have access to all the fluctuating travel and expense costs? What would be the seed of a team with (perish the thought) no deep-pocket sponser that decided to win together ---with one or two of the pros paying one or two of the others just because they can?

Sure, there are some practical obstacles. But it's not a bad idea in principle.

 

Also wondering, how many teams actually had paid pros? Or would it be easier to count the ones that didn't (or probably didn't)?

[aguahombre]

Or a mixed (or not) team not involving husbands/wives who would have to put a monetary value on other forms of payment.

[gnasher]

Over the weekend, I had an interesting idea that we should base Vanderbilt seeding on amount of money that that pros on the team are being paid.

So a sponsor could obtain a higher seed by voluntarily paying his team more money? There would also be opportunities for a husband-and-wife partnership to improve their seeding by means of a notional transaction.

[WellSpyder]

Or a mixed (or not) team not involving husbands/wives who would have to put a monetary value on other forms of payment.

who might also be able to improve their "seeding" by making these non-monetary payments in both directions?

[ArtK78]

Wow. There are a lot of people with a lot of time on their hands.

 

The NYT article is an interesting piece, but no one is suggesting that the idea should be taken seriously. Richard made a very interesting extension of the idea to professionalism in bridge. I don't think that he was suggesting that the idea be adopted.

 

Having said that, I am sure that we can require all of the paperwork (player contracts, travel vouchers, hotel vouchers, etc.) submitted to the ACBL Committee on Seeding and Professional Oversight prior to the commencement of the event. The committee can take it from there.

 

As for non-monetary compensation, that brings to mind a story from Jerry Machlin's book on his life as a tournament director. One time (many years ago) he and another director seeded the field in a pair event based on, for lack of a better term, the hotness of the female players. After it became apparent how the seeding was done, some of the women thanked him for their seed. Others complained that they should have been seeded higher or that another woman should have been seeded lower.

[aguahombre]

Wow. There are a lot of people with a lot of time on their hands.

 

The NYT article is an interesting piece, but no one is suggesting that the idea should be taken seriously. Richard made a very interesting extension of the idea to professionalism in bridge. I don't think that he was suggesting that the idea be adopted.

 

Having said that, I am sure that we can require all of the paperwork (player contracts, travel vouchers, hotel vouchers, etc.) submitted to the ACBL Committee on Seeding and Professional Oversight prior to the commencement of the event. The committee can take it from there.

 

As for non-monetary compensation, that brings to mind a story from Jerry Machlin's book on his life as a tournament director. One time (many years ago) he and another director seeded the field in a pair event based on, for lack of a better term, the hotness of the female players. After it became apparent how the seeding was done, some of the women thanked him for their seed. Others complained that they should have been seeded higher or that another woman should have been seeded lower.

I see that you, too, have the time on your hands to have fun with this also.

 

Now consider that the hotel benefits only start when the event starts, and/or the pro gets to more liberally apply extra charges of all types to the room at that point.

[hrothgar]

I posted the concept more out of amusement value than any expectation that this would be of practical use.

 

With this said and done, I wonder what would happen if we simply auctioned off seeds.

(Leads to some interesting issues since a #64 seed is almost as valuable as a number 1)

[aguahombre]

ACBL needs more fund raising ideas. The contestants could even jockey for different brackets along the way, bidding a little less/more to stay away from certain teams until the final four.

 

I am sure, however, that a certain team is content with its #20.

 

Wait, how about two auctions? The first to select the seeding committee; then, the committee holds its own auction.

Edited March 26, 2013 by aguahombre

[billw55]

Out of curiosity, how many times has a woman won the Vanderbilt (or Spingold)?

[JLOGIC]

This is the 2nd one I can remember (other one being Christal Henner Welland). I think it happened in like the 40s-60s a few times though.

[GreenMan]

Helen Sobel won each one at some point. A few others did in earlier days, as Justin said. Most recent in the Spingold was Rose Meltzer in 2000.

[mike777]

As for non-monetary compensation, that brings to mind a story from Jerry Machlin's book on his life as a tournament director. One time (many years ago) he and another director seeded the field in a pair event based on, for lack of a better term, the hotness of the female players. After it became apparent how the seeding was done, some of the women thanked him for their seed. Others complained that they should have been seeded higher or that another woman should have been seeded lower.

 

Sabine may be seeded number one over the years on the basis of hotness.

 

 

Now all of us will overcall 1d with 2c :)

 

The few times I talked with her she was always very polite and willing to talk bridge.