USA Team Trials-2013

[dustinst22]

It's broken. Teams are forced to play 'bad(gambling)' bridge when way behind.

 

They don't play total score in the MLB, NBA or NHL.

 

 

I think he's talking about series.

 

Difference of course is that in those sports you're always aware of the score so the entire strategy is based on making state of game decisions.

[chasetb]

Well, I was right about Kranyak qualifying, I just thought they would have been USA2. Now I just need Nickell to qual as well, and I think they will. It was surprising to see that Diamond withdrew after 60 - sure they were down 75, but with 30 boards to go there was a chance.

[Phil]

LOL@ a team within a playable range WDing because of rest.

 

Even if their odds are 100:0, clamping down and playing solid bridge can refresh you and give a team a little boost and momentum going into the repechage. Confidence is a lot more important than energy.

 

Energy and stamina aren't some zero sum game. You do well, you gain confidence. You get confident, you stay calm and focused and maintain your A game. You lose and there are drains.

 

PS the bridge yesterday was among the worst I have ever seen played at this level. It doesn't surprise me a bunch of young sharp guys are crushing. Wish JL and Hamman were playing late though.

[nige1]

Well, I was right about Kranyak qualifying, I just thought they would have been USA2. Now I just need Nickell to qual as well, and I think they will. It was surprising to see that Diamond withdrew after 60 - sure they were down 75, but with 30 boards to go there was a chance.

After they had expended all that time and effort, Diamond's withdrawal 30 boards from the end, seems weird. Teams have overcome larger deficits in fewer boards against teams who outclassed them on paper.

[GreenMan]

After they had expended all that time and effort, Diamond's withdrawal 30 boards from the end, seems weird. Teams have overcome larger deficits in fewer boards against teams who outclassed them on paper.

 

They are also playing four-handed, so if one of them came down with something then they would have to withdraw. Or the fatigue might have caught up to them -- they're not all as young as Kranyak et al.

[jallerton]

How remote do a team's chances of winning have to be in order to concede? For most people, there's more to life than just bridge, so the answer is not purely based on the odds of being able to pull off an unlikely victory.

[Finch]

How remote do a team's chances of winning have to be in order to concede? For most people, there's more to life than just bridge, so the answer is not purely based on the odds of being able to pull off an unlikely victory.

 

It depends on the event.

It's one thing to concede a match if it means you can catch the last train home and the alternative is a night in a hotel and a day off work; but in the late stages of the trials to play in the bermuda bowl the odds are different. You are playing in the trials because you want to play in the BB.

[nige1]

Suppose you trail by so many imps that it is arithmetically impossible to win. Is there any rule against playing on for the free lesson and useful practice? Your team may also want to rub their noses in their mess :)

[Finch]

 

For the record, I know nothing about what their plans would be if they won, I'm pretty sure if someone brought it up they'd say they want to get to that point first lol. It would depend on who was available, and who was willing, and who the USBF would allow (EG if meckwell were available there is basically no chance that they would do it since they aren't getting paid, same with greco hampson. And if they tried to add fleisher-kamil or diamond-platnick imo that would be fine but the USBF might stop it since there would be money involved). My guess would be Hurd-Wooldridge but it's just an educated guess.

 

I found this mildly interesting. I know they are professionals and are generally paid to play, but in other sports the top players are usually not only happy but keen to play for their country in representative events (e.g. the Davis Cup & the Ryder Cup which are generally highly-paid professionals playing for their country/continent. Or the Olympics.). Why is bridge different? (Do the ACBL pay expenses for the BB? If not, I can see that would make a difference)

[cherdano]

I found this mildly interesting. I know they are professionals and are generally paid to play, but in other sports the top players are usually not only happy but keen to play for their country in representative events (e.g. the Davis Cup & the Ryder Cup which are generally highly-paid professionals playing for their country/continent. Or the Olympics.). Why is bridge different? (Do the ACBL pay expenses for the BB? If not, I can see that would make a difference)

 

1. Roger Federer makes more money than Meckstroth, so he doesn't mind a week without pay as much.

2. Roger Federer makes more money from endorsement deals than from playing fees/prize money, and winning in the Davis Cup increases his market value. So it's not accurate to say that he has nothing to gain financially from playing there.

3. Bridge careers are a lot longer than tennis careers, so Meckstroth has played in more world championships than Federer will ever play Davis Cups.

4. Bridge is more random than tennis, and more random than people realize, so the world's best player has more to lose in reputation playing a bridge event than playing a tennis event.

5. As a matter of act, Federer is skipping this year's Davis Cup.

 

ETA:

6. Davis Cup isn't parallel to one of the most financially lucrative tennis tournaments of the year.

[cherdano]

What? Diamond concedes with 30 to play and 78 IMPs down? I admit I would have instantly bet 20:1 against this, and wondered what kind of fool would hand me free money like this.

[dustinst22]

I found this mildly interesting. I know they are professionals and are generally paid to play, but in other sports the top players are usually not only happy but keen to play for their country in representative events (e.g. the Davis Cup & the Ryder Cup which are generally highly-paid professionals playing for their country/continent. Or the Olympics.). Why is bridge different? (Do the ACBL pay expenses for the BB? If not, I can see that would make a difference)

 

 

Haha, the obv difference is that in those professional sports the players are already making millions and don't need the money as much. I'm sure if Bridge was as lucrative it would be the same.

[GreenMan]

2. Roger Federer makes more money from endorsement deals than from playing fees/prize money, and winning in the Davis Cup increases his market value. So it's not accurate to say that he has nothing to gain financially from playing there.

 

This is an excellent point, and AAMOF it bears on this year's USA trials; from what I gather, Kranyak were playing without a sponsor in part with an eye on improving their professional prospects down the road, which is sort of the same thing as playing the Davis Cup for the market boost.

 

Also, the Davis Cup isn't really equivalent; everyone there is getting paid the same, I presume, but the pros on sponsor teams in the BB are getting paid, so it makes less sense to play for free when you don't really have to.

[mike777]

I would at least ask meckwell and give them the option to say no, should they lose in the finals of usa2. I would also allow the team to auction off the final pair to a sponsor if they so wish.

 

They might not mind playing just for the glory for two weeks. I assume Nickell would not object.

[jogs]

Haha, the obv difference is that in those professional sports the players are already making millions and don't need the money as much. I'm sure if Bridge was as lucrative it would be the same.

 

Chess is lucrative. Garry Kasparov and Magnus Carlsen have been able to make a good living from their game. The problem is bridge is virtually unwatchable. Aside from a few thousand diehards the general public just doesn't care.

[Zelandakh]

You do realise the crowds that Culbertson drew in his day, right? Bridge is no less watchable than chess or poker. It would be interesting to know how BBO vugraph numbers for major tournaments compare with similar chess services being offered elsewhere. My guess would be that BBO numbers were generally higher outside of the World Championship matches.

[P_Marlowe]

Chess is lucrative. Garry Kasparov and Magnus Carlsen have been able to make a good living from their game. The problem is bridge is virtually unwatchable. Aside from a few thousand diehards the general public just doesn't care.

you hopefully also know, that lots of Chess Pros have real trouble making a good living just by playing?

And we are not speaking about players below position number 1000 in the world rang list.

[jjbrr]

Bridge is no less watchable than chess or poker.

 

This is so wrong I assume we're being trolled.

[jogs]

you hopefully also know, that lots of Chess Pros have real trouble making a good living just by playing?

And we are not speaking about players below position number 1000 in the world rang list.

 

Kasparov and Carlsen are the two best known chess players among the general public. Warren Buffett and Bill Gates are the two best known bridge players among the general public. Do you see anything wrong with this picture?

[GreenMan]

This is so wrong I assume we're being trolled.

 

You haven't been watching the team trials on ESPN?

[MickyB]

This is so wrong I assume we're being trolled.

 

I agree with Zel, bridge is no less watchable than [precisely one of] chess or poker.

[gwnn]

I agree with Zel, bridge is no less watchable than [precisely one of] chess or poker.

I disagree, usually even complete strangers to chess roughly know the rules of the game and can usually appreciate who is winning by looking at the board (sometimes wrongly so but they will still have a strong feeling!). In bridge, things are much more complicated, there are a lot of rules for an outsider to learn and then they need to understand (to name one) why the guy who just 12 tricks out of 13 is not really winning. The learning curve for bridge watching is steeper than chess watching just as the one of playing bridge is steeper than the one of playing chess. This is not to say that chess is oh-so-watchable, after all BBC did cancel the Master Game and the last televised world championship match was Anand-Kasparov 1995 (might be wrong about that).

[Zelandakh]

This is so wrong I assume we're being trolled.

Then you miss the point. When Culbertson was around, he drew more kibitzers than any poker match does. What all three of these games have in common is that the general public only watch them for the personalities involved. Others watch them because they can play the game and are interested in watching good players. So the "watchability" of all of them is defined by the personalities of the top competitors and the general popularity. But if you were to take those factors away, none of them is any more interesting to watch per se.

 

What sets poker aside is that the competitors have somewhat more freedom to show their personalities - but to my mind the interest in the hands themselves is less. What sets chess apart is that it is pure, a game of complete information, and therefore can be seen as a pure battle of minds, wills and theory. On the other hand, it is not uncommon for chess games to be repeated 100% to a quick draw, which is not so interesting. What sets bridge apart is the language of bidding, the ability to communicate a hand of 13 cards in great (but not perfect) detail through a "secret code". This code needs to be understandable by the viewers, which leads to two possibilties - either you keep systems simple enough that they can be followed or you ask the competitors to provide details of their methods. Neither of these is done at present, although the prevalence of 2/1 helps. My view is that the second approach (allow more complexity but force the compeitors to provide details publicly) is the right one. No doubt those who want to make systems simpler would disagree, as well as those who have spent years developing their complex systems. Whatever - what matters is that neither poker nor chess is so different at the core of the game itself, only in the accessibility; and that is something that can be changed.

[P_Marlowe]

Kasparov and Carlsen are the two best known chess players among the general public. Warren Buffett and Bill Gates are the two best known bridge players among the general public. Do you see anything wrong with this picture?

well for starters, Buffet / Gates are not known, because they happen to play Bridge, they are known for other reasons, and the public my

or may not know in addition, that both play Bridge, but this is besides the point:

 

The discussion was, if Bridge / Chess sport is a lucrative bussiness, and my comment was, that the pool of money available to

pure Chess players is limited.

To make a decent living, you have to do additional things besides just playing tournaments.

[billw55]

What all three of these games have in common is that the general public only watch them for the personalities involved. Others watch them because they can play the game and are interested in watching good players. So the "watchability" of all of them is defined by the personalities of the top competitors and the general popularity.

+1