Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Al Hollander
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 18 19 20 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
apologies if i made it sound any other way.

i was thinking that someone could Q for BB USA1 in that off year, then be free to enter some of Senior, Women's, Mixed the following year. But this seems to have eliminated one of Sylvia's potential conflicts “because the trials are so close together”
Nov. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
i might have talked myself into there being a need to adjust the options.

Should the once-every-four-years situation where USA1 BB team was identified the previous year be treated differently than the years when all events are identifying TWO teams for the WC?
Nov. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sylvia - this was way before your time, but the proposal reminds me of the old McKenney race. In years when Barry Crane did not plan to win it himself, he would often enter events to be a spoiler. the idea is that he would prevent the person he was not supporting for the McKenney win from winning events he entered.

Will this happen in USBCs?
I don't know, but there doesn't seem to be anything to prevent this new incentive for playing in a 2nd event. Perhaps this will be more of an issue in the year when only ONE team is identified for the Bermuda Bowl. In that case, the USA1 BB team was identified the year before in a standalone qualifying event. But that scenario introduces other insidious scenarios because that “old” team may be having internal difficulties. So now someone who is already qualified for the BB may find a more harmonious situation in one of the other WC events.

To some extent Peter's suggestion addresses the issue about what to do with the person who competes AND WINS in a 2nd USBC. But that is just symptomatic relief and the side effect is needing a pre-defined algorithm for back filling the original qualifying team that is no longer intact.
Nov. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't recall when I first learned about McCampbell's contribution of 4321 count. It was always the Work Point Count before then.

Sad historical Note: Work's 1934 tome, “The Work-Peterson Accurate Valuation System of Contract Bridge”, does NOT mention McCampbell. In fairness, the authors say that the 43211 (1 also for 2-10s) “… is not a vital part of the system …”

Culbertson's Encyclopedia does not mention McCampbell's point count, but does mention a discussion the two had in 1915 where McCampbell described what became the early Informatory Double. Culbertson later credits Whitehead with Auction Bridge's detailed Informatory Double.
Nov. 11
Al Hollander edited this comment Nov. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The 3 day event ended today

BC't Onstein 1 won the phase 1 round robin then continued to win in the semifinals and finals

Congratulations to the gold medalists

Simon de Wijs-Bauke Muller
Bart Nab-Bob Drijver
Ricco van Prooijen-Louk Verhees


Daily Bulletins at http://db.eurobridge.org/Repository/competitions/18eilat/microsite/Bulletins.htm
Nov. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
do you think Mikael was referring to 2nd bid of opener, i.e. restrictions when NOT using Gazzilli OR responder's rebid over the 2-way 2 call?

i do recall seeing one sequence that i have not seen from other pairs. of course, this could be a result of low frequency rather than unique agreement

1M-1N//2C*-?

-3M = 9-11, 55 minors, 2-fit, 55 minors
-3OM = 9-11, 55 minors, 0/1-fit
Nov. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2 things

1) explaining how the event gets the 12 teams
2) putting that sentence in italics – sigh
Nov. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
correction

i have updated the original post = so that “c” reads “country of current title holders”
Nov. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
but entry into that event is by Club, right?
Nov. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
warning: Sylvia's original post was to a restricted forum, so just providing a link will not suffice. that is also true regarding the new discussion that JoAnn mentioned.
Nov. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
the thread out in public domain, https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/changes-to-trials-policy/

suggests another nightmare scenario

player(s) who have qualified in earlier USBC, enter a new event while retaining the right to play that first wc event. the new team advances to the final, but the double dipper(s) does not play any hands in the finals.

the team that has fewer players than it used to get to the finals wins that usbc. there is no automagic loss of qualification for the earlier event because, by failure to play any boards in the final, the player(s) we ineligible for qualification to the 2nd wc event.

how many levels of wrong is this?

is the ITTC-TAC really responsible for finding a way to prevent/overcome this new kind of scenario?
Nov. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
apologies to Jan since this does not address the scope of the thread's request

Otherwise luck of the draw re: which event occurs first determines whether or not a player who would like to play in 2 events

did the board consider and reject the option of defining the order - or finding a way for the potential participants to define the order?

perhaps that approach could lessen the need to search for ways to anticipate/fix what some see as a fundamentally flawed approach

committing to play in the WC event for which you qualified also made/makes sense
Nov. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
still before noon here, so I forgot about one potential benefit of transfers that is NOT needed with your system. i.e. you open 2 with BAL 18-19
Nov. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
curse you Tobias - I was waiting for the response to general system overview before asking about no transfers over 1
Nov. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
outside of the family - what other mentors have you had and how did each affect your approach to the game/partnership?

Good luck next week in Eilat (European Champions' Cup)
Nov. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
one more wrench:

What about the situation where USBC only determines Open USA1 because the world championships for is all transnational? ex: 2018

Seems to me that the players from USA1 team might decide to play in one or more USBCs in the following year. Who's to say that the runner-up from year X will be intact, eligible or available for year X+1?

Does the Board's #1 really cover that scenario?
Seems to me that the new approach would allow player(s) to withdraw from USA1 then enter one or more USBC events the following year.

I am a non-participant, but the commitment to play if qualified just seemed to make so much sense. “Sorry, I found something better” just seems wrong to this observer.

I fear the new approach will fail to consider all ramifications and end up with insufficient, case-specific, symptomatic relief.

That is supposed to be the domain of ACBL & WBF
Nov. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
i believe lauria-versace include both the 11-14 5 6 and 13-14 concentrated 4 6
Oct. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
American Contract Bridge Leauge
The Bulletin
Vol 22 #5
May 1956

p.11 - Conditions of Play

Conditions for National Masters Knockout Team Events
surprise inclusion

“One player may be added (if originally a team of four or five) between the start of the first round and the start of the round of 32. The added player cannot be one previously entered on another team”

apropos to the OP
“A player who has not played the equivalent of one full match before the round robin starts is not eligible to play in the round robin.”

unfortunately that does not clarify if phase 1 was single or double knockout. However -

p.12-13 schedule shows
1st KO round = Aug 2 @8:30
2nd KO round = Aug 3 @8:30
3rd KO round = Aug 4 @8:30
4th KO round = Aug 5 @1:30
1st RR session = Aug 5 @8:30

——————————–
The Bulletin
Vol 22 #8
Sep 1956

p.7-10

* 80 teams entered
* top 32 carefully seeded on the basis of master points
* lots drawn to pick their opponents

* 1st knockout B.J. Becker, Howard Schenken, John R. Crawford, Sidney Silidor lost by 870 points in a 32 board match
* 24 of the 40 survivors enjoyed a bye on friday night, while the other 16 teams struggled to provide 8 more survivors to enter the round of 32

so - that confirms

1) total points
2) single elimination KO in phase 1

The Eight Finalist Teams
The eight winning teams drew lots for numbers, which controlled the schedule of their matches in the round robin.

* 3-way tie with records of Won 5, Lost 2

“Arrangements were immediately made for a playoff on the following day. The national championship was declared a tie, in accordance with ACBL regulations, but it was still necessary to pick the team that would meet the European champions in January in a world-title match.”

“The Roth team drew a bye, under regulations, since it had won its match in the round robin against each of the other teams. The Goren team won from Dr. Apfel's team in the afternoon session, and won again at night from the Roth team. In the final match, the Roth team led by 870 points at half-time, but lost by 140 points at the end of the 36-board match”


So there you have the full story

* Phase 1, single knockout, using total points and bizarre situation where all played stage 1, but only a subset of winners played stage 2

* Phase 2, rather than QuarterFinal KO, there was an 8-team round robin, using total points, scored win/loss

* Phase 3 - playoff to identify world championship representatives, where Roth had bye to the final and Goren had to play 2 matches for the eventual win.


i am sure that is much more than anyone else wanted, but i gotta be me
Oct. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
my original source was the bridge world report, but i will go into the stacks later to see what the acbl bulletin had to say. i am not 100% certain, but i think the format was: phase 1 a double KO that qualified 8 teams. phase 2 was 8 team round robin. all phases used total points without conversion to imps.

all-in-all, that format is a totally <insert descriptor> concept today

as you pointed out - in 1956, the 8 team RR ended in a 3 way tie based upon win/loss/tie record.

the tied teams played a 3-way to determine who would play the BB

still way before noon, so give me a few hours to:
* wake up
* confirm/correct this best guess
Oct. 21
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 18 19 20 21
.

Bottom Home Top