Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Art Korth
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes. The National GNT Conditions of Contest specifically incorporate the national conditions of contest for knockout competitions. And this is not something that a District can change.
June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So, the idea of using VPs for a 3-way final is considered legal despite language in the national conditions of contest for Knockout competitions to the contrary?

Or has it been decided that a 3-way final is not a KO?
June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As the torturee to Mike as torturor, I would guess that the double is lead directional. I just do not see how it can be right to try to enter the auction constructively when the opponents may be moving towards slam. However, the 3 bid, if forcing (and I assume it is forcing) could be invented.

I see a number of posters showing 4-7 in the reds for this double. I just don't believe it is very likely, especially as one might have acted in direct seat with 7 diamonds.
June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Are we seriously discussing using handicaps in the GNTs?

It is one thing to run handicapped KO events. But the GNTs are intended to be a serious competition. This is no place for handicaps. And this goes for all flights.

Next thing you know the PGA Championship will introduce handicaps.

Now, if you want radical ideas, how about this one?

Every other year, eliminate flights and have a truly open competition. Competition at the District Level will be pure KO from the outset with seeding by IMPed masterpoints along with extra seeding points for high finishes in prior years events (details to be worked out). Arrangement of teams into brackets by seeding can be grouped, with random placement within groups. Typical groupings would be 1 (defending champion), 2 (highest seed), 3-4, 5-8, 9-16, 17-24, 25-32, and groups of 8 thereafter.

For those unfamiliar with the term “IMPed masterpoints,” just take the IMP scale, multiply the score differentials by a factor of 10, and award seeding points based on masterpoint holdings converted to 10x IMP differential. So, 7500 masterpoints would get 13 seeding points. 40000 masterpoints and up would get 24 seeding points. Any masterpoint holdings between the numbers on the 10x IMP scale would get 1/2 of a seeding point plus the seeding points from the immediately lower range on the chart.

If replacing the flighted GNTs is too radical for you, how about the introduction of a new event which is truly open along the lines set forth above. Call it the Truly Grand National Teams.
June 18
Art Korth edited this comment June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Before we go any further with any discussion of using VPs for determining the winners of a 3-way final (or the surviving finalists if one of the three teams is eliminated at some intermediate point), I want to discuss some basic issues.

1. Outside of D22, has anyone participated in, seen or even heard of a 3-way FINAL MATCH scored at IMPs converted to VPs? I would assume that the answer is no given that if anyone had seen or heard about it before it would have been mentioned somewhere along the way.

2. Presumably, at some point in the last 10 years the concept of scoring a 3-way FINAL MATCH by IMPs converted to VPs was introduced into D22. Was there any grand announcement as to that change of ranking method? Normally, when a major change is introduced, the tournament organizers tout the change in their advertising. I know that in Philadelphia Unit the introduction of Dupli-Swiss (duplicated boards for Swiss Teams) was advertised in advance quite strongly. And the introduction of the Soloway style KO into D4 regionals was also strongly advertised. Sort of along the lines of New and Improved. Was the change to ranking of a 3-way FINAL MATCH by IMPs converted to VPs introduced overtly or surreptitiously?

I see some posts above actually advocating the use of IMPs converted to VPs to rank the three teams in a 3-way FINAL MATCH. In my opinion, this is a horrible idea. But if it is to be done, at least announce it LOUD AND CLEAR in advance so everyone is aware of the method of scoring and ranking (and the two are different things).
June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Given that a 3-way match consists of 3 matches (A vs. B, B vs. C and C vs. A), the total number of wins that all of the teams may accumulate is 3. So, unless the third team had -1 wins, you can't have two of the teams accumulating 4 wins. This is aside from the fact that the two teams played each other. Unless they both won that match, they can't both finish 2-0.
June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the Spingold, they use a combination of heads-up, 3-way matches and 4-way matches to reduce the field to a power of 2.
June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I suspect that 2 teams in a 3-way match finishing 2-0 could only happen in D22. :)
June 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ellis: If what you are saying is that the team with 2 losses goes home, then I have no problem with that.

Two losses is two losses.

Many years ago, my team was the top seed (around 53) in a first day 3-way match in the Spingold. We lost by 4 and by 2 and were out. We took out our frustrations by winning the 1 session BAM that night and the 2 session regional Swiss teams (400 teams) the next day.

EDIT: The three-way match in the Spingold that I referenced was 32 boards - 16 against each team.

A full day's match in the Spingold back then was 64 boards. It has since been reduced to 60 boards.
June 17
Art Korth edited this comment June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Apparently North thought that by bidding 3 followed by 4, he was making an advance cue bid and a slam try.

He was not.

Ken Rhodes showed the type of hand North should have had for his auction.

Mike Shuster characterized North's bidding as a psych. I don't know if I would be that kind. Misguided might be a better description if one does not want to use insulting adjectives.
June 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is also very interesting:

If you have a three-way final, and the intention is that one of the teams will be eliminated at the end of the first of the two final sessions (30 boards, per Rick's suggestion above), if no team loses both matches all three teams continue for the full day.

So, it is possible that A is ahead of B by 50, C is ahead of A by 2, and B and C are tied. All three teams continue play. B will be essentially out of the contest. But if A goes on to beat B and B winds up beating C and C beats A, each team may wind up with one win, in which case net IMPs determines the outcome. The winner may be determined by which of A or C does better against B in the second half. It is hard to say that B will have much interest in its match against A.

Quoting from the ACBL KO Conditions of Contest, under the heading “SCORING”:

12. C. For three-way matches in which one team is meant to be eliminated after the first session of two:

Unless one team has lost both matches at the end of the first session, the matches continues as a full-day, three-way match (playing both sessions against each of the other teams). In such a case, if there is a tie in the matches won, the tie will be broken as in “B” above.

When a team is eliminated after the first session matches against each of the other teams, the two remaining teams continue with full carryover from their match only.
June 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The ACBL Knockout Conditions of Contest do not speak in terms of “quotient” anymore - they speak in terms of “net IMPs.”

See http://web2.acbl.org/coc/KOGeneral.pdf
June 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael:

Regarding your post concerning NABC KO Bracketing.

Unless I am mistaken, Appendix C applies to large KOs (Spingold, Vanderbilt, and other newer KOs which are larger than 16 teams).

I know that that on the first day of the Spingold and Vanderbilt there will be 3-way matches, 4-way matches, heads-up matches and byes to arrive at 64 or 32 teams remaining at the end of play. To the best of my knowledge, there has not been a turnout for the Spingold or Vanderbilt larger than 128 teams in many years (prior to the introduction of mini-Spingold and 10K KO opposite the Vanderbilt). I note that the mini-Spingolds start on day 2 of the main Spingold, so perhaps there will be a larger turnout for the Spingold. On the other hand, the Womens pairs and Senior Swiss start opposite the start of the Spingold, so that will hurt turnout. I may be playing in the Senior Swiss, but since I am leaving after the conclusion of play on Tuesday, it would not have been possible for me to play in the Spingold.

Generally speaking, 3-ways and 4-ways are not used in the regional KOs at the nationals. However, if a bracket were to begin with less than 16 teams, it would be necessary to use 3-ways with 2 survivors to reduce the field to 8 teams for the second round.

9 teams in a bracket at the outset for a 4-session KO? Horrible idea.
June 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why would North pass 2xx? I play that pass as penalties, and North has nothing resembling a penalty pass.

What would North have done if there were no redouble?
June 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray: I have no personal knowledge that any of the aspersions cast by some against the declared winners are true. I still believe that they did not win the event by any rational measurement that I am familiar with.

Do you have any personal knowledge that the declared winners are being unjustly accused of conduct that is less than exemplary?
June 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I do not understand the interpersonal relationships in D22. We have had our share of characters in D4 over the years, but, for the most part, everyone got along well.

I don't believe that fixing the GNT CoC is going to fix what is going on in D22.
June 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Wasn't it Alfred Sheinwold who said something to the effect of he has to learn from other's mistakes because he didn't have enough time to learn only from his own mistakes.
June 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John:

I see that your post has been removed. Very predictable.

Let me tell you a story.

Two women who were old friends meet for the first time in years. After exchanging pleasantries, one starts rattling off her and her husband's successes.

“My husband made partner and is one of the leading attorneys in the area!”

“That's nice!”

“We bought a vacation home in Monte Carlo!”

“That's nice!”

“My children are all successful and starting families!”

“That's nice!”

“So what have you been up to?”

“I went to charm school where I learned to say ”That's nice!“ instead of ”BLEEP YOU!“

So, there is more than one way of getting your point across without being overtly insulting and, in the case of this Forum, getting your post removed.

(EDIT: I fully expect at least one poster to respond ”That's nice!" to my post)
June 14
Art Korth edited this comment June 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray Y: “What is your significant other's opinion of the ethics of determining a winner based on converting IMP margins to a VPs on a 20-point scale?”

Ray, is this really how you feel? You just do not get it.

Let me make this so clear that a 3 year old could understand it (to paraphrase Denzel Washington's character in “Philadelphia”). John is saying that the official winners know that they did not win this event and should step aside. I agree, but I did not post this previously because it would lead to an entirely new side discussion which no one really needs.

Given history, clearly it is asking too much for a team to relinquish a championship that they did not truly earn. And, in this particular case, there are a number of persons who believe that they did earn the win (you among them, apparently). That makes the situation more problematic.

Until there is an official pronouncement from the ACBL concerning this controversy, with a complete explanation, I will continue to shout from the rooftops that the team which won both matches in the 3-way final is the rightful winner. This may annoy my neighbors, and it may result in my being involuntarily committed, but so be it.
June 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John: Stupid is a bit strong. Try silly.
June 14
.

Bottom Home Top