Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Art Korth
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael.

The ACBL CoC for KOs does not prohibit 3-way finals. As you have noted, there is a statement in the ACBL CoC for KOs that “Round robins (with one or two survivors) may be held in the early rounds to avoid byes.” But there is no blanket prohibition on the use of 3-ways at any time. And “avoiding byes” is not the only reason for using a 3-way match. So one could easily read the CoC as condoning the use of 3-way matches for other purposes at any time.
June 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The most straight-forward approach after the first round of trumps is ducked is to cash the AQ of Spades and lead the 10, intending to overtake if LHO follows with the 9. This works anytime the AQ of Spades lives (or is ruffed with the A) and the trump are either 2-2 or 3-1 with LHO having 3.

If all else fails, you fall back on the Q coming down singleton or doubleton.

I don't see any better approach.
June 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have not seen anyone post an example, but I do remember seeing other examples.

In any event, in the KO that I won in a 3-way final, the problem was that a team was put into Bracket 1 by mistake. When they lost and complained, the PTB decided to add them into round #2 of Bracket 2, thereby resulting in 9 teams in Bracket #2.

While your “technical solution” works to reduce the field to 4 teams after Round #2, it does so to the disadvantage of 3 teams. 6 of the teams have to beat only one opponent to advance, while 3 of the teams have to beat 2 opponents to advance. The PTB, seeing the obvious inequity of the situation, decided to run three 3-way matches in round #2 to reduce the field to 6 teams. This was followed by 3 heads-up matches in Round #3, and a 3-way final. However silly the 3-way final may appear, it has a great deal of merit given the situation.

Running 3-way matches and 4-way matches along with heads-up matches and byes early in a large KO (like the Spingold or Vanderbilt) involves inequities but of a lesser significance. The teams involved in these multi-way matches tend to be lower seeds with little realistic chance of contending for high finishes. In the Bracketed KO that I won, all of the teams are assumed to have a realistic chance of winning. So it would not be fair to force some of the teams to win against more opponents than others need to do to advance. And that is especially true when the situation that created the potentially unfair situation was not of their doing - it was the result of an administrative screw-up.
June 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“There is no such thing as a 3-way KO final”

Michael, I played in one. Don't tell me it did not exist.
June 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In that case, Greg, it is certainly not likely that masterpoints will be very helpful. You will still have to go to plan “C”.
June 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray:

There is no such thing as a 3-team Swiss format.

It was a 3-way match. The CoC specify that the ACBL Conditions of Contest for Knockout competitions applied. The ACBL CoC for KOs contains the (not “a,” “the”) method for determining the winner of a 3-way match where there is one survivor. Hint: It is not VPs.
June 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Deleted
June 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peg:

All I can say about that is that the District updated the 2018-2019 CoC for the flights that had not yet been played, and that the prior version of the CoC applied to the flights that had already been played.

Any other conclusion would be too ghastly to contemplate.

There was posted a version of the D22 GNT CoC from 2014-2015. But it provided that for 3-team Round Robins the ACBL quotient scoring method would be in use, not VPs.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150119005236/http://acbldistrict22.com:80/D22/DIR/GNT/gnt2015/gnt2015_CoC.html

As far as your sanity is concerned, that is a “you” problem. Sorry.

EDIT: I found a copy of the pre-revision D22 CoC. It was in one of Mike Cassel's posts:

http://acbldistrict22.com/D22/DIR/GNT/2018/D22_GNT_2016-2018_COC.pdf

Quoting from this document (consecutive bullet points):

- The District 22 GNT Finals are knockout team events scored by IMPs (and converted to VP’s when a team plays in a round robin.)

- The ACBL Knockout Team Conditions of Contest apply to the conduct of this event.

To me, these are contradictory statements.

Later, the CoC states:

Format:

- Each day is a two-session Swiss format.
- All teams play a two-session round-robin on the qualifying day with the second session a repeat of the first, and with scores combined. Qualifiers to the second day play a two session round-robin with all survivors, again with the scores from the first and second session combined.
- When two teams play head to head the highest imp total wins.
- When three or more teams play in a round-robin all match scores are converted to VP’s according to the 20-point VP scale for the number of boards played. See Appendix 3 for the 20-point scales.

This is the format that D22 chose. It is permitted to do so; however, the prior statement that “The District 22 GNT Finals are knockout team events scored by IMPs” is clearly not true given the Format chosen.

From the Appendix regarding format for a 3-team final (the format for 7 teams calls for 3 teams surviving to day 2):

3 Teams
Not seeded

The three teams play in a round robin through two sessions. If this is the first day, two survivors qualify for the second day.
1st session: 28 boards all teams.
2nd session: 32 boards Open, 28 boards A and B, 24 boards C.
Two teams qualify for the second day.

The integer VP scale is attached as Appendix 3.

So, at best, the CoC is internally inconsistent. At worst it is incoherent.
June 19
Art Korth edited this comment June 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Please review the following and let me know if the either the term “Victory Points” or the term “VPs” appears:

From the D22 GNT Conditions of Contest (updated May 31 2019)*

The ACBL Knockout Team Conditions of Contest apply to the conduct of this event.

From the ACBL Grand National Teams Conditions of Contest:

GRAND NATIONAL TEAMS 2018-2019

Revised 4/15/2019

ACBL SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF CONTEST

Lack of knowledge does not constitute cause for exception to these conditions of contest. These conditions of contest may not be changed at any level of play during the course of this event. The general conditions of contest for Swiss team and knockout teams events will apply to this event subject to the following special conditions of contest.

I. DISTRICT DIRECTOR AUTHORITY

All ACBL tournament regulations, though not specifically included in these conditions, apply throughout this event. The District Director has final authority on any item not specified in the conditions of contest.

II. GENERAL

* * *

6) ACBL rules and regulations govern play at every level of the event and supersede district conditions in cases of conflict.

From the ACBL Knockout General Conditions of Contest

SCORING AND PLAY

1) Each event is a single elimination KO with any fraction of an IMP constituting a win. (For three-way matches, see 12 following.)

2) Net IMPs won and lost will be used to determine the winner of each match and the survivor(s) of each round robin. A team's net IMPs won is the gross IMPs won in play less any tardiness or slow play penalties assessed that team. A team's net IMPs lost is the gross IMPs lost in play less any tardiness or slow play penalties assessed the opponents.

* * *

12) The team(s) eliminated from a round robin shall be determined as follows:

(Definition: Net IMPs - The difference between the total number of IMPs won and the total number of IMPs lost.)

A. When two teams progress and one team has not lost both matches:

(1) If each team has won a match:

a. Net IMPs.
b. Result of the head-to-head match if two teams are tied in negative net IMPs.
c. If the net IMPs for each of the three teams is zero:
Play-off (continuing three-way matches of two boards until the tie is resolved) except for a Compact KO match where there is another match to play in the current session. In this instance, the tie is broken using the following methods until the tie is resolved:

Board-A-Match Scoring
Total Points Scoring
Coin-Flip (odd man out)

(2) If one team has won two matches and the other two teams tied, use #9 above for head-to-head ties

(3) If one team has tied both of their matches, the team that has one loss and a tie shall be eliminated.

(4) If all three teams have tied both of their matches:
Play-off (continuing three-way matches of two boards until the tie is resolved) except for a Compact KO match where there is another match to play in the current session. In this instance, the tie is broken using the
following methods until the tie is resolved:

Board-A-Match Scoring
Total Points Scoring
Coin-Flip (odd man out)

B. When one team progresses and one team has not won both matches:

(1) If each team has won a match:

a. Net IMPs.
b. Result of the head-to-head match if two teams are tied in net IMPs.
c. If the net IMPs for each of the three teams is zero: Play-off (continuing three-way matches of two boards until the tie is resolved) except for a Compact KO match where there is another match to play in the current session. In this instance, the tie is broken using the following methods until the tie is resolved:

Board-A-Match Scoring
Total Points Scoring
Coin-Flip (odd man out)

(2) If two teams defeat the third team and tie their match, use #9 above for head-to-head ties.

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.

* I believe that the CoC which applied to the Open GNT included the same language.

NOTE: The ACBL Knockout General Conditions of Contest appear to assume the following without explicitly stating the conclusions:

(1) In the case of a 3-way match with one survivor, if a team wins both matches it survives.
(2) In the case of a 3-way match with two survivors, if a team loses both matches the other two teams survive.
June 19
Art Korth edited this comment June 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike:

I am sorry. I no longer read your posts. They start out with a flawed premise and go downhill from there.
June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We live in a world that more and more resembles Orwell's 1984 and now I find that my favorite avocation is beginning to resemble Through the Looking Glass.
June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray, is it too much to ask for an answer to direct questions which are at the heart of the controversy? Just saying that the CoC is legal doesn't satisfy me. I want to hear direct answers to my questions.

I want to know when I read conditions of contest in the future if they say what they mean and they mean what they say. If the D22 CoC were legal, that means that portions of the national CoC are being ignored.

The horse is not the only thing that is dead.
June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As well they should, just in case a portion of the event is run as a Swiss team.
June 18
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
.

Bottom Home Top