Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Art Korth
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No, with a qualification.

No.

Yes.

As for #1, it depends what the announced agreement is for the 2 bid. If the agreement is “weak with spades” and nothing more, we would need to go further to determine what is meant by “weak.” Most pairs have an understanding of what the minimum expected values for the bid are. If weak means roughly 5-9 HCP, then this is a psych. If weak means less than 9 with no lower limit, this is not a psych.

I don't see any problem with #2 at all. If anything, the bidders partner is the one who may have the problem.

As for #3, that is a gross deviation from the partnership agreement. Clearly a psych. (And, as for the previous comment that the bid is pointless, I would disagree - it has 7 points (and 3 10's!)). If you want pointless, see #1.
July 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray:

I agree with you that, ideally, round-robins in KO events should be limited to the early rounds. And that is true in events with a sufficient entry to allow a reduction in the size of the field to a power of 2 through the use of a suitable combination of byes, 3-way and 4-way matches (the Spingold and the Vanderbilt are the most obvious examples).

The language that you refer to is as follows:

“Round robins (with one or two survivors) may be held in the early rounds to avoid byes.”

The fact that the national KO CoC contains this statement in no way implies that a 3-way match in a later round of an event is not a KO match. If that were the case, the CoC could have explicitly said so. It would have been easy enough to state that “Round robins (with one or two survivors) may be held in the early rounds to avoid byes, but may not be used after the first two rounds of a KO event.” I have played in a 3-way KO final. Jonathan Steinberg said that he has played in several. So they do exist. I would try to avoid them if at all possible but sometimes s**t happens.

There is nothing in the KO CoC that says that the ranking (not scoring) method provided for 3-way matches does not apply to 3-way matches which happen to be the final match of a KO. The ranking method provided applies to ALL 3-way matches which are considered to be KO matches.

And, as I have said before, the distinction between a round-robin which is part of a qualifying stage and a round-robin (I prefer the term 3-way) which is a KO match is that in the qualifying stage the outcome of the round-robin does not result in the elimination of any team. But in a 3-way KO match, one or two of the teams is eliminated.
June 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I knew you could not resist, Michael.

I believe that you and Ray are the only ones who are continuing to state that the three-way final was not a KO (maybe Mike Cassel is with you, but I believe that his primary contention is that the D22 CoC needs to be respected, not that the final was not a KO match). Your argument is that a KO has to be a head-to-head match, despite examples to the contrary and a specific provision for 3-way KO matches in the national knockout conditions of contest.

(Ray: I am surprised that you will not accept this. A basic principle of statutory construction is that the language of the statute is meaningful. If you take the position that a three-way final is not a KO, then all of the language in the national knockout conditions of contest regarding how survivors of three-way KO matches are determined becomes meaningless.)

Despite your contention to the contrary, the definition of a KO match is a match in which teams are eliminated from the event solely based on the result of the match. In the case of a head-to-head match, this is very simple. The winner survives, the loser is eliminated. In the case of a three-way match, the CoC would specify if there is one survivor or two survivors. If there is one survivor, the team which wins both matches survives, the others are eliminated. If none of the teams wins both matches, the national knockout conditions of contest set out how the survivor is determined. If there are two survivors, the team that loses both matches is eliminated, and the other two teams survive. If none of the teams loses both matches, the national knockout conditions of contest set out how the survivors are determined.

In the 2-day Soloway format used at Regionals, the first day is a Swiss or Round-Robin (depending on the number of teams) scored at IMPs converted to VPs. At the end of the first day, the teams are ranked by VPs, and the top 4 advance to the semi-finals held in the first session of the second day. The winners of the semi-final matches advance to the finals, and the losers typically play a match for third place. The third-place match is usually required, but I understand that it may be optional depending on the CoC.

This highlights the distinction between the qualifying segment of the event and the KO segment of the event. The qualifying segment requires ALL teams to play both sessions, with no eliminations. This is not a KO. The qualifying matches are scored at IMPs converted to VPs, and, at the end of the second session, the teams are ranked by VPs and the teams with the best four scores advance to the KO event on the second day.

The second day is a KO event. In the semi-finals, winners advance, losers are eliminated (but can play a third-place “consolation” match). In the finals, the winner wins, the loser is eliminated (and finishes in second place).

The Soloway format should never result in a three-way final. But three-way finals are still KO matches. Winners win, losers are eliminated.

I know that nothing that I write here will change your mind.
June 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray Yuenger:

“'The {round-robin} matches were scored at imps, converted to victory points on the 20 VP scale.' This sounds familiar.

Paging Art Korth. Do you still maintain “You cannot have a KO event scored at VPs. This contradicts the national knockout conditions of contest.”? Or is the Swiss stage of a Soloway event not a KO?”

Cherry picking, Ray. I would have expected better of you.

Please include the immediately preceding sentences:

“I also played in this event. In order to achieve a representative and competitive first bracket, there were 7 teams. The first day we played a round robin - 8 boards against all of the other 6 teams. The matches were scored at imps, converted to victory points on the 20 VP scale”

The qualifying round was a round-robin. Not the semi-finals or the finals. You can have a qualifying round in any format - Swiss, round-robin, etc. If all of the teams continue in the event until some number of matches are played to determine the qualifiers for the KO stage, it is perfectly acceptable to score those matches at IMPs converted to VPs. The qualifying matches are not KO matches - no teams are eliminated by losing a qualifying match. Teams are ranked at the end of the qualifying stage by VP totals.

And, to answer your question directly, yes, it is true, the opening stage (not the Swiss stage) of the Soloway is not played as a KO. That is the distinguishing feature of the Soloway format. Teams play a complete round-robin (or a Swiss movement if there are too many teams to run a complete round-robin) to qualify 4 teams for a two-session KO semi-final and final. The qualifying phase is scored at IMPs converted to VPs.

What one cannot have (and I believe I made my point very clear) is a three-way KO match where the matches are scored at IMPs converted to VPs and the teams are ranked by VPs, not wins and losses. That is what happened in the D22 GNT final.

And please do not argue that the D22 three-way final was not a KO.
June 27
Art Korth edited this comment June 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Welcome to the Twilight Zone.
June 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I had a copy of the old CoC - it is on this site somewhere, I just could not locate it.

The 20 VP scale used was the integer scale with 0-3 IMPs resulting in a 10-10 VP score.

The old CoC (and the new one, for that matter) does not reference the Bethe formula or the decimal VP scale.
June 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry - I have to react to this post, as it gave me a flashback. I apologize in advance for making this thread longer.

An old Dave Treadwell joke (is that redundant?):

What do you call a blind deer?

No idea (eye-deer).

What do you call a blind deer with no balls?

No f…ing idea.

(EDIT: The joke is actually longer, and is in the public domain. The second part was “What do you call a blind deer with no legs? Still no idea.” Then you proceed to “What do you call a blind deed with no legs and no genitalia?” You can work out the rest.)
June 24
Art Korth edited this comment June 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Rick: I never suggested eliminating the flighted GNT. I did suggest occasionally holding a non-flighted GNT.
June 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There may be a misunderstanding of what “Grass Roots” means in the context of the GNT.

Grass roots means that the event originates locally, and not at an NABC. As originally conceived, competition began at local clubs. Qualifiers from club competitions (and, unlike the NAP, you got only one shot at the club level) would proceed to a unit competition. Unit qualifiers would proceed to the District championship, which was straight KO from the beginning.

The GNT began in the mid-70s. It was sort of a revival of an event from the 30s with a similar name.

Flighting was added later probably as a way to lure lower ranked teams into the event. Participation was lagging.

Over the years, club and unit qualifying became optional. In my District, competition is exclusively at the District level.
June 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am all for presenting new ideas. If the new ideas relate to proposed changes to existing events, that is fine.

Having said that, I am STRONGLY opposed to the following proposals made upthread:

Eliminating the top players or flights from the GNT.

Handicapping in any flight of the GNT.

Restricting the ability of players to play (or to be eligible for subsidies) in the GNT due to previous victories.

Each of these subjects merits a discussion, but for the present I will just note my opposition to each of these proposals.

I will make one more comment in response to these proposals. I mentioned in another post the possibility of occasionally running the GNT as a truly open event - no flights, KO from the beginning. I flippantly referred to this idea as the Truly Grand National Teams.

In my opinion, any of the proposals above could be referred to as the Not So Grand National Teams.
June 22
Art Korth edited this comment June 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Far be it for me to speak for Nicholas and his analysis, but I don't believe he is stating that if the analysis shows that a player is a “great” opening leader he is automatically a cheat.

What he is saying is that if the analysis shows that a player is a “great” opening leader there is a strong possibility that he is a cheat. It is a strong indication that the rest of the player's game needs investigation.

For example, if a top player is average or below average (compared to his peers) in all other aspects of the game, the fact that his opening leads are superior is likely due to cheating.
June 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sure, if Thomas Jefferson wrote the CoC.
June 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Art and Chip are doing a disservice to the legal profession by their myopic misreading of all the applicable CoC.”

At least it wasn't personal.
June 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray:

All I can say in response to your post is LOL.
June 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Greg:

Are you really arguing that one side may make a bid solely for the purpose of trying to get the other side to commit an ethical violation?

I really don't see the point. Assuming that your opponents are ethical, and you make a bid which gives them a chance to exchange information - double or no double. The opponents are allowed - legally and without any untoward ethical implications - to ask the meaning of the bid.

However, any question that may be asked creates the possibility of conveying UI. Are you saying that one of the purposes of the bid is that you are trying to elicit UI?

This is getting too deep for me. I want to play a game with full disclosure and no ethical issues when obtaining full disclosure. I don't want my opponents laying ethical traps for the unwary.
June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't see why it would not be legal. I doubt that it is in your best interest to give the opponents a chance to exchange information for their benefit. After all, the opponents are supposed to do things which benefit them. Why hand them an opportunity on a silver platter?
June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kit: Just because responder has a singleton spade for his 3 bid doesn't mean that the partnership has the agreement that the bid shows shortness. He may have been making the bid up on the fly. Or he could just be mistaken.

I agree that if responder believed that his 3 bid showed shortness he should inform the opponents immediately after the auction is over.
June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry about the missing “x” of spades. I copied and pasted David's post including the hand. I do not know how the “x” of spades could get dropped.
June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you mean that at money bridge a 16 count is too strong to overcall, then I don't know money bridge.

If you are saying that AQxxx is not a good enough suit to overcall, you have a better point, but then you have to decide whether passing in direct seat over 1 and trying to make up for it later is going to be possible.
June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“What should I bid? Please do not tell me 2.”

OK. So I won't tell you.
June 20
.

Bottom Home Top