Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Jan Martel
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 82 83 84 85
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Our current rule for the Senior USBC is 2/3 seeding points and 1/3 Round Robin finish. That balance was decided by the Senior ITTC some time ago. It would indeed be easier to do equal weight.
19 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Seeding points based on long-term performance are almost certainly a better predictor of success than performance in a Swiss or Round Robin with relatively short matches. For example, in the Orlando Rosenblum, the teams were originally seeded based on WBF masterpoints (a pretty bad method, because some people have more opportunities to earn them than others). After the Swiss, the top 16 teams in the Swiss were seeded 1-16 and got to choose their Round of 64 opponents from the bottom 32 Swiss teams. The remainder of the field was seeded based on original seed. The top 16 seeds out-performed the top 16 Swiss teams in every round of the KO, even the Round of 64 where the top 16 Swiss teams had the advantage of choosing their opponents.

A few years ago, the Senior ITTC, which was more active then, discussed whether to do away with seeding and base KO bracket position completely on Round Robin finish. They voted (based on my recollection quite strongly) to retain seeding and to have it count for twice as much as Round Robin finish.

The randomness of the Round Robin isn't an issue of whether you rest people in the Round Robin, it's an issue of which lineup your team happens to play against - we prevent teams from choosing their lineups based on which team they're going to play, so it is random, but if you have a 5 or 6 person team, you're not going to play all of them in each Round Robin match.
19 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We don't adjust ACBL seeding points because they were earned with ineligible teammates; we only do that for Positioning Points. Trying to do it for seeding points would be mind-bogglingly difficult.
22 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think that we do want to see it. The alternative would be using the round Robin results completely, and that tends to have some randomness, because of the fact that teams field different lineups in different matches.I do agree with you, but just using open seeding points is probably more accurate and definitely easier than trying to tweak them.
Jan. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Congratulations!
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually, perhaps I should be more clear. The one thing I am not willing to do here is maintain a separate database of USBF Senior seeding points with entries from different events - maintaining the PP schedule is a lot of work and that's by team. To do it for individual players is far more work than I am willing to put in or to ask anyone else to put in. We need to seed based on data that is available: Masterpoints, VSR seeding points, or something else someone can think of, or some combination.
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Usually committees impose probation in days. The old ACBL rule was stated in days.
Obviously there is a big difference between suspension and probation. And in my experience, a big difference between probation for less than a year and probation for a year or more.
I had hoped that people would have opinions on what should disqualify a player from the USBCs, but it seems that this isn't a topic of much interest, so I will leave it up to the Board.
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm sure that ACBL isn't going to continue doing this, and as the person who would have to do it if USBF did it, I don't see the benefit. The major contribution will be from performance in the Open events, so why shouldn't we just use what we have available instead of maintaining a marginally different set of numbers?
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wasn't thinking of limiting VSR points to senior teams. Just taking the VSR points of the players on teams entered in the Senior USBC and using them to seed the event.
Edit to add - I don't see why only performance when a player was a senior is relevant at all to where the player should be seeded in the Senior USBC. In fact, some “recent” seniors & seniors who play in open events have complained that they don't get seeded properly when we give seeding points for performance in Senior events, so using VSR points instead might actually do a better job of seeding than what we've been doing.
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The Board meets next week and unless more people weigh in here, I'm going to ask them to decide this question, so if you have an opinion and haven't yet expressed it, please do so promptly.
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1. We do have a separate section about “cheating” in the General Conditions of Contest. However, that doesn't cover “cheating” convictions by other than USBF or WBF. However, I have a sense that people who are convicted of collusive cheating are expelled, so we could consider saying that anyone who has been expelled from the ACBL, even if they've been readmitted, isn't eligible.

2. Part of the problem is that the ACBL rules don't clearly separate out real cheating from other ethical determinations. It might be difficult for us to define whom we'd exclude based on a prior ACBL conviction for ethical violations (some of them are a little vague).

Why do you include E2 (give information about a board in play to a player who has not yet played the board) in things that are okay? Is it because you think this probably means accidentally?
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The question is whether a really long probation should make a person ineligible, or a probation following a suspension?
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One thing at a time :-). This is about the Conditions of Contest. The Bylaws are being revised, but that's a different issue.
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree. That's probably the thing we want to focus on, although I guess we should affirm that ACBL suspension makes someone ineligible. The question about probation is should it ever make a player ineligible, and if so, how long should the probation be (I think original term is what we should be talking about) to make a player ineligible.

Probation doesn't prevent a person from playing in ACBL events, unless it is a probation that causes the player to become not in good standing (original term of 24 months or more, or probation following suspension where the original term is 90 days or more).
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Where do you find that provision? I looked at General Conditions of Contest going back to 2004 (the first one I have) and there was nothing about 90 days probation until 2016.

Your language sounds like ACBL language, not that our Conditions of Contest, because it refers to “ACBL NCBO” - are you sure it isn't the forerunner of the ACBL section on eligibility that has now been deleted?
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry my shorthand was confusing to you. The only restriction is on NAP & GNT games other than at clubs. No restrictions on other tournament play.
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think it's because there is also a provision that a player who is not in good standing cannot receive a “subsidy” from the ACBL, and players in the NAP and GNT at the NABC stage receive such a subsidy. I guess they thought if the player wouldn't be eligible for the subsidy they shouldn't be eligible to compete in the event.
Jan. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks, Rena. I thought all three NBOs were created when the Olympic thing happened, but I'm sure you're right and it was just USBF. Sorry for providing misinformation.

And you are 100% correct that the USBF doesn't want to take on any new functions - we're a very small organization - running the USBCs (selection events for the Open, Women's, Senior, Junior & Mixed World Championships) is most of what we do and will continue to do.

The WBF says that many countries in the rest of the world receive financial support from their National Sports organizations because of the association of bridge with the Olympics. Sadly, we don't get any precise numbers and it's far from clear that the money some bridge organizations receive is worth the cost to all of us from compliance with Olympic rules.
Dec. 29, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The USBF is not the ZA. The new NABF is the ZA. The USBF, CBF & MBF are the NBOs for WBF Zone 2. The ACBL continues to do what NBOs in most other zones do - sanction and run bridge games in North America.
Dec. 29, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No, each NBO has always chosen the teams to represent it in the World Championships. When the ACBL formed the NBOs it no longer participated in choosing World Championship teams. It continued to choose the Zone 2 representatives to the WBF Executive Council; that will now be done by the NABF.
Dec. 26, 2018
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 82 83 84 85
.

Bottom Home Top