Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Steve Willner
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Art: it would depend on the state of both matches. If they both seem close, the conditions wouldn't make any difference. If I seem to be well ahead or well behind in one, I'd want to try to win that one in case 1 (play safe if ahead, swing if behind) but want to maximize VPs in case 2 (play each board to win maximum IMPs).
June 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Did you miss the part after the ‘unless’? Having a match subsequent to the main final is fine for selecting the second team, but it's a burden on the players. If players in a particular district like it, then I have no reason to object, but I wouldn't like it and wouldn't expect most others (especially Flight B and C) to like it either.
June 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you mean “who created the fractional VP scale,” it was Henry Bethe who worked out the idea and the formula. The basic formula needs some adjustments in roundoffs to 0.01 VP. I don't know who did those, nor do I know who advocated for the ACBL to adopt the Bethe scale.

The advantage of the Bethe scale is that every IMP (barring some extreme cases) is worth something. If you think the qualifying margin should be more than 0.01 VP, I might agree with you, but that's a matter for the CoC of each event.
June 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“an event that is all RR should not be conducted to qualify for an event that starts with RR and finishes with KO.”

Why not? Especially if more than one team will qualify for the subsequent stage?
June 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you are deciding two teams (as D25 did this year for Flight B), KO is a terrible format unless you want to set up a match subsequent to the main final. (Semi-final losers play each other during the final, then the winner plays the losing finalist.) I don't think most players will care for this.

I don't know any good format, but probably RR among a small number of teams (but more than three) is least bad. Ideally there would be the same reduction factor on both days, e.g., from 8 to 4 on Day 1, then 4 to 2 on Day 2, but that won't be possible in general. There should probably be full IMP carryover of the head-to-head results on Day 1. By all means use the Bethe VP scale!

Perhaps of peripheral interest, D25 had its own scoring cock-up resulting in a team being told they had won when they hadn't. What happened was wrong carryovers from Day 1 were used at first. Carryovers posted on the wall at the start of Day 2 were correct, but somehow the computer mixed up which team was which. How it happened, I have no idea, but it was obvious what was wrong and how to fix it. The thought-to-be-winning team got a personal call from the District Director to give them the bad news, but they were still upset. It was worse because some of them had had the same experience in a prior year. At least the CoC were clear, and there was no denying the true result.
June 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Don't RRs award masterpoints based on percentage of matches played?

The linked document is a fine description of the event and the reasons for it. Like many ACBL documents, though, it uses “Swiss” to refer to a RR.
June 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Although the KS “controlled psych” was called that, it was not a psych at all. It was an agreement to open 1M on a particular type of weak hand, and there were agreed followup methods. I'm sure Kaplan's disclosure was impeccable (though there were no alerts in those days), but I expect some users were not so scrupulous.

Maybe it should be illegal to false-card on defense.
June 3
Steve Willner edited this comment June 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If the final was all-play-all scored by VPs, the event was a two-stage round robin. “Swiss” doesn't apply because at each stage, every team played every other team.
June 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Keith: if there is no match for 3rd place, and the 3rd/4th teams go home after their semi-final loss, would they split the 3rd-place award? Or would there be no award given?

Art: while I share your preference for a four-team final, neither your nor my preference should count. If the people who might consider entering the event prefer a two-team final, why not give them what they want? That said, I think there are good reasons not to have a three-team final, probably good enough to overrule the participants' alleged preference for that format.
June 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“…have to choose between swimming the 100 and the 200.”

As Michael wrote above, the analogy is flawed. The 100 and 200 are different events, having different emphasis on speed and stamina. In contrast, the Open and Senior are the same type of game, distinguished only by different eligibility requirements.

If there were a different event scored board-a-match or otherwise played differently, the analogy would hold.

“ACBL at nationals has always had the policy of you can't enter 2 events same time.”

Where is that policy found? You can't win masterpoints in two events held at the same time, but not enter?
June 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
wrong place; comment moved
June 3
Steve Willner edited this comment June 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So reduce from 7 to 2, and play a longer KO in the final.
May 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Some people won't recognize satire no matter how obvious it is. (one Mr. Swift had some experience of this.)
May 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
According to the USBF web site, next year's schedule is in the order Open, Mixed, Senior, Women's. Suppose Player A prefers to compete at the WC in the Senior but would like a chance to compete in the Mixed if his team doesn't win the Senior trial. What is Player A supposed to do?

We might also ask about Player B, who has the opposite preference. Suppose B's team wins the Mixed trial. Can B's Senior team replace B if B drops out? What about B's partner, if not the same person as B's partner in the Mixed?
May 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's not necessarily suspicious, but it would be worth finding out what happened. A prestigious event such as this one ought to be using the new “Bethe” VP scales (if using VPs at all). Which scale to use depends on the number of boards played, but given that number, there is no choice. I can imagine a Director using the wrong scale at first, then correcting the mistake. That sort of correction is automatic. However, going from the Bethe scale to one of the older scales would be improper, and of course the scale to use should have been specified in the CoC.

As others have written here, neither a three-team final nor scoring it by VPs makes any sense for selecting a single winner.

If there were potential conduct offenses, those should ideally have been dealt with at the time. I can understand, though, that everyone wanted to get home. Filing Player Memos is not really a substitute for immediate action, but it should still be done.

As I mentioned elsewhere, “round-robin Swiss” is a self-contradictory term.
May 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“one day of Round Robin Swiss”

Although this event name is common in the ACBL, it's a self-contradiction. “Round robin,” also called “all play all,” means each contestant plays all others in its bracket. “Swiss” means each contestant plays only a subset of others: the ones with similar records.

Just because the ACBL doesn't know this is no reason the rest of us shouldn't.
May 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael alludes to the general problem that Swiss outcome depends on “strength of schedule,” i.e., whether you play an excess of strong or weak teams. This can be allowed for in the final scoring, but I think that's done only in Australia and there (I think) only for premier events.

I saw some simulation results many years ago and don't remember them exactly, but the correction was smaller than I was guessing. It's a few VPs, though, so it can easily make a difference of a few places in the standings. That would be especially important for something like the Soloway qualifying Swiss, but when I suggested a SoS correction for that, the idea received no support.
May 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1. has the ACBL ever prohibited playing in simultaneous events? They prohibit winning masterpoints in simultaneous events, but that's not the same thing.

2. why should the USBF be obliged to follow ACBL rules?

3. if players are eligible for multiple events, there is always a chance that a player may qualify for one event but prefer to play in a different event whose qualification is yet to be decided. (In practice, there is likely to be a near-unanimous hierarchy of preference, but near-unanimous is not the same as unanimous.)

4. many bridge events allow dropouts at various stages. Admittedly those tend to be low-level events.
May 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It just occurred to me, on reading the definition of Purely Destructive Initial Action again, that a short-suit overcall isn't a PDIA if the bid promises some 5-card or longer suit. The suit doesn't have to be the suit named, and it doesn't have to be a known suit; there just has to be one promised. This is item d of the definition, in particular item b twice (“an unspecified 5+c major or an unspecified 5+c minor”).
May 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“… authors of the charts simply overlooked something”

At least two “somethings,” I think. One was failing to prohibit “Purely Destructive Overcalls” on the Basic and Basic+ charts. The other was the idea that anyone would want to overcall in a short suit to show high card strength. (That is a bizarre idea. What are the short-suit overcallers planning to do if opponents double? But that's their problem, not a reason to make the overcall illegal.)
May 28
.

Bottom Home Top