Join Bridge Winners

Bridge Winners Profile for David Wetzel

David Wetzel
David Wetzel
  • 5
  • 7
  • 39
  • 0

Basic Information

Member Since
July 9, 2014
Last Seen
2 hours ago
Member Type
Bridge Player
about me

Long ago, in a galaxy far away, my wife and I used to play a lot, and made token appearances in the lower flights of a couple of GNTs and NAPs and such.  Also managed to lose in the finals of the 0-750 knockouts at three straight Spring Nationals, which is harder to do than it sounds.


Then kids happened. 


Now we don't play much.


United States of America

Bridge Information

BBO Username
ACBL Ranking
Silver Life Master
Sorry, this user has no cards yet.
Improving the Seeding Process
Any such shuffle with weighting (I don't think I love the idea, but I'll pretend) should be done on a case by case basis. If they are truly identical, it won't matter much.
Improving the Seeding Process
"Perhaps my idea of setting such a threshold isn't valid, in which case maybe someone can explain why." I think it's invalid for the same reason that shuffling teams within a large arbitrary ranking (say 33-48) is bad: it presumes that you have accuracy on one end of ...
Improving the Seeding Process
I would think that the main reason for a shuffle was so you don't have the same matchups over and over in similar fields back in the day when the top 8-10 seeds could be counted on to make the quarterfinals. If it is merely a concession that we ...
Eric Leong's bidding problem: --- AJ8653 AKJ93 52
Was going to bid 3D for the lead until I realized I'd be on lead.
Improving the Seeding Process
The problem with this is, again, that the 55th best team has earned the right to not have to face #1 in the first round, and matching them up (randomly or not) hurts the equity of BOTH of them. The goal should be to seed all teams from 1-infinity well ...
Improving the Seeding Process
Regarding the last paragraph only, I strongly disagree that that's the goal of anyone. The goal should be that, if it's seeded correctly, each seed has a lower chance of being upset than the team worse than it.
Improving the Seeding Process
Actually #2 and #3 make perfect sense together, if it's the same top seeds getting upset more frequently than one might suggest given their seeding points (but still getting high seeds). That would sort of make them the anti-Wichita State (and would suggest that there's too much reliance ...
Improving the Seeding Process
As far as the NCAA thing goes, here's a site with history of how far a seed advances into each round of the tournament. This doesn't include this year but does have about 30 years of tournament history built in: For those unfamiliar ...
Improving the Seeding Process
Just have 1 pick from 57-64, #2 from 56-64 (less whoever got picked), etc.
Improving the Seeding Process
The question there is "why do we do that"? The process seems like an implicit agreement that the seeding process for those teams isn't very good.

Bottom Home Top