Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Fred Gitelman
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Gary - what I wrote is not “my view” - it was (to me at least) a logical implication of your view.

Sorry if you missed the sarcasm (and sorry if your post was intended to be sarcastic and I missed that).
Nov. 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes Randy apparently you missed my point. If you think about it carefully I suspect you will see it (hint: the set of players who participate in a given tournament in a given unit/district is a small subset of all the players who live in that unit/district ).
Nov. 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So does Marketing Strategy 101 also dictate that, when a NABC (or any tournament I suppose) is profitable, those profits should be distributed to the participants in that tournament? OMG!!!
Nov. 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Max:

“Re: fairness, I see nothing ”unfair“ about having to compete with a team that has a ringer that isn't playing in the world championships- as long as I had an equal chance* (see below) to try to get that ringer on my team. If the CoC state that the top 3 players shall be allocated by board fiat, or may only play with team captains who were born in Florida, I consider that unfair. If someone else recruited a great player to their team, kudos to them. ”

To me this amounts to saying: since every team has a chance to put in a bid for (what might be) an unfair advantage, there is nothing unfair about it.

(or my neighbors can try to get away with not picking up their dog's poo so it is OK if I do)

With respect to “(what might be)” in the above, I think you need to back up a step and ask yourself if it is fair that a player or an entire team that cannot possibly qualify should be allowed to play in a qualifying event.

(No need to use examples of using such players/teams to fill out a movement or as a fill in for sick player or similar).

I believe that reasonable people could disagree in good faith on this issue. However, if substantial numbers of USBC regulars say “unfair” then I don't think we should go there - if the potential participants don't believe in the integrity of the event, that is really bad IMO.
Nov. 20, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Max…

“I understand that perverse things might happen if we change the rules as contemplated. But I also think perverse things will happen based on the current world championship structure if we don't change the rules, and I am more worried about those things.”

Agree (except for the part at the very end). So let's make a serious effort to list and weigh these perverse things so that we can intelligently select the least of evils solution! That has been my point from the beginning. If such analysis proves too complex or if we are too lazy to do it properly, to me that argues for sticking with the status quo.

IMO it would be completely reckless to adopt a new set of rules without doing this. Let's not learn about potential perversions the hard way.

“My overriding consideration is that the trials select the strongest team.”

I have two main considerations. The overriding consideration for me is that the conditions of contest are fair to all participants. My secondary (but very important) consideration is to select the strongest team.

“First, if we believe that top level players are, as regards overall impact on a team, approximately interchangeable, then I think the damage potential from having a player help a team qualify them not participate is minimal. Assuming that very strong player was hired, presumably they will be replaced by the next strongest player available with minimal loss. Hiring the ringer is a good sign for the future team because it indicates a sponsor who can attract top talent.”

While what we believe, assume, and presume may well be likely on average at this particular moment in time, I don't think we should rely on using such beliefs, assumptions, and presumptions to construct conditions of contest. It is really easy to come up with scenarios in which the beliefs, assumptions, and presumptions you refer to end up not materializing.
Nov. 20, 2018
Fred Gitelman edited this comment Nov. 20, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
OK - I have it all figured out. Given that…

- Women's USBC is having trouble attracting teams
- Few seem to care that ineligible players or entire ineligible teams can play in our Team Trials (after all, we already have some “contamination” since we allow foreigners to play in NABCs)
- For a true champion, winning *any* USBC is what it is all about (qualifying for the Bermuda Bowl and possible financial renumeration are purely secondary concerns)

I propose that we allow men (along with those with non-binary genders of course) to play in the Women's USBC!!!

Of course it is possible that no appropriately-declared-all-women-team will get very far, but it will be easy to figure out who becomes Team USA1 for the Venice Cup. If no eligible teams advance out of the Round Robin, we will take the highest finishing eligible team from that phase. And if, for example, a handful of such teams make it to (say) the round-of-16 and then all of them lose, we run a qualifying playoff among those teams and let all the ineligible teams battle it out for the real honor (winning the Women's USBC).

I haven't thought through how exactly USA2 will be decided, but we can figure that out once we see how the round robin ends.

And while we are at it, we might as well let those of all ages play in the Seniors and teams with any combination of genders play in the Mixed!

Consider the advantages….

1) Surely all of our players will start playing in all our USBCs even if they are not getting paid. We will add so many tables that we will not only put the USBF on sound financial ground, we will singlehandedly SAVE BRIDGE!!!

2) No more negative talk about Women's, Mixed, or Seniors USBCs being inferior events - all USBCs will be equally (and extremely) important!!!

3) We can show the world that bridge is a progressive game that is not tied to outdated notions like gender and age!!!

And once this inevitably proves to be a huge success, let's take the next step: allowing foreigners to play in all the USBCs as well (I would suggest allowing robot teams too, but that would necessitate playing with tablets and obviously that would be bad for bridge).

After all, since we already tolerate some “contamination” why not go all the way?

Edit: fixed typo
Nov. 20, 2018
Fred Gitelman edited this comment Nov. 20, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was hoping not to get involved in constructing and discussing possible nightmare scenarios, but since nobody else seems to be inclined to do this…

Consider the following simple scenario (and to further simplify things assume it happens in an Olympiad year so USA gets only 1 team per WBF event):

A superstar team made up of primarily of players who have already won a Trials (and declared for that Trials) decides to play another Trials in the same year. If that team wins the 2nd Trials, they will not qualify - the losing Finalist will presumably qualify instead.

To nobody's surprise, the superstar team makes it to the semi-finals along with 3 other teams consisting solely of players who have declared for the 2nd Trials.

Starting with the semis, the team unlucky enough to draw the superstars will need to win 2 matches to qualify (I am ignoring the fact that one of these matches will be against an ineligible team which, in itself, may not sit well with some people including me).

But the two teams in the other bracket might need to win only 1 match to qualify (if the superstar team happens to win their semi).

Is that fair?

To me, if there is an obvious answer to this question at all, it would be “no”.

If there is not an obvious answer, to me that is a bad sign.

(Yes I know that we already use byes so not all teams need to win the same number of matches in order to qualify - to me this is very different).
Nov. 19, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael: “But if they DO bother you, perhaps trying something else that has no clear definite flaw is not so awful.”

They do bother me (not enough to use capital letters) and of course I would be in favor of a flaw-free alternative. It is the unclear flaws I am worried about. It doesn't sound to me like these are being taken seriously enough.
Nov. 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael: If I were to get involved in trying to analyze various potential scenarios under various possible sets of rules (I won't be), I would consider things like:

1) Are there necessarily or potentially any conflicts of interest? How bad?

2) What is the risk that we will get a worse team USA than we would “normally” have?

3) Are the rules fair for all the teams in the event, even those with no team members who are directly impacted? If “no” then IMO we are in non-starter territory and it would be bad to figure this out later rather than sooner.

4) Can the rules be clearly articulated? For me, if it takes 10 pages to describe the new rules and all contingencies, that is a sign that we have collectively lost our minds. Sorry but I don't buy your notion of having a committee that can subjectively grant exceptions to an inadequate set of rules - everything needs to be codified in advance IMO.

5) Whatever else I haven't thought of.

Michael: My main point is that, if we are going to take this seriously, someone should eventually be making a fairly methodical effort along these lines. It is not going to be me and I am not asking you to do it, especially for the sake of trying to convince me that your preferred rules are “best” (which, for all I know, they may well be, but I don't have time for that discussion).
Nov. 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Try exploring Robb Gordon's “gunslingers” concern. For example…

Some truly excellent 6-women team wins the Women's USBC. 3 of the players plan to play on Team1 in the Mixed and declare “we will play in the Mixed if we win”. The other 3 players plan to play on Team2 in the Mixed and declare “we will play in the Women's if we win”.

In both Team1 and Team2 the men players are “experts” but not the sort of players who are expected to be able to compete effectively at the world level. Still, both teams are real contenders in the Mixed due to their great women players.

Can you think of anything that might go wrong if either Team1 or Team2 wins the Mixed? What about if they meet in the Finals? Make sure to consider that the Women's team might have a sponsor and that sponsor could be on either Team1 or Team2. Also consider that at least 1 partnership from the Women's team will be “split up” for the Mixed.

I am not suggesting that this particular scenario necessarily leads to a problem so terrible as to kill your proposal (in fact I haven't even tried to wrap my head around the possible implications - there might well be no real problem at all). And of course I am not suggesting that the type of scenario I described is likely to happen in real life.

But IMO this is the sort of analysis that needs to be done.
Nov. 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wasn't planning on voting since it is unclear if I will eligible to play in any of the next 8 or so years of USBCs. In general I think it is reasonable to at least try to solve problems like this by doing whatever the majority of the players want and since I am not a player I don't think I should get a vote.

But since you asked, I haven't made up my mind yet and I don't think I will do so unless/until I see more detailed analysis of the various proposals (especially pertaining to dealing with possible problems that might arise). If such an analysis is not forthcoming, I would vote for sticking with the status quo (since I prefer to avoid playing with fire, since the status quo is hardly terrible, and since, like you, my head or at least my gut is with Mike Becker on this one).

I will say:

1) When I first heard about the concept I thought it was completely crazy.
2) After reading and thinking about Sylvia's post, I realized there was something to this.
3) Instinctively I don't like your idea of “declaring” as much as Sylvia's idea of “play on the last team you win with” (sorry), but I could imagine being convinced otherwise.
Nov. 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry - put my response in the wrong place. See below…
Nov. 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“To crown the winner of that USBC. Winning a USBC should be a big thing whether it qualifies you for anything or not. Just like winning a Spinderbilt (or a World Championship!) is a big thing.”

Of course I agree it is a big thing just to win, but it is still the case that the USBC has a purpose beyond making the winners feel good and perhaps getting a bonus. I am concerned that changing the conditions of contest without carefully considering (and being able to reasonably address) all the things that might go wrong risks compromising the primary purpose of the event.

“Yes, someone can always dream up scenarios where my proposal could lead to a problem. But I think those scenarios mostly involve shenanigans or devious behavior - I don't think there is much likelihood.”

I think it is *really* important to try to list all cans of worms we would be opening even if the scenarios in question are unlikely and/or would involve devious behavior. My instincts suggest that many such cans of worms will come into play.
Nov. 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Suppose Michael's suggestion is adopted and a player declares: “I will play in Trials1 and Trials2, but if I win both Trials then I will opt for Trials1.”

The player's team wins Trials1.

Should that player really be allowed to play in Trials2?

Does it make a difference if it is an entire team (as opposed to a single player) we are talking about? What if that team wins Trials2? Maybe the losing Finalist qualifies? Then why bother even playing the Finals? How about the Semi-Final involving the team in question?…
Nov. 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Suppose USBC1 winners can play in USBC2. Further suppose that, should such players win USBC2, they will no longer be part of the USBC1 team.

Now, in light of such a rule, if you wanted to put together a contending team for USBC1, wouldn't you insist that your potential teammates commit to not abandoning your team should you qualify?

For me the answer would be a clear yes. If basically everyone else feels the same way (or at least if all the sponsors feel this way) then maybe in practice this is more or less a non-issue?
Nov. 13, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How about a Double Grosvenor position like this:

Q9xxx

Axxx

When you cash the Ace LHO follows with the 10 or Jack as RHO plays the King.
Nov. 7, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Be Like Mike” was not about Michael Jordan for me.
Oct. 9, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This bothers me and it happens all the time: Some very strong and experienced player is on opening lead after (say) 1NT-P-P-P and goes into prolonged state of deep thought before leading some card (which is invariably a “normal lead” from a hand with a reasonable alternative lead).

Seriously? Have you never had a hand like that before? Whatever - just lead something in tempo so as to not irreparably destroy the deal (or at least be less selective about when you do the trance thing).
Aug. 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is at least a little bit of “teaching” going on - I sometimes hire strong pool players to play on teams with me in tournaments (so far no APA tournaments but only because I normally play in BCA leagues - there is more than one ACBL in USA pool).

For me this is a lot of fun, a great way to learn and improve, and a good excuse to help out some of my friends. It is very inexpensive compared to hiring a team of bridge pros to play in an ACBL Regional.

As far as I can tell, this sort of thing almost never happens in the world of pool - I am aware of only one other “pool team sponsor” like me and he is what you might call a “non-playing sponsor”. I also take private pool lessons (not in a tournament context), but I believe that sort of thing is quite common.

Nowadays, in the USA at least, bridge pros have it really good compared to pool pros (almost all of whom, even most elite players, really struggle to make a decent living from the game).
Feb. 13, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
BBO has been working hard on an HTML5 client for the past 6 months or so. No promises but…

1) I am hopeful that the mobile version (Android and iOS) will be available within the next few weeks. We believe the new mobile client will be better than our existing mobile clients (which incidentally are Flash-based) in just about all respects.

2) Harder to predict when the browser version will be available, but I think there is a reasonable chance that this will happen by the end of 2017.

I am not really in a position right now to discuss the specifics of things like the technologies we are using, which features will be available in the first HTML5 releases, etc.

So apologies in advance if I am unable or unwilling to answer questions just yet. You will learn more soon enough.
July 27, 2017
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
.

Bottom Home Top