Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Jan Martel
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 88 89 90 91
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I tend to agree with this - we put Vugraph in as an alternative to a time monitor because the directors usually watch the play on Vugraph, so have a good sense of how much time is taken. But sometimes the operator doesn't enter bids or plays exactly in real time, and now that we have the alternative of a video I'd be fine with removing Vugraph. Lat's wait until we finish this vote and I'll do a vote on that.
June 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We already have a provision that provides for an IMP penalty. This vote is only to make it crystal clear that a video tape recording is as good as having a time monitor at the table.
If you want the IMP penalty reconsidered, please start a separate thread.
June 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why? I really thought this was a no-brainer. All I'm trying to do here is clarify that having a video to review is just as good as or actually better than, having a monitor at the table. This isn't a vote on the general principles of time penalties, which are spelled out at exhaustive length in the rest of Section XI of the General Conditions of Contest.
June 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That's true, but our current rules allow appeal to a committee. After we finish all of the things on my list, you can raise whether you'd prefer something else. For now, can we possibly stay on topic? The questions raised in this thread are whether to require an appeals committee to consider whether n appeal is frivolous (or without substantial merit if there's a difference) and what penalties should apply if an appeal is found to be frivolous.
I have a list of about 10 things to discuss and I started with the easy ones. If we can't stay on topic we'll never get through my list.
June 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That's right, so can we move up a comment or two and look at Peter's list of possible sanctions and see whether others have different suggestions?
June 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I asked the Chair (or maybe Co-Chair) of the ACBL Laws Commission about denying the right to appeal and he said firmly that “it is illegal.”
The Regulating Authority (which is the USBF here I think) can decide what is meant by an appeal, but I agree with McKenzie that it does not mean asking the person who made the ruling to reconsider.
At this time, the USBF allows appeals to an appeals committee of players. That's not on my “possible change” list.
June 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think that violates the Laws of Bridge.
June 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That's why we only do it when the table has gone over the allotted time.
June 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm not sure what you mean - isn't a set of boards a set of particular hands? McKenzie has been able to add up the amount of time spent by a player over a segment using the video - he's not trying to do it perfectly, but assigns numbers to different lengths of delay to come out with a total of time use for a set.
June 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, the tablets will only be for bidding, so won't time anything to do with play. Video is needed for play.
June 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But that assumes that the Vugraph operator never forgets to enter a bid or play the minute it's made, and that is just not a realistic assumption.
When we have tablets for bidding (I hope by next year's USBCs), the tablet will be able to keep track of time between bids, but even that won't be perfect, since some of that time is spent on questions and answers and it isn't clear whether that time should be charged to the person asking or the person answering.
June 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We did have a couple of appeals in the USBCs that I think reached that level - in one, it took the committee 2 minutes to watch the video and reach their conclusion. Appealing when the video was that clear just wasted the director's and committee's time.
Some others might not have been quite 100% clear but they were pretty close.
Some people appeal whenever a ruling goes against them, because there is no “downside” to appealing. Just making it clear to them that there is in fact a downside should help.
There is a serious downside to us from having silly appeals - we have to find a committee and provide information to the committee, which takes the appeals administrator and director and sometimes me time - none of us have a lot to spare. Each time we need a committee it becomes a little more difficult to find another one, because our committee members don't have unlimited amounts of time for serving on committees.
June 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Unanimity is intended as a threshold. Not all appeals where the committee is unanimous are frivolous, but probably all appeals where the committee is not unanimous are not frivolous. A unanimous committee could certainly decide that an appeal was not frivolous. We just want them to consider the question.
June 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Videos do allow the directors to measure time taken by each side, but since they usually don’t look at the videos unless the table has gone over time, that probably doesn’t resolve your issue. An going through the video to figure out how much time each pair, or player, took is very time-consuming.
June 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Bob H - I've been staying out of all these discussions, but you got me with your criticism of our directors.
We are incredibly lucky to have McKenzie Myers as our DIC for the USBCs, and to have Joan Paradeis as his assistant throughout, with Sol Weinstein, Jeanne von den Meirocker and Rui Marquez each helping for 6-10 days this year.
McKenzie and Joan are on the way home today after spending 34 days, most of them 12-14 hours long, in Schaumburg. To suggest that they put their comfort over the smooth running of the tournament definitely proves that you don't know what you're talking about. Let me tell you a little about their days.
When I get down to the playing site at 8:30-9:00 in the morning (play starts at 10), Joan is always ahead of me, busy opening the rooms; making sure that each table has scorecards, note pads, and pens; focusing and starting the cameras; making sure the Vugraph computers are connected to the internet; and turning on timers and lamps.
At the lunch break, while the players are eating and socializing, McKenzie is usually on the phone trying to find players of appropriate ability to poll about a ruling. If he's lucky, he may have time to grab something to eat.
After the session, Joan is there again, turning cameras, timers and computers off, and picking up all of the detritus left in the playing rooms; McKenzie is still working on rulings, or figuring out which rooms will have which tables the next day, or creating hand records. Dinner is usually reheated leftovers.
I know that all of the people who play in the USBCs will join me in saying a huge thank you to our wonderful staff and suggesting that before you say critical things you make an attempt to learn the real facts.
June 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When the concept of using Round Robin performance in addition to seeding points first came up in the Senior ITTC, my recollection is that it was a very novel idea and the committee wasn't sure it made sense, which was the reason to count seeding point rank for 2/3 of the eventual seeding and Round Robin finish 1/3. That was a long time ago of course, and now there are more events where Round Robin (or Swiss) finish is used at least partially to seed the KO stage.
Maybe we should consider an equal weighting. Or now that we have more information to go on, maybe we should assign seeding points to finishes in the Round Robin and add them to the teams' seeding point total to seed the KO. But I don't think we want to toss seeding points out the window.
Next year we're going to have to change the seeding points we use for the Seniors, because with no Baze Sr. KO, the ACBL will no longer keep track of Senior Seeding Points (this year we got the seeding points very late, because ACBL had already stopped maintaining them). Unless anyone has any better idea, we'll use Open seeding points for both the Open and Senior USBCs.
I'm not sure continuing to add points for first and second place finishes in the previous Senior USBC makes much sense. It was done in an attempt to add something for recent performance in this event, but now that we always start with a Round Robin, using Round Robin finish as part of seeding does that and rewards even more recent performance. In addition, some players were unable to play in the previous SUSBC, either because they weren't old enough, or because they had qualified in the Open USBC.
June 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm sorry for the late posting to the BBO Vugraph schedule. I did about 75% of the schedule and then something more pressing got in the way and I then forgot that I hadn't finished it.
May 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A player who qualified for the Bermuda Bowl would not have been eligible to enter a subsequent event. A player who qualified for the Venice Cup would have been eligible to enter a subsequent event. The players who have qualified in the Mixed are eligible enter the Seniors. Any player who qualifies in 2 or more events must compete in the World Championship event for which the player qualified last.
May 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Both.
May 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think Bridge Winners can do a Fantasy Bracket that includes a USA2 segment, so I didn't ask them to do one for the Mixed.
May 22
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 88 89 90 91
.

Bottom Home Top