Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Jan Martel
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 93 94 95 96
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think that #4 applies to all the USBCs and is probably better discussed in the Policy Forum here than by using a questionnaire.
You may be right that people who favor 90 board matches to keep the event shorter aren't focussing on the fact that 90 board matches mean starting a match mid-day. I'll try to include that in the discussion of how long should KO matches be.
Oct. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This thread isn't actually intended to get your answers to my questions, but to ask whether there are other questions I should be asking of all the participants in the last few Senior USBCs. You, as a former participant, will get an email sometime soon with a link the a questionnaire.
Oct. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Of course, if the Senior USBC isn't scheduled over Memorial Day weekend, the Mixed is going to be - we can't completely avoid that weekend if we start the Open sometime the week before Mother's Day and have 1 or 2 days in between events. Calendars are tough.
Oct. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We did take a vote on the fairly recently and changed the Round Robin to 2 days but left the KO matches at 90 based on player preference. We can do another poll though.
Oct. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Having the Round Robin winner & second place select their opponents was one of the proposals I included in the original vote on seeding. It did not get very many votes, which is why we're doing seeding points.
Since the last 2 Senior USBCS are the only events for which players can receive additional seeding points, there isn't any need to worry about events in the more distant past.
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The number of teams for those events was increased this year. I agree with you that the other direction would have made more sense, from the standpoint of the events. Of course adding teams means more money to the WBF in entry fees and whatever benefits they get from hotel bookings.
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Although that has some merit, it's almost certainly not worth the extra work to figure out how to reward people and calculate and keep track of the extra points.
Because the WBF is raising the age every other year, there is no one who will be eligible in 2020 who wasn't eligible in 2019, and of the 8 players who became eligible in 2019, only 3 played in the 2017, 2018 or 2019 Open.
6 players will become eligible in 2021. 3 if them might play, and 1 played in recent Open USBCs.
7 players (including you) become eligible in 2023. 5 if them have played recently.
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You mean te Semifinals? With 9 teams, there would be 16 matches (2x8) - I thought 50-60-50.
Oct. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dream on, but in the real world …
Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My apologies - this poll was intended to be in the USBF Tournament Committee Forum, not open to everyone. It follows up on discussions that have gone on there.
Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We really need to end the Round Robin at the end of a day - there's too much possibility for things to cause problems when we try to start the KO immediately after the end of the Round Robin.
I suppose we could have a 3 day Round Robin with other numbers between 10 & 15, but if we took 3 days to get to 8 and then had 1-1/2 day KO matches (or 1-1/2 QF & SF and 2 day Final), it would feel as if we were using too much time for the first cut. We might do 3 days to cut 10 to 4, but even with 3 days, that's a really steep cut.
With more than 16, we're already committed to a longer Round Robin, but until we start seeing larger entries, I don't think we should worry about that.
Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How about, with 9 teams, a 3 day Round Robin to cut to 4 and then 2-day SF & F? That gives everyone 3 days of play, means we can have reasonably long Round Robin matches (I think we'd schedule 2 complete Round Robins, 1-1/2 days each, 10 boards each, for a total of 20 boards against each other team), and takes a total of 7 days, just 1/2 a day longer than a 2 day Round Robin cutting to 8 and 1-1/2 day KO stages, and the same length if we decide to have the Final be 120 boards.
Oct. 13
Jan Martel edited this comment Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No. I don't think they will change the costs, except in the first year when we buy them. But we hope that they will improve things enough to be worth it.
Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You're just talking about cutting 9 teams to 4, right? With 5-7 teams, it seems clear to cut to 4, and with 10 or more it seems clear to cut to 8, assuming we aren't going to have more than 16. So the only time we eliminate more teams than we might in the Round Robin is with 9 teams, where there are 2 bad choices: spend 2 days (about 1/3 of the event) to eliminate 1 team; or cut from 9 to 4 in 2 days and then have longer KO matches. We can vote on that separately.
Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1. We really can't guarantee 3 days of play, unless we have an even longer Round Robin and therefore event.
2. We are raising entry fees for KO matches for next year, and hope that will get us to break even.
Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm really not sure - I think you're right that it's inconsistent to use VSR seeding points and not Open USBC performance, I'm just not sure how much adding in Open USBC performance would change things. I guess we could use a fraction of the scale we use for Open PPs and go down to 8th, but only if the team has qualified from the Round Robin and won a KO match. I already have to keep track of that for the Open PPs. PP numbers are pretty much 10 times seeding point numbers, so we could take 10% of the Open PPs from the previous year (or two) and add to the VSR points with relatively little effort.
Whether we should also add in points for Senior USBC finishes isn't so clear - on the one hand, that's the most directly “relevant” event we have. On the other hand, some people weren't eligible in a prior year.
Oct. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe. But do you want to deal with the fact that it's easier to be 3-4 if you have a R8 bye. And VERY easy if you have a SF bye? And much as I hate to ask this, has anyone volunteered to keep track of these points? As the person who will end up doing it, I'd like to be sure it's worth it in terms of better seeding.
Oct. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We only give seeding points from prior year Senior USBCs for first & second, so there would be few if any players who would get them from the current year's Open.
Oct. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've moved this discussion to a new thread, but I do want to point out that awarding Senior seeding points for current year USBC performance has a fatal flaw - players on the winner (and sometimes second place team as well) in the Open USBC aren't eligible to enter the Senior USBC.
Oct. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There aren't Special Conditions of Contest for next year yet, because this needs to be resolved first. You can get them from prior years from https://www.usbf.org/past-tournaments/past-usbf-tournaments/index.php.
The Senior Round Robin is 2 days long.
Remember that there's going to be an additional event (Soloway) for ACBL seeding points, so raising the cap to 70 is catering both to that event and to the new Platinum points contingent.
I think the WBF performance is going to be limited to 22 seeding points, but that's just what's currently being proposed.
I'm not sure what you mean by mirroring what the ACBL does. We now use ACBL seeding points as the main contingent of seeding, adding to them for performance in the current cycle, based on Positioning Points earned by players on teams that don't get byes (IPPs). My concern about the Platinum Point contingent to ACBL seeding points is that it means masterpoints are a larger part of seeding points than they were before.
Oct. 12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 93 94 95 96
.

Bottom Home Top