Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Jan Martel
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry - will edit the post - yes, it was the top 16 Swiss finishers who chose their first round opponents, from the bottom half of the qualifiers.

I wasn't surprised at this result but was responding to the question of whether using a Swiss to qualify and seed the Soloway made it more random than using seeding points.
April 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't know how much was done to decide whether a Swiss or seeding points does a better job of predicting who will do well in a KO, but just for interest, I did look at the results in Orlando, where I had both Swiss finish and seed order for all of the teams. The top 16 seeds out-performed the top 16 Swiss finishers in every round of the KO, even though the top 16 Swiss finishers got to choose their first-round opponents. I recognize that this is only one event and who knows what will happen in the Soloway, but I found it interesting. Two of the top 16 finishers in the Swiss made it to the Quarterfinals and none to the Semifinals.
April 22
Jan Martel edited this comment April 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Reading this thread, the thing that has struck me is the many comments against “elitism.” I thought the point of the BRP was to have an elite event. How do you have an elite event without as many “elite” players as possible? And when did “elite” become pejorative? Is it really bad to be a talented player who can make it to the Quarterfinals of one of the major KOs?
We have an event that once upon a time was fairly difficult to qualify for (when I started to play, winning a Regional was a big deal). Then the qualification requirements were substantially diluted. And instead of expiring every 3 years or when you played, qualifications remain forever. I have played under 30 days of bridge in the last 5 years. I have 55 BRP Qs, So I suppose we've already “adulterated” or “diluted” the BRP. But do we really want to make it even less elite? Don't we have enough “easy” events?
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, this stage will eliminate 1 team.
When you say sessions of 12 or 16 boards, you're leaving out 14 - I think we've settled on this format (since no one can figure out anything better) and 7 board segments, which makes each “session” 14 boards long - 2 matches of 7 boards each, not played simultaneously.
April 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This isn't for the Open - we're fine with sitouts there. It's for the Women, who have only 5 teams, so if we use the “stout” method each team play only 80% of the boards in play, which is a significant reduction in the number of boards per match
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We hold the Women's event concurrently because it is so small that it is not economically feasible to hold it stand-alone. when we did hold it as a separate event, we held it at a Regional and although that solved the “it's too small” issue, it raised others.
April 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's way above my head too, but it's not an increase of 1/3. If you won all of the PP events in a cycle before the Soloway, you'd get 336 PPs. If you won all of the PP events in a future year, you'd get 436. Of course, no one is going to win all of them, and the PPs drop off pretty sharply. I'd be surprised if we saw a significant change in byes after the Soloway is added to the schedule.
April 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We already voted on that one - you abstained :-) - 100% of those voting (there were 14, which may not be very many, but is a substantial number of the TAC members) voted to have the same PP schedule for the Soloway as for the Vanderbilt & Spingold. So that was the starting point for this discussion.
I asked several of our “mathematicians” how much to increase the requirements for byes and they came up with 20%. That's why I'm suggesting this schedule for next year. To me the numbers make sense if you look at what it takes to get PPs:
– To earn a SF bye, a team would have to win one of the events and also make at least the SF of two others. Or I guess a first (required), a 3/4, a 5/8 and a 9/16. That seems like enough. Note that we haven't had a SF bye team since we changed the bye requirements a few years ago.
– To earn a QF bye, a team would need to win an event or make the SF in two events or make the SF in one and the QF in 2 others or something comparable. Again, that seems like enough.
– To earn a R16 bye, a team would need to do a little more than finishing 3/4 in one event. Ditto :-).
April 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are probably right, even though I'm in the second group & don't expect to become a GLM. But if I cared about being a GLM, I could just play more and get those extra masterpoints; it's not so easy for someone who has played a lot and not won a qualifying event to do so.
April 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have a fair amount of experience with smaller events, both from the Women's NABC events and the USBCs. Usually, an event becomes smaller because the teams that are less likely to do well decide not to enter, not because the stronger teams don't enter. In other words, if the Reisinger had 20 teams, it would probably be as hard or even harder to win it as it now is with about 40 teams originally entered. Similarly, the Open USBC (Team Trials) is at least as hard to win in years with 14 teams as in years with 20.
The Baze became smaller as players on some of the top teams became old enough to be eligible. I still hope that it will be added back to the Fall NABC schedule, starting on the first Sunday, after the 2-day Swiss qualifying of the Soloway. With 32 teams still in the Soloway, my bet is that the Baze entry would become larger than it was in recent years. There just aren't that many of us who enter events where we know we'll get our hats handed to us for the fun of playing against the best.
April 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes - the only change is to add the Soloway to the Vanderbilt & Spingold.
April 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That was correct until the WBF added the Mixed Team event to all of the World Championships recently. I see the the Mixed USBC (aka Trials) hasn't been added to the list of GLM eligible events.But I expect it will be.
April 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It was a VERY long time ago (my second NABC, Chicago in the summer of I guess 1971 from the Wikipedia list of locations, although I thought it was earlier). I have no idea whether the rule is still the same now!
April 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My partner once redoubled a bid I had doubled. The director told the opponents they could play the hand doubled or not. Unsurprisingly, they chose not. But the RDBL had been intended as SOS :-)
April 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was wondering about that too. Have 2 different dues amounts, one if you get only an electronic version and a higher one if you want paper.
April 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@GG: No airfare for employees, yes, but most of the BoD members live in places other than Memphis.so would have airfare to get to Memphis for the Board meetings.
April 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I thanked Peter & Alex for coming to my Vugraph table, because they brought David & Simon “with” them, so I knew the commentary would be both good and amusing :-).
April 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not this year, and probably not in the future now that the ACBL is no longer the Zone 2 Zonal Organization.
April 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Aaron is playing in the Vanderbilt Quarterfinal, after having been up until (I believe) 2:30 in the morning participating in appeals hearings. I'm sure he will post a more complete statement later. Meanwhile, someone above posted the link to the BBO archive file with the hands, bidding, and play, and that will tell you which players sat where.
All I know is what is in the BBO archive and the fact that both rulings were appealed. I do not know what the original rulings or appeals decisions were. The end result of the two rulings and appeals was the Rosenthal won the match.
March 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hu's Diner, on Main street a few blocks from the playing site, has some very good vegetable dishes. Only 4 hot choices, but interesting and tasty. The salads were also interesting and the ones we got were good - they removed the pork from one of them on request. I have no idea whether the meat, etc dishes were good because both times we went there we all ate veggies.
March 26
.

Bottom Home Top