Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Joe Hertz
1 2 3 4 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ... 70 71 72 73
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ed, in this auction, I purposely wait a few extra seconds to see if the alert is coming, because when you stop to look at the card after 2 Banana - 3 Grapefruit, there can be only one reason you're doing it. And everyone knows what you're thinking about.
June 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So they “forgot” that a nf 3 was alertable? That's when you roll back the auction and give the opps another opportunity to bid, right? There a good argument you can't look at their cc then because that will give your p ui.

It doesn't matter if it really was their agreement or not. Offer your pen, loaded with permanent ink for them to check the box if you want to be passive aggressively nice to them, but the handling of this incident includes them coming up with an answer to that question.
June 9
Joe Hertz edited this comment June 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Cue Gary Hann
June 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I still think the detrimental reliance argument carries here. Take it to court…excuse me…arbitration, and you'd get your money back. They can't produce the publication of the CoC, right? They don't dispute what you were told before. This seems awfully easy to adjudicate.

Oh…You have to exhaust your internal to the acbl options first? Fine…Write a letter ccing anyone who could be in a position of responsibility, wait for the inevitable denial or lack of reply. Then you file the claim. If enough people do this, then they'll write better CoCs and make sure there are ways to find them.
June 9
Joe Hertz edited this comment June 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm taking this to mean that they really did intend VP's to be used in the final three way. It doesn't say so, but that's the only way the winner of the event doesn't change. The silence about that intent I find curious.

Because:

It's worth noting that under the same CoC, 3 (or was it 4?) years ago, the final in D22 was also a 3 way but the winner was deemed to be the team that won both matches. VP's were not used.

The only possible conclusion to draw if the CoC really had the 3 way final using VP's, then THAT OTHER year's final was NOT run in accordance with the CoC. I'm assuming it didn't make a difference in that year's outcome, but if it did, someone would be owed a belated apology.

So at the very least, why not just admit that it was run incorrectly when you state your conclusion? “Mistakes were made. One such was made in a prior year, which in turn seems to have left some players with a mistaken assumption about the CoC”. See, it's not that hard.

The D22 board claims it has “done everything it can”. I'd humbly suggest that addressing this point is something it was able to do but did not.
June 7
Joe Hertz edited this comment June 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes. But if he doesn't ask, it borders on “failing to protect himself” if there was an answer that could have clarified it. Ready != Prescient
June 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Rick – never give me a song cue because crap like this is what happens:

Here ends the story that goes real limp
Cause they used VP's
When they should have used imps
Oh…rKcOing robin
June 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was thinking Solomon and splitting the baby in half. Sophie was more invested in the outcome.
June 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is where I was about to go. You've got a 3.4 issue that everyone knows about now. And if it was correct, a 3.20 as well. The bell has been rung, and lots of people heard it. At the time? Good question about what to do…but now you, or someone else, tells it the unit recorder.
June 4
Joe Hertz edited this comment June 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In 2010, I won the GNT-C for my district. I've been telling people that was the first KO event I ever won.

But the final was a three way scored by IMPs.

Am I to understand some people would think it didn't count as such?

Or is that it did count, but only because it didn't use VP's?
June 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Robert Greene:

I'd like to note that first you say there are “too many conflicting statements…” (to tell if it is a fiasco) and then you say, “What the teams say they knew isn’t really pertinent. Nobody listens to announcements” (that's not a broad brush at all right there, sir).

Any opinion on if the fact that the same district, using the same CoC, had an imp based three-way final a couple of years ago? Does this make it a fiasco?

Because when you say the statements conflict, and then you say they don't matter anyway…well, tbh, it sounds like you just want to believe the players are are bunch of whiners.

I mean, if two people at the table heard “eight of hearts”, and one heard “ace of hearts”, and one of the folks who heard “eight” had no conflict of interest…you know exactly what would happen with the ruling, right?
June 2
Joe Hertz edited this comment June 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Robert Greene writes: “It’s not clear to me the D22 finals were a fiasco. Too much contradictory stuff to determine that from this thread.”

Some things are clear. Getting rid of the hearsay and the procedural questions about the hands, this sounds like a fair summary to me:

1) The team that wins if VP scoring is used said they knew it was VP's.

2) The team that wins if IMP scoring is used said they did not know it was VP's.

3) The team that loses regardless of the form of scoring said they did NOT know it was VP's either.

4) The ACBL describes holding a VP 3 way final match in a GNT as “unusual”

5) At the moment, a preliminary indication that prior D22 GNT finals that used the same CoC had a 3 way final using IMP scoring.

6) A CoC that was, at best, poorly written, and the content where it was hosted changed in some fashion since the event (and I believe not currently available for download) even though other D22 GNT flights are still competing under the terms of said CoC.

7) The live.acbl results in question having been taken down, again, since the event.

Items 1-3 I'd count as regrettable, maybe even tragic for the competitors who wound up on the short straw.

Item 4 means that the scoring method was an affirmative choice of the organizers and/or DIC.

Item 5, if it holds up, means it was either an incorrect choice as well, or indicative on an ongoing problem with this event, due to differing readings of said poorly written CoC.

Item 6-7 is where it feels like the smoke alarms have gone off.

What would make it a fiasco in your mind?
June 2
Joe Hertz edited this comment June 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Finn's got a point here. You left after being told you lost and initially accepted it. He left after being told he won.
June 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And time is kind of the essence here. The event is a little over 6 weeks away. Fortunately Las Vegas is driveable from D22 so advance ticketing isn't a concern.
June 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Peg – I read it the other way around. That it was interpreted correctly in 2016 and incorrectly in 2019 – that the final round would not be treated as a round robin, even if it was a three way.

Are we certain that VP scoring was not used in 2016? Winning both matches and the event is not necessarily inconsistent with it being scored using VP's. Just potentially coincidental.
June 2
Joe Hertz edited this comment June 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Innovating isn't the question here. What matters is if the participants in the event were adequately informed as to said innovation. At least two teams didn't know the final was using victory points at all. Did the third know that before they won?
May 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm seeing a few issues here.

1) The VP/IMPS issue of the three way not being clear initially giving Rick's team the mistaken impression that “of course we won, we won both matches.”. A CoC that says otherwise, even by the ACBL's own words is apparently “unusual”.

2) After the surprise of VPs getting used to determine the winner of the event, the scale initially that was used turned out to be incorrect, again leaving Rick's team with the impression they had won. At this point some of the team left thinking it was over.

3) The lack of timely clarification about the VP scale getting made to all parties, resulting in a delayed announcement that Shallesh's team has won. Specifically, Rick and team finding out from live.acbl and as a result not having their procedural concerns dealt with.

The result of all this is that

A) You've have tactics being employed incorrectly in the match because the competitors think it is strictly IMP scoring and not VP scoring. If you know that 3rd match matters, it would impact what you do in your two matches – winning your own matches was not “merely” enough to win the event.

B) Appeals were not filed because they appeared to be moot. If the DIC gets to correct who is named as the winner of the event after a certain point, the clock on the timely filing of procedural appeals simply must have some sort of reset. This is a bit like not allowing American Football game to end on a defensive penalty. You cannot change who the winner is after the right to appeal has expired. It's manifestly wrong.
May 31
Joe Hertz edited this comment May 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've had a KO where my team finished third despite beating the winning squad twice (in consecutive three way matches. They won their semi final, we didn't). But that at least was consistent with the rules.
May 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm getting the impression that nobody has seen the d22 coc document for this year, despite many people looking for it
May 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In D6 the open is, for as long as I can remember, a head to head ko with three ways only as necessary in the opening rounds. VPs are not ever employed.

Flight C for d6 has the final round as a three way occasionally, but that's because multiple playing sites were used until that point. EX: In 2010 I played at a site that had seven teams in a round robin, day two had four with a two round ko. The winner made the three way where the winner from each site played…and victory points were not in use after the round robin.

One site had a round robin of three teams determine their winner, and that was vp because it was an early round, but the coc was clear about that and already in place before they knew it was only three teams.
May 30
Joe Hertz edited this comment May 30
1 2 3 4 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ... 70 71 72 73
.

Bottom Home Top