[USViking]

Has it always been standard practice for a favorite team to get a bye
all the way to the semis as the Nickell team in this year's US Bermuda Cup Trials?

I am aware of the decades-long accomplishments of that team's members,
and I do not question giving them at least one bye, but four rounds worth
strikes me as too much.

Imagine the uproar if someone suggested giving a team four byes in the
NCAA basketball tournament! On the other hand, procedure for these trials
has been honed throughout the 50+ years they have been conducted,
so maybe there is general agreement that the present format is the best possible.

I also wonder if the inactivity contributed to the Nickell defeat in first round they played.

[hanp]

I don't know if the Nickell bye's were given because of their performance in recent decades or in recent nationals. It does seem a bit too much to me.

[TimG]

All but one of the teams that received a bye lost their first match, one could argue that the contest for USA2 is a stronger field at the moment.

I do not know exactly how the bye system works, though I expect if you dig through the USBF site you can find the answers. But, teams have often received byes into very late stages of the event. I believe the byes are determined by recent performance in NABC events (and maybe recent USBF trials) and that it is not automatic that some team receives a bye to the semi-final, rather only if a team achieves a certain level of recent performance.

[3for3]

It is for recent Nationals only. A little histroy on the trials might be in order. There used to be 4 events in a trials cycle, win one of those, and you are in the semis, win none, sorry you don't get to play this year.

Then, around 1995, the trials were opened (a great idea), so that basically anyone can play.

So, the bye to the semis is not that radical an idea.

In order to secure such a late bye, a team MUST win an event of the 3 majors (VSR), and do quite well in at least one of the other 2 events.

Nickell had a win, a 3/4 and a 5/8 in the preceding cycle.

Besdies, these rules are known in advance, and completely fair to all who enter.

[3for3]

Tim G

The points won in the preceding USBC can only be used to get one a bye to the round of 16.

[USViking]

3for3, on Jun 11 2009, 10:26 PM, said:

It is for recent Nationals only.  A little histroy on the trials might be in order.  There used to be 4 events in a trials cycle, win one of those, and you are in the semis, win none, sorry you don't get to play this year.

Then, around 1995, the trials were opened (a great idea), so that basically anyone can play.

So, the bye to the semis is not that radical an idea.

In order to secure such a late bye, a team MUST win an event of the 3 majors (VSR), and do quite well in at least one of the other 2 events.

Nickell had a win, a 3/4 and a 5/8 in the preceding cycle.

Besdies, these rules are known in advance, and completely fair to all who enter.

Thank you for the information.

Do you know of a website which spells out the criteria for byes
in detail? For example, I would like to know if Nickell would have
gotten four byes if their 3/4 had been another 5/8.

I still think four byes is too much, and will until there is an explanation
for why bridge should be different from other types of tournament
competition having fewer byes or none. Knowledge of a rule does not
make it a good rule.

[aguahombre]

i think 3for3 explained how it is close to the old system and reasonably fair. One could argue that teams which have "made their bones" repeatedly in top competition should be given preferential status over other good/promising teams who -until the late nineties- would not have been in the hunt at all, but for the new format.

this is qualifying to represent the US. In some sports or games, there is no battle for the honor, other than previous record.

[karlson]

If you go to the USBF site, under open trials, in the third and sixth paragraphs there is a lot of detail about how the seeding points are calculated, including charts for exactly which event gave how many points.

I also think that it's excessive considering this tournament on its own, but it basically says "performance in nationals is part of the process of picking the US team".

[USViking]

aguahombre, on Jun 11 2009, 11:35 PM, said:

i think 3for3 explained how it is close to the old system... 

I would like to know more detail about the new system.

aguahombre, on Jun 11 2009, 11:35 PM, said:

and reasonably fair.  One could argue that teams which have "made their bones" repeatedly in top competition should be given preferential status over other good/promising teams... 

I agree to giving such teams preferential status. The question I have raised
is how much. More than one bye might be due a team of Nickell's stature.

In fact, on an individual level, Hamman, Meckstroth and Rodwell might be
close to due universal bye in the form of an automatic spot on the US team
of their choosing from now until they pass away, if they ever pass away,
which seems doubtful in view of the bones they keep making with no break
in tempo going on six decades (Hamman), and five (Meckstroth and Rodwell).

So- perhaps I am being too testy about it, since HMR are the core of the
Nickell team.

On the other hand, in a different sport, such giants as Bill Russell,
Wilt Chamberlain and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar never got one bye
in their entire professional lives. They would not have gotten a bye
even if they had been on the same team.

aguahombre, on Jun 11 2009, 11:35 PM, said:

who -until the late nineties- would not have been in the hunt at all, but for the new format... 

Addressed, I think.

aguahombre said:

this is qualifying to represent the US.  In some sports or games, there is no battle for the honor, other than previous record... 

In most top level tournament sport and game the competitors are selected
on the basis of "regular season" preformance, and then play off against
each other with one bye max (eg NCAA basketball) or no byes (eg MLB).

I think the US Olymic trials are usually a series of no-bye heats.

I am not saying I cannot be convinced Nickell deserved four byes this year.

I am saying I am not yet convinced.

[TimG]

USViking, on Jun 12 2009, 01:01 AM, said:

On the other hand, in a different sport, such giants as Bill Russell,
Wilt Chamberlain and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar never got one bye
in their entire professional lives. They would not have gotten a bye
even if they had been on the same team.

Did any of the players on the last US Olympic basketball teams play in any "trials" in order to make the team?

How about the baseball players which represented the US in the World Baseball Classic?

No, these players got a bye all the way to their selection. Of course, their performance in the regular season(s) was a major factor in their selection.

The USBF Trials are somewhere in between selection of players for the US Olympic basketball team and selection of professional basketball teams to play in the NBA post-season playoffs.

Anyway, I don't think your analogy between USBF team selection and Russell, Chamberlain and Abdul-Jabbar is quite on. If professional athletes had been eligible for US Olympic teams when these players were in their prime, they would have absolutely had a bye onto the team.

[Aberlour10]

Having so many bye's, losing in the the first played KO match>>>>getting automatically to the pre-final stage of USBC-USA2....these are really very "luxurious" trials conditions.

Robert

[TimG]

Aberlour10, on Jun 12 2009, 08:34 AM, said:

Having so many bye's, losing in the the first played KO match>>>>getting automatically to the pre-final stage of USBC-USA2....these are really very "luxurious" trials conditions.

It strikes me as quite "luxurious" to have open trials rather than limiting the selection process to a handful of teams that have performed well recently.

It is not every year that two teams are selected, so losing a KO match in the competition for USA-1 does not always result in a late-stage entry into the battle for USA-2.

For comparison: how are the European teams selected? Are there trials in Norway and Italy, for instance? (I really don't know the answer.)

[jdonn]

It's obviously a ridiculously huge bye. But clearly they want to allow anyone to play while greatly reducing the chance of an upset or an inferior team winning, so that's what they have done.

[Hanoi5]

Quote

Are there trials in Norway and Italy, for instance?

I heard the Italian Bridge Federation appoints the three pairs that will represent the country.

[Trinidad]

TimG, on Jun 12 2009, 10:45 AM, said:

For comparison: how are the European teams selected?  Are there trials in Norway and Italy, for instance?  (I really don't know the answer.)

Some European countries use trials. But in many European countries there are no trials. The teams are selected by a captain/coach/committee.

Typically, a selector will be thinking of about 5-6 candidate pairs. These are the players that are good in international competition with the occasional addition of young upcoming talents.

But, then again, you will need to keep in mind that these countries have a regular league competition. This functions as a non formalized trial. The selector has all the stats that he needs. They can check the cross-IMP results of the past season in the top division. That is about the same as checking the batting averages and pitching stats in baseball.

These stats show which of the candidate pairs are in form. Of course, there is always a vague line between the third and the fourth pair. If there is little difference between those two pairs, one may be send to the European tournaments and the other to the world tournament. Of course, the selector can also choose to ask the other four players who they would prefer as a third pair.

Rik

[mike777]

I think having an open trials that anyone can play in is great!

I think the seeding points/byes are fine but if you want to tweek them, fine.

[barmar]

Another way to look at this is that the first few rounds of the USBC are a tournament to select teams to "challenge" the winners of recent national team events.

[peachy]

At least there are the trials. That is much more fair than having like in some other countries, an influential individual [or a couple of them, or even a committee of some sorts] assign who the team will be. The setup and rules of the USBF trials are known ahead of time to all who want to try and anyone can try. If there were lots of opposition to how the trials are organized, the USBF would likely hear of it and change the setup. Anyway, I have no problem with how the USBF trials are organized. Just to make sure you know, I would not be good enough to try.

[Mbodell]

I agree that the USBF setup is quite good. There is a debate in some other (typically smaller) countries about if selection produces better teams or trials. The fact that anyone can play in the trials is a big plus. The fact that seeding is based on results of a formula known in advance is also a plus.

There is some debate about sponsors making teams, and if a pairs trial would be fairer than a teams trial. In the past a pairs trial was used. For a variety of reasons, most (all?) top level players prefer the teams trial to the pairs trial.

[bidule4]

strange vugraph attendance:

300 watching "A" final
1700 watching "B" quarterfinal

yvan