[jdonn]

USViking, on Jun 15 2009, 03:25 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 15 2009, 02:22 AM, said:

I don't have to do anything, you just have to learn to live with it and to realize that 2 and 4 are equally arbitrary.

They may both be arbitrary, but they are not equal.

One requires 240 more deals to play than the other, right?

You should be able to come up with a better argument than x = (x + 240)

You should at least be able to misinterpret the argument made into something less stupid. I did not say

equal = equally arbitrary

That was your own wrong conclusion. I suppose you must think that

adjective = adverb

But that is not true, as one modifies the potential USBC tournament scenarios and the other modifies the word "arbitrary".

[uday]

Jan Martel has a strong say in the format of the USBF format and once she recovers, perhaps she will shed some light on how/why the selection process goes the way it does.

Perhaps she won't, if the thread is cluttered with venom, so maybe we could move the fights to email or something

From the perspective of one of the "anyone can enter" crowd that does enter: the event seems to be set up so that anyone has a chance but the seeding (as always) gives favourites a bit more of an edge ( byes, etc , just as in the big US team games ).

I'll take this moment to say that it (the trials ) is my favourite event, even tho I've yet to make it out of the scrimmage round. I recommend it highly to anyone with some spare change jingling in his pocket ( it is noticeably more $$ than a typical weekend regional ) . It is really entertaining to play against all the power teams.

My main objection to the byes is that the existence of the byes mean that the weaker teams don't always get to face teams like Fred in the early rounds. I'm guessing that all the social entrants would feel this way but of course I see why they don't force FG to come in early just to amuse the skirmishers.


U

[USViking]

uday said:

Jan Martel has a strong say in the format of the USBF format and once she recovers, perhaps she will shed some light on how/why the selection process goes the way it does.

Perhaps she won't, if the thread is cluttered with venom, so maybe we could move the fights to email or something

From the perspective of one of the "anyone can enter" crowd that does enter:  the event seems to be set up so that anyone has a chance but the seeding (as always) gives favourites a bit more of an edge ( byes, etc , just as in the big US team games ).

I'll take this moment to say that it (the trials ) is my favourite event, even tho I've yet to make it out of the scrimmage round.   I recommend it highly to anyone with some spare change jingling in his pocket ( it is noticeably more $$ than a typical weekend regional ) .   It is really entertaining to play against all the power teams.

My main objection to the byes is that the existence of the byes mean that the weaker teams don't always get to face teams like Fred in the early rounds.  I'm guessing that all the social entrants would feel this way but of course I see why they don't force FG to come in early just to amuse the skirmishers. 

I will forgo several replies I was planning to make
in the interest of eliciting authoritative information.

I guess if the competitors are satisfied with the format
then nothing else really matters.

The only thing left to wonder about would be whether
the competitors are too polite and averse to controversy
to express any complaint (unlike several non-competitors
who have posted here, myself included)

[mtvesuvius]

USViking, on Jun 15 2009, 02:31 PM, said:

The only thing left to wonder about would be whether
the competitors are too polite and averse to controversy
to express any complaint (unlike several non-competitors
who have posted here, myself included)

Have you ever met a bridge player?

[mike777]

USViking, on Jun 15 2009, 01:56 AM, said:

2009, on 01:47 AM, said:

open for anyone to try out, they obviously won't have the same system.

I am asking why bridge should be different, and replies like this
do not provide any explanation.

As for the "openess", there were 27 teams in the tournament,
quite a few I will allow, but are you saying anyone could have
shown up with a team and joined the field?

Yes, basically any USA ACBL member can show up and play and try and qualify.

That is what makes it so great, it is the actual competition, game that matters as the highest priority and not making the highest priority that the "best" team is selected to represent the USA. If you want to claim that a nonpro/nonsuperexpert may get lucky and win, so be it. Again having some system of seeding/byes to teams who have won recent major events is fine.

[USViking]

USViking, on Jun 15 2009, 02:31 PM, said:

The only thing left to wonder about would be whether
the competitors are too polite and averse to controversy
to express any complaint (unlike several non-competitors
who have posted here, myself included)

mtvesuvius said:

Have you ever met a bridge player? 

I was speaking of the upper crust.

The only one of those who I am slightly acquainted with cyberspacewise
is our site owner, who I had in mind as being hopefully typical of the class.

The sole Bobby Knight type I ever heard of in that class was Barry Crane.

[JoAnneM]

The title of the thread is "Bye all the way to the semis". Do our opinions have to be black or white? Can't we be in favor of something in the middle without being cast as wanting "social players" to win?

[Lobowolf]

USViking, on Jun 15 2009, 05:09 PM, said:

USViking, on Jun 15 2009, 02:31 PM, said:

The only thing left to wonder about would be whether
the competitors are too polite and averse to controversy
to express any complaint (unlike several non-competitors
who have posted here, myself included)

mtvesuvius said:

Have you ever met a bridge player? 

I was speaking of the upper crust.

The only one of those who I am slightly acquainted with cyberspacewise
is our site owner, who I had in mind as being hopefully typical of the class.

The sole Bobby Knight type I ever heard of in that class was Barry Crane.

It wouldn't be the first or last contentious situation, historically, pertaining to the selection process.

[3for3]

Random thoughts:

There are other sports that have byes that have not been mentioned. The US Open is this weekend. It is open to anyone who has a 2 or better handicap. So they have 2 qualifying rounds, that needless to say, Tiger Woods does not need to play in.

There are those who are against such deep byes. It is not a slam dunk on the committees that decide it. That being said, counting more bridge (the VSR) makes for a more true result, ie, picks the best team. Bridge is subject to an element of luck as we all know. Given the limited time to select a team, this is likely to produce the best team(s). In fact, I recall someone on BBO helping us by running some simulations to decide on such matters.

Also, as Uday pointed out, it is a great event, all the more great because I get to play in it. Keeping it open has many benefits, including having some of the younger players involved. Meckwell can't win forever ( I think)

Danny

[JanM]

I'm not sure I can actually add anything to this discussion, but I'll try to put in one place what I believe has already been said by others.

1. The USBC (otherwise known as the Open Team Trials - the name United States Bridge Championship was a vain attempt to garner some publicity - maybe newspapers would be more interested in writing about a "Championship" than a "Trials" - it didn't work, but we kept the name from inertia) is indeed a completely open event. Any team of 4 US citizens or residents can enter. If they aren't already USBF members, they have to join USBF and pay dues. If they aren't citizens, they have to demonstrate that they are permanent residents and haven't played for another country within 3 years. But essentially anyone can play. I happen to agree with Uday & Danny that it's a great event to play in. The one thing I regret about helping to run it is that I am no longer able to play in it, even though the best I ever did when I did play was reach the Round of 16.

2. When the Team Trials were first changed from a very limited event (4 teams played - the winners of the Reisinger, Vanderbilt, Spingold and Grand National Teams) to an open event, the ITTC (International Team Trials Committee, then an ACBL committee, now a USBF committee) decided that performance in the major championships during the year before a Trials should give a team an edge in the Trials. I do not remember whether the GNT was one of the "Major Events" at the beginning, but now it's only the Vanderbilt, Spingold & Reisinger - a good thing for me, as it means that my husband can "afford" to play with me in the GNT, although of course that was not the reason it was removed from the relevant events - that was because it was considered unfair to teams whose members happened not to live in the same District). So the ITTC set up a scale of Positioning Points that are awarded for finishes from 1-16 in the KOs and from 1-14 (making the Finals) in the Reisinger, and a number of PPs required for byes to each KO stage. A bye to the Semi-Finals requires, in addition to the number of PPs, a win in one of the 3 events. A few years ago, the committee decided to add the previous year's Trials to the events that award PPs. A year or two later, it decided that PPs earned in the previous year's Trials should count only for a bye to the Round of 16.

3. Over the years since the Trials became open, there has been a lot of discussion in the ITTC about exactly how byes should be awarded. I am sure there will continue to be discussion of that issue, and the ITTC, like the Trials it governs (the ITTC is responsible for Conditions of Contest for the Open Trials; the WITTC is responsible for Conditions of Contest for the Women's Trials; the SITTC is responsible for Conditions of Contest for the Senior Trials) is open to anyone. If you want to join in the discussions of exactly how byes should be awarded, you are welcome to attend meetings or participate in the committee's email discussions, which are very extensive. Two years ago, when the committee was discussing the format for this year's event, there was a lot of discussion of whether it would be better not to have byes to the Semi Finals in a year in which two teams are selected. Some of the committee's more mathematically inclined members even did analyses of the odds of this, that, and the other. After discussion, the committee voted that there should still be Semi Final byes, but if I remember correctly, increased the number of PPs needed for a Semi Final bye.

4. The primary reason to award byes is in order to include the major NABC events in our selection process. The ITTC believes that means we are more likely to select our best team(s) for the World Championship. And much as we want to run a quality event that everyone can enjoy playing in, our primary objective is to select the best team to represent the US.

I doubt that I've added much to the discussion. Now I need to get to work on things like the schedule for the Senior Trials, which starts on July 6th in Las Vegas. If you live in Las Vegas and would be interested in being a Vugraph operator for some of the sessions of the Seniors, send me an email

[USViking]

JanM said:

I'm not sure I can actually add anything to this discussion, but I'll try to put in one place what I believe has already been said by others... 

Thank you for taking the time to respond, and you certainly have added
to the discussion.

It is clear from what you say that a flexible approach has been in place
since the start of the open era, with input encouraged from anyone
wishing to voice opinion. Under such a process I believe it can be safely
assumed that most and perhaps all of the players are satisfied with the format.

I spent several hours glued to vugraph in the last 10 days after having
watched maybe about an hour lifetime previously.

AAAAA+++++ to you and all your colleagues for making the experience
such a pleasant one.

[skjaeran]

TimG, on Jun 12 2009, 05:45 PM, 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.)

In Norway there are no trials. We have a one-person selection committee who picks the team. The federation board has the final word, but always approves the team unless there's some disiplinary/ethical reasons for not doing so.

Occasionally we've had trials, or let the Premier League have status as trials. But only if the federation itself has been unable (financially) to send a team. Last time for the 2004 Istanbul Bridge Olympiad.

[MFA]

skaeran, on Jun 16 2009, 01:35 PM, said:

TimG, on Jun 12 2009, 05:45 PM, 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.)

In Norway there are no trials. We have a one-person selection committee who picks the team. The federation board has the final word, but always approves the team unless there's some disiplinary/ethical reasons for not doing so.

Occasionally we've had trials, or let the Premier League have status as trials. But only if the federation itself has been unable (financially) to send a team. Last time for the 2004 Istanbul Bridge Olympiad.

Roughly same procedure in Denmark.
3 pairs are selected individually and play as a team.

[mike777]

I am surprised that member bridge players in Norway and Denmark do not strongly object to one person picking the teams to represent them compared to an open trial system where all get to play. If the "best selected" team loses the trials, so what. I will gladly cheer on the winning underdog team in the WC!

[hrothgar]

JanM, on Jun 16 2009, 06:14 AM, said:

2. When the Team Trials were first changed from a very limited event (4 teams played - the winners of the Reisinger, Vanderbilt, Spingold and Grand National Teams) to an open event, the ITTC (International Team Trials Committee, then an ACBL committee, now a USBF committee) decided that performance in the major championships during the year before a Trials should give a team an edge in the Trials.

Hi Jan

I understand the desire to use major tournaments like the Vanderbilt for seeding purposes. However, this strikes me as problematic:

As I recall, most major team events in the US use a single elimination KO. Single elimination KOs have lots of nice properties; however, accurately identifying the second place finisher isn't one of these.

Moreover, the major events like the Vanderbilt, the Spingold, and the like have a large number of participants from outside the US. Its entirely possible for a team of Italians, Poles, Scandinavians, what have you to walk away with the prize. (Hypothetically, Lavazza might KO the second best team in the very first match)

End result: The amount of information that you're going to get from these events is farily limited. The outcome of direct, head-to-head matches is salient. If team "Foo" beats team "Bar", you have some data about the relevent strength of Foo and Bar. However, once you move outside of these head-to-head comparisons, life gets increasingly ugly.

This actually strikes me as a vaguely intriquing question. Might even be worth while trying to invest some time / energy to try to develop a good predictive model. Unfortunately, as is oft the case I'm left to wonder what's the point?: Even if it were possible to design the best predictive model the world had ever seen, I lack confidence that this would have any actual impact on the seeding system.

[skjaeran]

mike777, on Jun 16 2009, 09:28 PM, said:

I am surprised that member bridge players in Norway and Denmark do not strongly object to one person picking the teams to represent them compared to an open trial system where all get to play. If the "best selected" team loses the trials, so what. I will gladly cheer on the winning underdog team in the WC!

The reason is that this pretty much ensures that we fields our best team. Or the team most people would regard our best team. Our teams record since 1992 "proves" that this system works.

Of course, those pairs that think they are good enough to be on the team might not be entirely happy with the situation.

We send teams to the Nordic Teams Championship (picked normally), to the Rottneros Nordic Cup (Premier League winners) and the European Champion's Cup (Club Teams winners). In those tournaments we thus often field players not playing regularly in the open team for the EC/BW. None of them seem to have impressed enough to make it to the EC/BW team this far.

[Walddk]

mike777, on Jun 16 2009, 09:28 PM, said:

I am surprised that member bridge players in Norway and Denmark do not strongly object to one person picking the teams to represent them compared to an open trial system where all get to play. If the "best selected" team loses the trials, so what. I will gladly cheer on the winning underdog team in the WC!

We do not object because this is a normal procedure in every sport in Denmark. You have a selection committee, and its members select the team they think has deserved to represent our country in international events. Mainly based on achievements in domestic competitions such as the Premier League.

Denmark also has leagues for women and championships for youth.

I am pretty sure that only a few would object to this procedure. At least we don't hear from any among the roughly 25,000 members of the federation.

Roland

[mike777]

skaeran, on Jun 16 2009, 03:39 PM, said:

mike777, on Jun 16 2009, 09:28 PM, said:

I am surprised that member bridge players in Norway and Denmark do not strongly object to one person picking the teams to represent them compared to an open trial system where all get to play. If the "best selected" team loses the trials, so what. I will gladly cheer on the winning underdog team in the WC!

The reason is that this pretty much ensures that we fields our best team. Or the team most people would regard our best team. Our teams record since 1992 "proves" that this system works.

Of course, those pairs that think they are good enough to be on the team might not be entirely happy with the situation.

We send teams to the Nordic Teams Championship (picked normally), to the Rottneros Nordic Cup (Premier League winners) and the European Champion's Cup (Club Teams winners). In those tournaments we thus often field players not playing regularly in the open team for the EC/BW. None of them seem to have impressed enough to make it to the EC/BW team this far.

You may not mean this but this comes across that winning is the " big thing", not the actual competition and the game. I hope the USA wins but not at too high a cost. If the USA won every WC at the expense of one person selecting the team I would hate it, but that is me.

" am pretty sure that only a few would object to this procedure. At least we don't hear from any among the roughly 25,000 members of the federation."



In any event it seems clear that in Norway and Denmark the vast majority of paying members are happy with the current selection methods. I am just surprised when a "decent" alternative method of selection for bridge is available.

[gnasher]

mike777, on Jun 16 2009, 08:28 PM, said:

I am surprised that member bridge players in Norway and Denmark do not strongly object to one person picking the teams to represent them compared to an open trial system where all get to play. If the "best selected" team loses the trials, so what. I will gladly cheer on the winning underdog team in the WC!

That sounds great until it actually happens.

In England last year the open trials were replaced with a two-division Premier League. The first division was made up the top eight teams after one complete round-robin. Following a further round-robin within each division, one team moved up from the second division and one moved down.

You might think that anyone worth considering for the 2010 European Championships would, by now, be in the top division. In fact, 2/3 of the team who were second in the Beijing Olympiad are currently in the second division, and therefore have no hope of winning the league in 2009.

Sensibly, the selectors have responded to this situation by deciding that they're just going to pick what they think is the best team.

[mike777]

gnasher, on Jun 16 2009, 04:46 PM, said:

mike777, on Jun 16 2009, 08:28 PM, said:

I am surprised that member bridge players in Norway and Denmark do not strongly object to one person picking the teams to represent them compared to an open trial system where all get to play. If the "best selected" team loses the trials, so what. I will gladly cheer on the winning underdog team in the WC!

That sounds great until it actually happens.

In England last year the open trials were replaced with a two-division Premier League. The first division was made up the top eight teams after one complete round-robin. Following a further round-robin within each division, one team moved up from the second division and one moved down.

You might think that anyone worth considering for the 2010 European Championships would, by now, be in the top division. In fact, 2/3 of the team who were second in the Beijing Olympiad are currently in the second division, and therefore have no hope of winning the league in 2009.

Sensibly, the selectors have responded to this situation by deciding that they're just going to pick what they think is the best team.

Again if this is what the vast majority of the paying members prefer, and by your note the answer seems to be yes, ok. Again I am just surprised.

Again I have no issue with seeding/byes as in a USBF type system.