[Walddk]

mike777, on Jun 16 2009, 11:38 PM, said:

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.

Of course winning is the 'big thing'. In some countries they know they have no chance of winning, but if you take the European Championships as an example you can name around 10 nations with a realistic chance of winning.

If I understand you correctly, you subscribe to these words by Pierre de Coubertin (1863-1937):

L'important dans la vie ce n'est point le triomphe, mais le combat, l'essentiel ce n'est pas d'avoir vaincu mais de s'être bien battu.

The important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle, the essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well.

That was a fine statement around 1900, but in my opinion that is a naive view in 2009. I honestly don't think you can find one bridge player at top level in major bridge countries who would agree with that. International championships are not social events. The players can socialise elsewhere.

I am not saying that you should not be playing in a friendly atmosphere, of course you should, but the important issue is surely 'winning', not at all costs, but close.

Roland

[mike777]

So Roland you prefer a tiny one person or so selection in charge rather than some type of open competition to represent Denmark in EC or WC events. The vast majority of Danish member bridge players agree with you. ok I am just surprised.

[Walddk]

mike777, on Jun 17 2009, 12:09 AM, said:

So Roland you prefer a tiny one person or so selection in charge rather than some type of open competition to represent Denmark in EC or WC events.

We do have competition: the leagues where you don't only win or lose but where all pairs are compared with one another through quite intelligent calculations. Do well there, make an impression and you have a chance to be selected.

Currently, Peter Schaltz, 500+ internationals for Denmark, is the chairman of selectors. The DBF members trust him to pick the best team for the occasion.

Roland

[gnasher]

mike777, on Jun 16 2009, 10:47 PM, said:

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.

I imagine that the paying members want to send the best available team. It's not clear whether, in general, that's best achieved by selecting a team or by holding a bridge tournament and sending the winners. My point was that if you do it by the latter method and end up sending an inferior team, that's not a cause for celebration.

[mike777]

gnasher, on Jun 16 2009, 05:59 PM, said:

mike777, on Jun 16 2009, 10:47 PM, said:

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.

I imagine that the paying members want to send the best available team. It's not clear whether, in general, that's best achieved by selecting a team or by holding a bridge tournament and sending the winners. My point was that if you do it by the latter method and end up sending an inferior team, that's not a cause for celebration.

I note England did pretty well at 2008 Beijing games.

BTW if as you say an "inferior" team won the trials and was sent to represent the USA I would be happy to toast and celebrate them, indeed!

Again I have no problem giving a "best" team a free ride to the semi's based on recent performance. If a truly inferior team of nonpros wins and wins the final, GREAT! That would be exciting! If a tenth seeded or lower seeded inferior team wins, Congrats and I do celebrate them.


Btw the 13 seed won the USBF trials this year.

[Lobowolf]

I'd rather have a non-best team get there through a "fair," even if imperfect (e.g. number of byes) competition rather than have any hint of political influence on the outcome via a subjective selection process. I'm ok with byes, and how many of them are suitable is a question worthy of good faith debate, but ultimately, it should be settled at the table. If you don't get past the Wonkenheimer team from Nebraska, I don't want to hear about how you were deprived of your chance to play the Italians or Norwegians. Come back next time.

[geller]

One point nobody's mentioned is that in the US (almost) every top team has a sponsor. This is how the pros make a living so no one can criticize it. There may be some sponsors who are good enough to be selected (in a Denmark-type system) but maybe not. OTH, a unit of 5 pros playing with their sponsor has espirit d'corp that a selected team of 3 top pro pairs from different teams might not.

Another point is that a whimsical trials system like that in the US can work OK because the talent pool is so deep. In smaller countries there aren't so many players so the top players face each other more often in league events, so there's more data (like Butler imp scores) to justify the choices made by selectors, so it's not just like the selectors are arbitrarily making it up as they go.

Finally, in most of the world the (a) major sport is football (soccer). In soccer the top players from that country are selected (usually by the coach) to play for the national team in the world cup or continental championships, so that kind of system, when applied to bridge, doesn't meet so much resistance.

Incidentally, here in Japan we have a US style Trials. We've had byes in the past, but not now. This system of selection is why Japan won the Senior event in Beijing last year. The heavily favored team in the Trials for the Open team lost in the finals, so one of the players (one of the top two or three players here, arguably the very top) from that team was available for the Seniors, who narrowly beat USA in the finals. Take this as you will regarding the merits of trials vs. selection.

[xcurt]

The US is (geographically) really really big. A league just isn't practical, you won't get enough cross-comparisons (although most of the top pros now live in a few states, which, coincidentally, are the ones with no personal income tax).

Also, the NABCs are now so populated with top-flight foreign talent that using the results of the NABCs to determine positioning points has gotten increasingly problematic.

Finally, at least this year USA1 has no sponsor, and USA2 has a sponsor who is a very fine player in his own right, who just happens to have enough wealth to get top-flight teammates. I don't really have a problem with this, I guess it's difficult to figure out where draw a line between the top-flight playing sponsors (Rita Shugart winning the Reisinger 4-handed a few years in a row comes to mind, or a pair like Platnick/Diamond -- not sure which one is sponsoring there -- but they were very good players as juniors) and some of the ones whose job is to avoid revoking.

[mike777]

geller, on Jun 16 2009, 10:48 PM, said:

One point nobody's mentioned is that in the US (almost) every top team has a sponsor.    This is how the pros make a living so no one can criticize it.   There may be some sponsors who are good enough to be selected (in a Denmark-type system) but maybe not.  OTH, a unit of 5 pros playing with their sponsor has espirit d'corp that a selected team of 3 top pro pairs from different teams might not. 

Another point is that a whimsical trials system like that in the US can work OK because the talent pool is so deep.   In smaller countries there aren't so many players so the top players face each other more often in league events, so there's more data (like Butler imp scores) to justify the choices made by selectors, so it's not just like the selectors are arbitrarily making it up as they go.

Finally, in most of the world the (a) major sport is football (soccer).   In soccer the top players from that country are selected (usually by the coach) to play for the national team in the world cup or continental championships, so that kind of system, when applied to bridge, doesn't meet so much resistance. 

Incidentally, here in Japan we have a US style Trials.  We've had byes in the past, but not now.  This system of selection is why Japan won the Senior event in Beijing last year.  The heavily favored team in the Trials for the Open team lost in the finals, so one of the players (one of the top two or three players here, arguably the very top) from that team was available for the Seniors, who narrowly beat USA in the finals.  Take this as you will regarding the merits of trials vs. selection.

again I do not understand this logic but ok...if you prefer selection by one person ok ok ok....
but if prefer other.....




Give "best" team easy bye to semis


make inferior teams play long, hard, difficult, tired, playoff.



inferior team gets lucky in long ko and wins semi's and wins final...ok....they win! they represent your country....start celebration now!

13 seed in England, Norway and Denmark and Italy win trials in 2009...ok..........next year they lose in 2010 trials.......

[mike777]

in any event if other countries dues paying members prefer selection over open competition..year after year after year......ok.........i just am surprised.

[aguahombre]

mike777, on Jun 16 2009, 11:30 PM, said:

make inferior teams play long, hard, difficult, tired, playoff.

inferior team gets lucky in long ko and wins semi's and wins final...ok....they win! they represent your country....start celebration now!

"Inferior team" seems wrong to me. You don't "get lucky" in long K.O's of the caliber we have in the U.S. Trials. "Underdog", yes. If I were on one of those teams, I could accept the description "inferior". Those guys deserve a better label.

[helene_t]

mike777, on Jun 17 2009, 05:43 AM, said:

in any event if other countries dues paying members prefer selection over open competition..year after year after year......ok.........i just am surprised.

I don't think more than 1% of the members know about the selection process, let alone care about it.

There are obviously some differences between USA and (most) European countries:
- EBL has no individual members and a relatively small scope of activities. The relation between ACBL and USBF is quite different.
- Most national squads are not full-time professionals.

I think it would be impractical for the Dutch BF to have trials. Players need to have long time arrangements with their (non-bridge) employers to take the time off required for training and the European and World championships themselves. Also, the number of relevant pairs is small and there probably isn't a single club that could deliver three pairs, which raises the question of whether such a trial should be at team level or at pair level.

[Roupoil]

In France, there are Trials for the European Championships (the only exception in the last ten years being the Women Teams winning the VC and reconducted for the next championships), quite similar to the US ones (although the format seems to change every two years or so, sometimes being a pair event with the two top pairs choosing the third, and other times a teams event). I don't really know about complains concerning these trials, but what is sure is that the selection of the team by one person would result in a big lot of arguing among the experts (well, they are french after all).

[TimG]

I just heard on Sports Center that there were over 9000 entrants in this year's US Open (golf). One player interviewed told of local qualifying and regional qualifying. I don't know if there was a stage between regional and the actual US Open.

And, the US Open is not really open to any player (as the US Team Trials are). To participate in qualifying events, a golfer must have a low handicap -- I think 1.4 was the cutoff this year (though it is the first time I've ever heard of a handicap that wasn't expressed in whole numbers, so you shouldn't quote me).

That's sort of like saying a bridge player must have 5000 masterpoints and compete in regional qualifying stages before entering the Team Trials.

As others have pointed out, you might consider the initial stages of US Team Trials as a qualifying stage with the "real" event starting at the round of 16. Some teams are automatically qualified for the Trials and some teams get a 1 round or 2 round buy in the Trials. The remaining slots are "open" to qualifiers. If the qualifying stages were held at separate venues and times, I don't think the bye to the semi-finals would appear quite the same.

[mike777]

"If the qualifying stages were held at separate venues and times, I don't think the bye to the semi-finals would appear quite the same."

We sort of have an event such as this, called GNT.

[nige1]

IMO: among the aims of international team selection should be ...

• To choose the best pairs -- an argument for pairs trials -- except that some players won't play without a sponsor in the team.
  
• To choose compatible team-mates -- an argument for teams trials.
  
• To choose appropriate captain, coach, psychiatric nurse, and so on, as necessary.
  
• To engage the support of ordinary players -- who have to pay for the team.
  
• To eliminate suspected cheats and other undesirables.
  
• To nurture the seed-corn for future teams.
  • To encourage potential internationals to hone their skills and to apply for selection. For example, would-be candidates will be put off if you must be a season ticket holder to merit serious consideration.
    
  • To "blood" future contenders by pitting them against the best -- a reason not to offer byes through several rounds to a top team.

IMO, as means to this end, selectors should ...

• Define a detailed objective selection protocol -- which will normally apply for at least one year ahead.
  
• Abide by the results of the (pre-defined) selection process.
  
• Monitor the selection process with a view to improvement in subsequent years.
  
• Designate performance in specified high quality events as relevant to selection.
  
• Define a suitable trial format. IMO, whatever the allocated number of boards, the most effective format is a Swiss.
  
• Open the early stages of trials to most players.
  
• Check candidates' credentials.
  
• Marriage-broke. Encourage ...
  • Skilled individuals to form suitable partnerships.
    
  • Promising pairs to consider candidature and
    
  • Compatible pairs to form teams.

[xcurt]

TimG, on Jun 18 2009, 01:28 PM, said:

That's sort of like saying a bridge player must have 5000 masterpoints and compete in regional qualifying stages before entering the Team Trials.

Other than that 500 masterpoints is a counting statistic. A 1 handicap is a rate statistic. There is a big difference.

Which brings me to a big complaint I have about the USBF/ACBL entry process to the World OPEN Pairs. In the past (I don't know if this is still the procedure) there is some kind of selection procedure, at least in part based on high finishes in some of the national pair games. Since the cycle is fairly long, and for me it would be time-prohibitive to play all the NABCs in a cycle AND the Worlds, it's not really an Open event, at least for Americans.

[fred]

xcurt, on Jun 22 2009, 01:31 AM, said:

Which brings me to a big complaint I have about the USBF/ACBL entry process to the World OPEN Pairs.  In the past (I don't know if this is still the procedure) there is some kind of selection procedure, at least in part based on high finishes in some of the national pair games.  Since the cycle is fairly long, and for me it would be time-prohibitive to play all the NABCs in a cycle AND the Worlds, it's not really an Open event, at least for Americans.

I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure that the World Open Pairs truly is an open event. Pretty much anyone is allowed to enter (the only exceptions might be those whose entries are rejected due to past bad behavior or cheating).

I don't think the ACBL or USBF even gets involved except perhaps to warn WBF that particular players should possibly be considered unwelcome for the sort of reasons that I mentioned above.

The World Open Pairs is really a great event - if you happen to make it to the Finals, the bridge is as good as it gets. Assuming that I am right that just about anyone can play, I strongly suggest you do so during the 2010 World Championships in Philadelphia

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[TimG]

nige1, on Jun 21 2009, 08:23 PM, said:

IMO: among the aims of international team selection should be ...

• To choose the best pairs -- an argument for pairs trials -- except that some players won't play without a sponsor in the team.
  
  
• To choose compatible team-mates -- an argument for teams trials.
  
  
• To choose a team that will engage the support of ordinary players -- who have to pay for the team.
  
  
• To eliminate suspected cheats and other undesirables.
  
  
• To nurture the seed-corn for future teams.
  • To encourage potential internationals to hone their skills and to apply for selection. For example, would-be candidates will be put off if you must be a season ticket holder to merit serious consideration.
    
    
  • To "blood" future contenders by pitting them against the best -- another reason not to offer byes through several rounds to a top team.

To this end, selectors should

• Define a detailed objective selection protocol -- which will normally apply for at least one year ahead.
  
  
• Check candidates' credentials.
  
  
• Designate performance in specified high quality events as relevant  to selection.
  
  
• Define a suitable trial format. IMO, whatever the allocated number of boards, the most effective format is a Swiss.
  
  
• Open the early stages of trials to most players.
  
  
• Abide by the results of the (pre-defined) selection process.
  
  
• Marriage-broke. Encourage ...
  • Skilled individuals to form suitable partnerships.
    
    
  • Promising pairs to consider candidature and
    
    
  • Compatible pairs to form teams.

IMO, the aim of international team selection should be to field the team with the best shot at winning the international event. (Within your context of "eliminat[ing] suspected cheats and other undesirables."

I suspect strongly that in the US this is not really possible because of playing sponsors; some of the very best pairs would not participate if they were not being paid to play.

I have absolutely no problem with pairs who would not play if not being paid. And, I recognize that if there were no sponsors that many bridge professionals would not have had the opportunity to play full-time and would likely not be the players they are today.

In a situation where the international team is not being paid, it seems quite reasonable for the top players not to want to play in a long trials since they are not being paid to be there or in the international event and the time commitment is not insignificant.

Wasn't there some controversy in England a few years back when the selection committee would not consider playing sponsors? Or, maybe a team with a playing sponsor was not invited to the trials.

[3for3]

fred, on Jun 21 2009, 08:48 PM, said:

xcurt, on Jun 22 2009, 01:31 AM, said:

Which brings me to a big complaint I have about the USBF/ACBL entry process to the World OPEN Pairs.  In the past (I don't know if this is still the procedure) there is some kind of selection procedure, at least in part based on high finishes in some of the national pair games.  Since the cycle is fairly long, and for me it would be time-prohibitive to play all the NABCs in a cycle AND the Worlds, it's not really an Open event, at least for Americans.

I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure that the World Open Pairs truly is an open event. Pretty much anyone is allowed to enter (the only exceptions might be those whose entries are rejected due to past bad behavior or cheating).

I don't think the ACBL or USBF even gets involved except perhaps to warn WBF that particular players should possibly be considered unwelcome for the sort of reasons that I mentioned above.

The World Open Pairs is really a great event - if you happen to make it to the Finals, the bridge is as good as it gets. Assuming that I am right that just about anyone can play, I strongly suggest you do so during the 2010 World Championships in Philadelphia

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

I can echo everything Fred has said. Play in the Open Pairs, or any of the other world events. I was lucky enough to make the finals in Montreal, and it was truly an awesome experience.

I may be a tad biased, but Philadelphia will be a great spot for a world championship, so save those dates now.

October 2-16 2010