[Flem72]

The USA-teams-must-play-in-the-semis rule cuts both ways: It assures a US team in the finals. Without the rule, that might not happen, and I would think that the mroe cmpetitive the other teams become, the less they would like the rule.

This post has been edited by Flem72: 2011-October-24, 17:49

[Tomi2]

if the rules were anti-usa they would allow only one team to enter...

There are many open- and transnational competitions around, Rosenblum+2 transnational WC, open nationals in North America and European Open...
this event is for national teams and so the two best nations should be in the final. Would not like to see USA-USA there as well as I dont like to see Monaco there while the players do not (really) live in Monaco. I also don't want to see JLall in the Seniors or Joe Grue in the Ladies competitions, because they don't belong there (although they would be among the best players in the field, as USA III or Monaco would be in the BB)

[mycroft]

There are X countries in Zone 1 (Europe), of which 5, maybe 6 (if Europe's hosting), possibly 7 (they get first bye-break to bridge-population) qualify.
There are 4 countries in Zone 2 (NA), of which two teams are guaranteed, both of which come from the USA. *If* NA does well enough, a third team qualifies, which is determined by a tournament between the other countries. Now:
- Bermuda has decided that for WBF qualification, they would prefer to be in the Caribbean zone.
- Canada vs. Mexico has gone Canada's way for quite a while - and I don't think Mexico fielded a team last time.
But technically, the only country *guaranteed* to be in the BB is the USA.

Technically, the Zonal Authority has the right to determine the qualification for the WBF-mandated spots - except in Zone 2, where the WBF has mandated this silly system. On the other hand, the ACBL's 5 members to the WBF mean very likely that if the ZA (the ACBL) thought this was a bad idea, it wouldn't go this way...

I have lobbied, frequently, in fact, for the requirement for Canada, Mexico and USA II to play a playoff for the Number of Teams allotted -1. Obviously, the results are going to be USA II and another team - but without the high-level competition, it always will be, too. And there should be an *advantage* to qualifying USA I.

But they don't let me do bridge politics for many reasons - the fact that none of my ideas would come near passing is simply one of them :-).

And yeah - the year they let Italy II and Poland II and Netherlands II in, I'll look at USA III. There's a reason there's a championship for non-national teams.

[mikeh]

Phil, on 2011-October-23, 00:44, said:

2. Disagree with having three teams from the US be eligible. In our zone, there are at least ten teams from the US that could have performed better than Canada did. This is not a sleight against my friend MikeH, who is by far the best player on Canada, but rather a testament to how deep the US is. My point is "where do you draw the line"?

Thanks, Phil, but it isn't true that I was the best player on the team, even on paper, and certainly not as i played. I am not going to otherwise discuss my estimation of my team beyond saying that all 3 partnerships performed very badly.....certainly far worse than last fall in Philadelphia where we were 9-0 in the RR and lost in the round of 32. As a team, we didn't discuss responsibility for our bad results, but I know that we did within our partnerships...and in mine, I was at least as responsible, if not more so, than my partner/

We weren't competitive at this event, in more ways than one, but I like to think that we learned a great deal, especially about our lack of aggression....we lost multiple 7 imp swings and a host of slam swings....we didn't fail in any slam, which shows how badly we bid them! We must have missed at least 15 slams bid and made at the other table.

Our game bidding was ok, as was our declarer play and defence...not perfect, but comparable to the teams that crushed us. But partscores and slams were our nemesis.

As for whether Canada 'deserves' a shot (in conjunction with Mexico), I have a clear self-interest. However, to those who point to the relatively small number of players in Canada, we have far more than many of the other countries outside of Europe and more than some zones!

The BB is not supposed to be about proportional representation, in a pure fashion. If it were, the event would effectively be restricted to a relative handful of countries.

Meanwhile....kudos to the teams that made the playoffs......my personal prediction is USAII v Netherlands......the netherlands were absolutely surgical against us... We simply had no need for the plus column when comparing.

Good guys, great players.....could be said about both my predictions.

[Gerardo]

Didn't Mexico beat Canada in 2009?

[Aberlour10]

Its hard to belive that Team Monaco with H/H & B/Z is actually at the rank #102 in TT.

[gwnn]

Where can you check out the lineups in the transnationals?

[Aberlour10]

gwnn, on 2011-October-26, 09:04, said:

Where can you check out the lineups in the transnationals?

http://registration....eamsEntries.asp

[MrAce]

Netherland - USA2 moment of truth again.

I been harrasing Haspel on the phone for minute by minute scores vs USA1 because i was on the road driving.

1 time Justin...1 more freaking time !!! Gl bro !

[JLOGIC]

Haha, I said "one time" to weindog, and he's like I think you've used up your one time a few times in your life. WHATEVER, ONE TIME.

[G_R__E_G]

JLOGIC, on 2011-October-26, 14:13, said:

Haha, I said "one time" to weindog, and he's like I think you've used up your one time a few times in your life. WHATEVER, ONE TIME.

Justin - I am officially donating my "one time" to you, so you now have a spare one. Good luck in the finals!

[ArtK78]

While I understand the sentiment, the use of "One Time" in poker (or, I should say, the overuse) gets real old real fast.

Having said that, ONE TIME!

Should be a great match.

[chasetb]

Quoting "Killing Me Softly" by the Fugees:
Strumming my pain with his fingers
ONE TIME!
Telling my life in his words
TWO TIMES!!

[MrAce]

JLOGIC, on 2011-October-26, 14:13, said:

Haha, I said "one time" to weindog, and he's like I think you've used up your one time a few times in your life. WHATEVER, ONE TIME.

I don't think u ever used the word ONE TIME for BB final match before, others doesnt count for BB final

[Lurpoa]

♥♥♥

Desperate Housewifes are on again...

♥♥♥

[FrancesHinden]

chasetb, on 2011-October-24, 14:30, said:

I know why the rule was instituted, but I always want the best 2 teams available (I'm for the Monaco team, but that's just my opinion). If it happens to be USA teams, so be it. That's why I suggested ONLY when USA teams finish 1st and 2nd or 1st and 3rd in the Round Robin should it be allowed. Then it's highly likely they are in fact the two best teams in the BB, so we should allow the game and not politics to determine that. At times it seems that global politics is anti-US; I know for a fact FIFA is against us.

@JLOGIC I had little idea that the home country/city had to put up so much money in order to host the BB, that makes sense then why China has it a lot. D'Orsi might have had some influence in the multiple times in Brazil as well.

Without commenting on any of the rest of your posts, why do you think that if USA finished 1-3 in the RR, they would be the two best teams?

[Flem72]

Flem72, on 2011-October-24, 14:36, said:

The USA-teams-must-play-in-the-semis rule cuts both ways: It assures a US team in the finals. Without the rule, that might not happen, and I would think that the mroe cmpetitive the other teams become, the less they would like the rule.

Most extremely exceedingly rude to quote my own comment, but: The evidence suggests to me that, PERHAPS, Netherlands and Italy deserved the honor of competing in the final match. Because of the rule, we'll never know, now, will we?

Regards and Happy Trails,

Scott Needham
Boulder, Colorado, USA