[mike777]

http://www.usbf.org/

[inquiry]

mike777, on Jun 1 2007, 03:15 PM, said:

http://www.usbf.org/

It took me a while, I am slow, to find the round robin standings.. here are the direct links to the two sections....


First group, "bulls"

second

Second group, "bears"

[cherdano]

On the score sheets of the individual matches, the links to the the individual boards don't seem to be working.

[inquiry]

cherdano, on Jun 1 2007, 03:55 PM, said:

On the score sheets of the individual matches, the links to the the individual boards don't seem to be working.

I suspect those will be active when hands are played on vugraph. There would not be any underlaying data for these hands, because no vugrapn for several more days.

There are 11 teams in each of the round robins, they will play 7 boards against each of the other teams in their bracket. After the end of these 70 boards, the three lowest teams in each bracket will be eliminated. Each of the remaining teams will then play 7 board matches against the 8 other teams from the "other round robin". Total victory points will be... those won against the 15 other teams that made it to the round of 16 + some percentage of VP won against the three eliminated teams.

The top 9 teams will qualify for the round of 16 (why not 16 you ask? Good questions, some teams have byes and will not have to play yet, for instance, Team Nickell has a bye to the semifinals, team ekeblad to the round of 8, team Meltzer to the round of 16. So for round of 16, you have the nine that qualify plus meltzer. The missing teams are so the byes can slip in at the right times.

[Rain]

is 7 boards too short?

[inquiry]

Jlall, on Jun 1 2007, 08:11 PM, said:

No one mention my results

I will not mention them, but can you show us board 3? So many pairs missed slam, and a few pairs, you included bid 7♥. Would like to see that one!!!

[hrothgar]

Rain, on Jun 2 2007, 04:22 AM, said:

is 7 boards too short?

In theory, the analytic techniques that Gerben and I were playing arround with a couple months back could be modified to model the efficiency of the USBF team trial formats and suggest changes.

I certainly haven't spent any time studying this event, but here are a few quick observations:

1. When you are running a team trial, the primary constraint is time. Life would be very easy if we had the option of running an infinite number of rounds. As is, you need to make some compromises. It can be demonstrated that it is better to maximize the amount of time available during the later rounds of the event when relatively closely matched teams are competing against one another rather than early rounds when strong seeds are beating up the duffers.

2. The team trial is designed to identify the best trials in the trials. So long as the best team in the trials advances out of the round robin stage, the integrity of the event won't be compromised.

3. The team trials are using a full meshed round robin. This automatically incorporates the strength of schedule adjustment that we proposed to improve the accuracy of a Swiss type format.

I suspect that seven board rounds are reasonable...