[Gerben42]

How many teams normally get byes? Byes to the last 16 are not important for the dbl KO, which starts at the RO16. So let's consider byes through the QF.

In the dbl KO mode I outlined earlier, the best teams from the Round Robin that missed the cut can still play for USA2, i.e. they enter the KO with one already and play eachother.

For each bye to the QF we need to add two teams (note that if you want to have a bye to the SF you need to add 4 teams for each bye), so that always 16 teams from the RR will qualify in some way, including byes through the last 16.

Assuming we have 2 byes we will have:

2 byes to the QF
12 teams qualifying for the KO for USA1
4 teams qualifying for the KO for USA2

After the round of 16 we have:

8 teams for the QF for USA1
6 losers from the USA1 for the USA2 KO
2 winners from the previous USA2 KO round

After the QF we have:

4 teams for the SF for USA1
4 losers from the USA1 for the USA2 KO
4 winners from the previous USA2 KO round

After the SF we have:

2 teams for the F for USA1
2 losers from the USA1 for the USA2 KO
4 winners from the previous USA2 KO round

After the F we have:
Team USA1
1 losing finalist
3 winners from the previous USA2 KO round

Two more KO rounds decide USA2

How do I patent this idea?

[mycroft]

JanM, on Aug 17 2007, 11:57 AM, said:

mycroft said:

- Fourth, in the times where Zone II are only allowed two teams, we don't have the perception problem we had the last time (where the ACBL said "two USA teams, and the rest of the zone, TFL").

There are 2 Zone 2 representatives only if not enough teams finish in the top half in the Olympiad. If the US team doesn't finish in the top half in the Olympiad, the US gets 1 team and Canada & Mexico get one team (or at least I think that's what happens; I don't know because the US team has always finished in the top half in the Olympiad). If neither Canada nor Mexico finishes in the top half, the US gets 2 teams and Canada & Mexico get none. That's a WBF rule (and incidentally has always been waived for Canada/Mexico).

Heh. The one time it happened, the WBF rule was "two teams in Zone II."
The ACBL interpretation of it was "USA gets two, the rest of Zone II is out of luck."

(Remember that the ACBL is the Zone II Zonal Organization as well as a sponsoring organization for most organized play in Zone II (CBF, USBF, and other countries' trials, the ABA, and some other small notable tournaments (mostly involving money) excepted. At the time, of course, they were also the SO for the USA trials, and therefore had a small conflict of interest. In fact I think we owe the existence of the USBF to the discussion pointing out this "small" conflict of interest).

Some fairly major lobbying later, and the ACBL's 5 votes managed to convince enough of their colleagues to waive the rule that year.

Quote

I don't think that I'm being US-centric (or whatever the word should be) to believe that the USA2 team shouldn't have to play in an additional Playoff.

I think you are. This is not a strike against you - as the "face" of the USBF, you have every right and responsibility - in fact, a requirement - to be US-centric.

Quote

For one thing, the team allocation is made by WBF.

No, the number of teams allocated each zone is made by the WBF (as is the rule about maximum number of teams for each country). The determinant of which countries go is totally up to the ZO, which in this case is the ACBL.

Which is why I'm getting this into the open :-)

Quote

It's already very difficult to win the chance to represent the US; I don't think it would be reasonable to make it even more so.

USA2 would be representing the US. They just wouldn't - necessarily - be representing the US at the World Championships. And if you think there's a problem, ask the Italians - who have to beat some pretty tough international competition every year to get out of the EBU trials. No "win my country, play in the BB" for them - never mind for Italy2. Okay, the chance that they aren't in the top 7 of the EBU trials is slim-to-none, so it's pretty much automatic, but isn't that exactly my point?

Michael.

[mycroft]

pclayton, on Aug 17 2007, 12:46 PM, said:

Quote

We can't do that, we know that, but we can come as close as meets the requirement of having a good experience for the dead money (yeah, that's a mean term, but there are lots of people who are dead money that are willing to pay the money for the fun of the tournament, even in Poker. I'd be one, frankly, especially if there was something to do after being knocked out).

Today's dead money is tomorrow's USA1 and USA2 team.

Yeah, that was one of my points later about having USA2 play off against Canada and Mexico for the two remaining spots.

But legitimately, some of the dead money is always going to be dead money. As I said, I'd do it were I American, at least once - I think it would be an experience of a lifetime, and I would have a chance to become USA2. I have a chance of being Prime Minister of Canada someday, too.

Michael.

[cherdano]

Gerben42, on Aug 20 2007, 05:25 AM, said:

How do I patent this idea?

Dunno, but it seems a necessary start would be to remove all evidence that TimG posted exactly the same idea earlier in this thread.

[mike777]

http://usbf.org/docs...Docs/Bylaws.pdf

For some who may not have known the purpose of USBF, the section under purpose is interesting and clear.

[JanM]

mycroft, on Aug 20 2007, 11:32 AM, said:

Heh.  The one time it happened, the WBF rule was "two teams in Zone II."
The ACBL interpretation of it was "USA gets two, the rest of Zone II is out of luck."

(Remember that the ACBL is the Zone II Zonal Organization as well as a sponsoring organization for most organized play in Zone II (CBF, USBF, and other countries' trials, the ABA, and some other small notable tournaments (mostly involving money) excepted.  At the time, of course, they were also the SO for the USA trials, and therefore had a small conflict of interest.  In fact I think we owe the existence of the USBF to the discussion pointing out this "small" conflict of interest).

Some fairly major lobbying later, and the ACBL's 5 votes managed to convince enough of their colleagues to waive the rule that year.

Perhaps you and I are remembering a different time when no Mexican or Canadian team finished in the top 50% of the Olympiad. I'm talking about Maastricht, where the US team finished 3rd and the Canadian team finished just short of the top half in its Round Robin group (I don't remember where Mexico finished, just know that it wasn't in the top half). The WBF originally said that Canada/Mexico/Bermuda would therefore not get a team in the next Bermuda Bowl and then changed that ruling. If what the WBF actually said was that Zone 2 got two teams, I think it would be reasonble for those teams both to be US, since the US team "earned" us the right to a second team by doing well in Maastricht (but of course I'm prejudiced, whether justifiably so or not).

Quote

No, the number of teams allocated each zone is made by the WBF (as is the rule about maximum number of teams for each country).  The determinant of which countries go is totally up to the ZO, which in this case is the ACBL. 

I am confident that it is WBF and not ACBL that says one of our three teams must be from a country other than the US. Whether they would allow ACBL to say that another of our teams can be from any country I don't know, but of course ACBL isn't going to do that and I would be arguing very strenuously if they did. Sure, if USA2 had to play in a tri-country playoff, it would always qualify (just as Italy always qualifies out of the EBL, despite often not sending their "real" team to compete), but that would still mean it had to take another week out of a sometimes busy schedule to play in the event. Some of our top teams would rather not play in a US Trials every year; they would certainly be *very* unhappy to have to go play in another event that they would see as pointless.

I know that some years ago when I was involved with the US Women's Trials, I proposed (and the Women's committee agreed) that we allow "mixed country" teams to play. We asked WBF if that would be acceptable and they said no. So I do know for sure that it is WBF that insists that each team represent only one country.

[joshs]

I haven't read the thread, so I apologize if I am repeating something.

For me, the main objectives are
a. to not give anyone a rest advantage in the palyoff for USA2
b. take some of the randomness of losing 1 match out of the process

Here is a bracketed double KO:

Day 1: 16 teams play in the KO: 8 go to winners bracket, 8 to losers

Day2: 8 Teams play in winners bracket (4 winners stay in winners, 4 losers go to losers bracket). 8 Teams play in losers bracket (4 continue, 4 are eliminated)

Day3: 4 teams play in winners bracket (2 stay in winners, 2 go to losers). 8 teams play in losers bracket (4 continue, 4 are eliminated)

Day 4: 2 teams play in the winners bracket (winner is USA 1, loser goes to losers bracket). 6 teams play in losers bracket (3 continue, 3 are eliminated)

Day 5: 4 teams play in losers bracket (2 advance 2 are eliminated)

Day 6: 2 teams play in losers bracket (winner is USA 2, loser is exausted)


Comments:
1. This requires the matches are the same length (in particular the finals have to be the same length as the previous rounds).
2. I haven't thought about insuring no repeat matches, but I think should be easy.


EDIT: I see that TimG already detailed this structure.

[bhall]

As Cascade and others have mentioned, the standard selection procedures throw away information, while inviting the disaster of eliminating the best team at an early stage. This was forgivable when only humans were available to carry out the procedures, but today the least of our computers have an essentially unlimited appetite for data, coupled with the ability to execute complicated algorithms on these data in a relatively short time.

I believe that we should seek to use these computational capacities in a way that maximizes the probability of selecting the best team(s) for international competition. We should include information from all relevant national events, such as the Spingold and Vanderbilt KOs, and we should choose both the pairings and the match lengths by an optimization procedure executed after each round. Pure elimination and pure Round Robin events are clearly not optimal, especially when there are constraints on the total availble time for the selection process.

Gerben42 has done some work along these lines, and a few mathematicians have explored related problems. However, designing a "best" algorithm for bridge appears to be a research project of significant difficulty. Maybe, if they agree that such a project is worthwhile, some of the contributors to this forum might collaborate on finding a solution.

[awm]

A few points that the mathematical approach need to account for:

(1) It seems from what Jan is saying that there is a strong possibility of collusion when this can work to the advantage of both teams involved. In other words, any time there is a match whose result does not effect the odds of one of the two teams winning the event in any substantial way (common in a round robin for example), there is no guarantee that the result of such a match will accurately reflect the skill levels of the teams involved (either because of dumping or simply because of playing a sponsor the entire match when the outcome is not relevant).

(2) It cannot be assumed that all teams will have participated in other major events such as the spingold or vanderbilt. It's not uncommon for people to play with different teams in different events. While awarding seeding as a "reward" for finishing well in other major events is reasonable, the trials should be set up in such a way that a superior team has a good chance to win even if they did not participate as a team in the other majors.

(3) Endurance needs to be a factor, but the team trials can't go on too long either. For this reason it makes sense for teams to be playing more or less continuously throughout.

(4) It's somewhat desirable to encourage people to participate in the trials even when they don't have great chances to win, both because this raises money for USBF and because it can be a valuable experience for players who might represent the country at some future time. For this reason, the trials should not be such that many teams are eliminated very early in the event. It's also nice to give a good team without many seeding points the chance to survive for a while, rather than immediately pitting them against the highest seeded team in an elimination match (this helps with future seeding and might help to identify talent for future development or for teams looking to augment by a pair).

[mycroft]

Fascinating, Jan. I didn't read the regulations like a lawyer, obviously. My apologies.

Everywhere but Zone II, the world is as I describe - the ZO has the right to nominate whichever teams they choose however they choose to do so to the WBF, provided each team is all from its own country (NBO, but still), and no two teams from the same country unless the local organization has 150 000+ members.

The limit for how many teams the Zone can nominate is by membership + an extra one if enough teams in that zone do well in the Olympiad (the extra has to be one of those teams) + an extra one if it's the host country + an extra one from Europe if needed to avoid byes.

"In the case of Zone 2, [the] above notwithstanding, the following rules shall apply:"

- USA gets one if they show up to the Olympiad.
- USA gets another one if they keep membership over 150 000 and the team sent to the Olympiad finishes in the top half of the RR.
- One of Canada or Mexico (Bermuda has moved, but the regs are still there) if they go to the Olympiad and finish in the top half of the RR.

So, although we are entitled to two teams by membership, plus one if the teams do well, and while we usually get three, we could get only one - and it would have to be the US, no matter what happened.

I am sure that if the ACBL were to petition, they would likely get the option of using the rest-of-the-world rules, if they wanted to make USA 2 compete against Canada and Mexico for the last spot(s). After all, something must have happened, as neither Canada nor Mexico finished in the top half of the RR at the last Olympiad, and I know half the Canada team going to Shanghai...

I still find it - disturbing - that the USA is the only country guaranteed entry to the BB, and that Canada and Mexico the only countries that, in certain circumstances, would have no chance to participate in the BB. Even Macau, with her 51 members, has a chance (granted, the snowball's chance in a tsunami).

Michael.

[JanM]

You're wrong about the US being the only country guaranteed a BB team (I think - I haven't actually double checked, but...), both Australia and New Zealand are also guaranteed teams. This is (I think, all of it was established a long time ago) because the US, Australia and NZ are all very large in terms of bridge population.

If Canada didn't finish in the top half of its Round Robin group in 2004, I guess the rule must have been waived (again), because of course you are correct that they have a team this year.

Obviously, I should be trying to get the US extra teams based on finish in the Rosenblum, if Europe gets an extra based on finish in the Olympiad, where we're allowed only one US team. PLEASE NOTE - this is not a serious comment !!!

[Cascade]

JanM, on Aug 22 2007, 10:58 AM, said:

You're wrong about the US being the only country guaranteed a BB team (I think - I haven't actually double checked, but...), both Australia and New Zealand are also guaranteed teams. This is (I think, all of it was established a long time ago) because the US, Australia and NZ are all very large in terms of bridge population.

If Canada didn't finish in the top half of its Round Robin group in 2004, I guess the rule must have been waived (again), because of course you are correct that they have a team this year.

Obviously, I should be trying to get the US extra teams based on finish in the Rosenblum, if Europe gets an extra based on finish in the Olympiad, where we're allowed only one US team.  PLEASE NOTE - this is not a serious comment !!!

Australia and New Zealand are not guaranteed a spot (but its pretty close to that - at least this year).

Australia and New Zealand are in Zone Seven which includes other islands in the South Pacific. We have had Tonga, New Caledonia and possibly some other team from French Polynesia competing in these trials (championships).

This year there are two places for Australia and New Zealand but I do not think these two places are guaranteed. So there is potential for only one team. I think I can recall a year when there was only one team from the zone for the Venice Cup.

Personally I would be happier if Zone Seven and Zone Six combined - Australia and New Zealand already compete regularly in the Zone Six championships. The enlarged Zone would have one or possibly two extra qualifying spots. This would ensure that any Australian or New Zealand teams at the Bowl would have at least performed reasonably well to qualify.

[mycroft]

Heh - some serious politicking must be going on here, as according to the WBF site's numbers, USA should not be allowed two teams in Shanghai - they fail to meet the 150 000 members (the *ACBL* has 150 000 members, but that's counting Canada and Mexico).

Of course, the ACBL does have one-third the representatives on the WBF executive. So there is a lot of play for politics.

Of course, nobody may have noticed.

Michael.

[Edit: I am not implying here *at all* that strictly due to strength of field, anybody that qualifies for USA2 (or USA 4 for that matter) is not BB-qualfied. Of course, Italy2 probably would give USA-any a good run for their money; Poland2 probably could as well; I'd bet that in 10 years, China2 will be easily good enough. What actually happens, even what *should* happen, isn't (most of) my argument - it's the look of the thing that matters here.]

[georgeac]

matmat, on Aug 16 2007, 10:03 PM, said:

mike777, on Aug 16 2007, 09:58 PM, said:

matmat, on Aug 16 2007, 09:56 PM, said:

i don't really see why you need knockouts... what's wrong with taking the top 7 teams after the early round robin and running a second such competition with 6 rounds, taking the top two teams?

so no seeding..no byes...no reward for year long bridge performance in the regular season?

Add on top of the general usa hatred for round robin formats

yeah... and knockouts are great b/c if the best team has one bad session, they can no longer represent the federation. yeah. that's wonderful.

What about events like the Super Bowl or the NBA finals? Those have the best teams and some of the mediocre teams in a playoff system( a knockout). If the best team loses first round, well then I guess they were not the best team then. This sounds to me like you are trying to protect the "best teams" which to me does not seem fair at all. They should have to prove they are the best team. If they lose to a lower seed team, then they obviously are not the best team. The best team should always win regardless of the competition.

[mike777]

In fact the bylaws say the USBC is set up for the "best teams" or the team most likely to win the WC. I disagree with this being the highest or number one goal but to be fair it is in the bylaws of the USBC.


http://usbf.org/docs...Docs/Bylaws.pdf

[geller]

Quote

What about events like the Super Bowl or the NBA finals? Those have the best teams and some of the mediocre teams in a playoff system( a knockout). If the best team loses first round, well then I guess they were not the best team then. This sounds to me like you are trying to protect the "best teams" which to me does not seem fair at all. They should have to prove they are the best team. If they lose to a lower seed team, then they obviously are not the best team. The best team should always win regardless of the competition.

The playoffs in U.S. sports are structured as they (KO competitions) are for commercial reasons. In European soccer the champion is the team with the best record in the league (a complete double round robin of usually 18-22 teams) at the end of the season, while there is also a separate KO competition (the FA cup in England, for example), to keep interest up for fans of teams that have dropped out of contention in the league. But the champion is the team that wins the league by demonstrating sustained excellence over the course of the season.

[mike777]

geller, on Sep 6 2007, 06:00 PM, said:

Quote

What about events like the Super Bowl or the NBA finals? Those have the best teams and some of the mediocre teams in a playoff system( a knockout). If the best team loses first round, well then I guess they were not the best team then. This sounds to me like you are trying to protect the "best teams" which to me does not seem fair at all. They should have to prove they are the best team. If they lose to a lower seed team, then they obviously are not the best team. The best team should always win regardless of the competition.

The playoffs in U.S. sports are structured as they (KO competitions) are for commercial reasons. In European soccer the champion is the team with the best record in the league (a complete double round robin of usually 18-22 teams) at the end of the season, while there is also a separate KO competition (the FA cup in England, for example), to keep interest up for fans of teams that have dropped out of contention in the league. But the champion is the team that wins the league by demonstrating sustained excellence over the course of the season.

Are you suggesting that choosing the winner of Europe is not done for commercial reasons but they are in the usa?

Are not commercial reasons the driving force in European soccer?

[geller]

Quote

What about events like the Super Bowl or the NBA finals? Those have the best teams and some of the mediocre teams in a playoff system( a knockout). If the best team loses first round, well then I guess they were not the best team then. This sounds to me like you are trying to protect the "best teams" which to me does not seem fair at all. They should have to prove they are the best team. If they lose to a lower seed team, then they obviously are not the best team. The best team should always win regardless of the competition.

I'm suggesting that the best team is the one that wins the league over the course of the season, not the one that gets hot (or lucky) and wins a short K/O competition after barely scraping in.

[TimG]

...

[mike777]

geller, on Sep 6 2007, 06:08 PM, said:

Quote

What about events like the Super Bowl or the NBA finals? Those have the best teams and some of the mediocre teams in a playoff system( a knockout). If the best team loses first round, well then I guess they were not the best team then. This sounds to me like you are trying to protect the "best teams" which to me does not seem fair at all. They should have to prove they are the best team. If they lose to a lower seed team, then they obviously are not the best team. The best team should always win regardless of the competition.

I'm suggesting that the best team is the one that wins the league over the course of the season, not the one that gets hot (or lucky) and wins a short K/O competition after barely scraping in.

As I said I just wish the goal of the USBC, the number one goal, was not choosing the "best team" or team most likely to win the WC.

I still would prefer giving everyone a shot, but seed/bye for regular season performance. If that means a team of nonbest players wins ...so be it. That is a good/great thing...not a bad thing.

In fact I think the USBC does an excellent job in other years doing just that. It is just in this case we should have two seperate playoffs/trials for the two teams even if that results in not choosing the two best teams.