[JanM]

I've just posted a "Sneak Preview" of the USBF plans for Trials to select two Junior teams for the Youth Championship in Turkey this summer. Briefly:
Trials will be on BBO on May 16 & 17.
Two sessions on Saturday, one or Sunday.
Trials will be for pairs - must be born in 1984 or later.
Scored at Matchpoints.
Top 6 pairs will be selected, subject to review & approval by USBF.

We all know this isn't ideal, but there isn't much time.

[mtvesuvius]

Jan, what about Transnational Pairs? What are the funding/qualifications for them?

I wish I could play both the IMP pairs and the MP pairs with a different partner... lol

[JLOL]

Interesting

[Walddk]

JLOL, on Apr 3 2009, 04:29 AM, said:

Interesting

Interesting indeed. Matchpoint scoring to select the pairs for a teams event!? I am lost.

Roland

[JanM]

mtvesuvius, on Apr 2 2009, 08:54 PM, said:

Jan, what about Transnational Pairs? What are the funding/qualifications for them?

At this time, there is no proposal to fund a US player who wants to play on a Transnational team or pair.

[Grypho]

Instead of complaining, we should just focus on getting maximum attention and attendance. No method was going to be perfect given the very short amount of time available.

There are some positives that are worth mentioning. Anyone can play and because there is no travel requirement it will be truly open to all. The players will not need to find teammates so that players who dont know alot of other players can compete equally. The cost of this format will be very low and that may allow for some training/travel once the teams are selected.

As far as

Quote

Matchpoint scoring to the select the pairs for a teams event!? I am lost.

Matchpoints is reasonable because with imp scoring (especially imps across the field) there is far greater potential variation per board. At matchpoints each board is equal to roughly 4% of the total score. At imps across the field, 1 or 2 huge board(s) played against an inexperienced pair may be roughly the positive score needed to place or win for the entire session.

In a previous thred, I have posted strongly against this format and if there was more time to plan I would continue to be against it.

In this case I support the committee's decision. Given the short amount of time we should just not worry about it and move forward. Good luck to all!

[Walddk]

Grypho, on Apr 3 2009, 07:36 AM, said:

As far as

Quote

Matchpoint scoring to the select the pairs for a teams event!? I am lost.

Matchpoints is reasonable because with imp scoring (especially imps across the field) there is far greater potential variation per board. At matchpoints each board is equal to roughly 4% of the total score. At imps across the field, 1 or 2 huge board(s) played against an inexperienced pair may be roughly the positive score needed to place or win for the entire session.

Who said IMPs Across the Field? Butler Pairs is an option, where one could discard extreme results before calculating the datum if one fears that swings will be too huge if you don't. This has absolutely nothing to do with the amount of time there is to plan.

I claim that it's wrong to have a matchpoint format for selection of pairs for teams events. The reason is obvious: you dump the safety play aspect when you play MP, and this as an aspect that is paramount for and makes IMPs unique.

Roland

[jdonn]

I can't believe it. Matchpoints? Really? What's the difference if there isn't much time, it's not brain surgery to change it to imp scoring. It just makes no sense at all. Sorry Kevin, I don't think the fact there isn't much time (it's not tomorrow btw, it's in 6 weeks) is a reason to support any decision at all that is made. I mean, are they just brainstorming ways to create the most controversy possible?

Maybe I should be more supportive at this point, but I just don't get it, someone will have to tell me why. I could overlook other aspects I disagree with. But matchpoints is not even the same game, regardless of there being one matchpoint event at the championship (obviously minor relative to the team events).

[JLOL]

I am surprised the main gripe so far is matchpoints. I think that is a secondary concern to the rampant cheating that is likely to occur. Sorry, I guess I'm cynical.

I know this would be too controversial, but I think selection would be better than something like this.

[Gerben42]

In my opinion it doesn't really matter if it's MP or IMPs, or online or offline. If you are going to base the qualification only on BBO results, that's possibly a problem.

The "no kibitzers" rule will be easiest, but I think the USBF selection committee (who should have a final word and also select promising pairs who are not in the top 6) should full-time kibitz the tables. This would require giving them a yellow account for the weekend.

One could for example say the top 3 is sure qualified (as long as they don't do anything funny), and 3 out of the places 4 through 8 are otherwise selected.

EDIT

I wish all the forum regulars who are eligible the best of luck in the qualifying! A junior tournament abroad is always quite a highlight and in such a nice place as Turkey, doubly so

[helene_t]

Agree with Grypho. Of course it is problematic to use MP scoring to select IMP players, but OTOH MP is statistically more robust. I have no strong opinion about which concern to weight higher. Maybe I would personally have preferred Patton but wth.

[hrothgar]

Few comments:

1. Turkey rocks... I've been all over the world, and Turkey (along with Morocco) is probaby tops on my list of places to visit. If anyone is lucky enough to win the big prize, you should DEFINITELY spend two - weeks traveling the country.

Great food
Wonderful people
Amazing cultural sites
Inexpensive

2. I think that cheating / the risk of cheating will be a nightmare.

I understand the desire to do something that is quick / cheap / simple. I expect that the pain and suffering that will occur down the pike will eclipse any short term savings.

In all seriousness, what do you plan to do if:

A pair of complete unknows wins this event AND
Their standard of play suggests that they had a wire?

If you can't answer this question -and "we'll deal with this if it comes up" isn't an answer - then you are asking for trouble. I can virtually guarantee that someone will be peeved that they didn't place and will be going over hand records with a fine toothed comb... (For what its worth, blocking access to hand records will just make it look like there is something to hide).

The fact that you are using physical proctors should mitigate SOME of this. (I'm very gald to see that you are doing so)

3. You probably want to modify the Conditions of Contest to explicitly describe the disclosure system.

Who alerts / explains what?
And to whom?

4. Last I knew, BBO didn't support "real" pairs movements. Is there any way to run a Howell, a Mitchell, what have you? Running this event as a barometer is going to introduce a whole new set of issues.

[mtvesuvius]

MPs to pick a IMP team?? This is completely illogical. I am personally a much better IMP player than MP player, and a Butler IMPs should solve all your problems. PLEASE make there no kibitzers, and also... I suggest you have each person play from their local club. This will help the cheating factor immensely. IMO Roland nailed it, I personally find that IMPs is much more rewarding when it comes to the "goal" of the game: Try to set your opponents, make your contract. Not: try to set your opponents the absolute most, and try to make every trick possible in every contract. Also.... Barometer OFF.

[Phil]

Hrothgar brings up some very important issues. I'm especially troubled about the prospect of a couple of unknowns winning. Not so much because they wouldn't deserve it, but because of the inevitable rumors that will circulate.

I think a monitor nearby would solve a lot of problems (bridge club, certified director, etc..). If a monitor can't be found, or is impractical (a player lives in a very rural area), then you need the players to agree that their results will be scrutinized and possibly be voided.

MPs vs IMPs? IMPs pairs seems like the obvious solution.

Barometers would be the height of silliness.

[JanM]

An expert committee (two from USBF, one we hope who is familiar with reviewing BBO hands for unethical conduct) will review all of the bidding and play (not by kibitzing, which is very slow, but by going over the records). One of the provisions of the Conditions of Contest will be that if there is anything the least bit "suspicious" (better word?) that pair will be eliminated.

No kibitzers will be allowed and each player will have to be monitored, either at a club if possible or somewhere else.

About matchpoints - IMPs across the field (even with top & bottom out, and we have no idea whether there will be enough pairs to do this) is VERY random, especially with a field of players of very wide ability. Matchpoints does a better job in a short pair event. And, sorry, but it is the same game. I won a relatively long (64 board) match last weekend by 1 IMP. Do you think the play of the hand in partscores was irrelevant? I don't.

BBO supports running a Mitchell, although not, unfortunately, a Howell. Unless there is time to implement a complete Round Robin (Howell) Mitchell is what we'll be using.

[mtvesuvius]

JanM, on Apr 3 2009, 10:05 AM, said:

An expert committee (two from USBF, one we hope who is familiar with reviewing BBO hands for unethical conduct) will review all of the bidding and play (not by kibitzing, which is very slow, but by going over the records). One of the provisions of the Conditions of Contest will be that if there is anything the least bit "suspicious" (better word?) that pair will be eliminated.

So what you are saying, is that if I make a brilliant play such as underleading an AKQJ, I may be disqualified? What if I overbid a hand and partner shows up with the perfect hand? Will I be disqualified then? I think making each participant go to a club is practical, and if they must drive for an hour or two, then so be it.

[hrothgar]

mtvesuvius, on Apr 3 2009, 06:29 PM, said:

JanM, on Apr 3 2009, 10:05 AM, said:

An expert committee (two from USBF, one we hope who is familiar with reviewing BBO hands for unethical conduct) will review all of the bidding and play (not by kibitzing, which is very slow, but by going over the records). One of the provisions of the Conditions of Contest will be that if there is anything the least bit "suspicious" (better word?) that pair will be eliminated.

So what you are saying, is that if I make a brilliant play such as underleading an AKQJ, I may be disqualified? What if I overbid a hand and partner shows up with the perfect hand? Will I be disqualified then? I think making each participant go to a club is practical, and if they must drive for an hour or two, then so be it.

I would phrase it a bit differently:

If you make a brilliant play, well done

If you make a neutral/bad play and happen to get lucky, that's fine and dandy

If you make lots of bad plays and get lucky too often, that's a whole different kettle of fish...

My main hope is that there is a large enough corpus of hands to permit a fairly rigorous analysis.

[jdaming]

How many pairs do you hope/expect to play?

[jdonn]

JanM, on Apr 3 2009, 10:05 AM, said:

An expert committee (two from USBF, one we hope who is familiar with reviewing BBO hands for unethical conduct) will review all of the bidding and play (not by kibitzing, which is very slow, but by going over the records). One of the provisions of the Conditions of Contest will be that if there is anything the least bit "suspicious" (better word?) that pair will be eliminated.

Let's say a pair is cheating. I bet $10,000 that their cheating will lead to none of the 10 most suspicious actions taken. This is a junior event!

Maybe it was stated badly, but it would be huge mistake to eliminate any pair for suspicious bid/play.

Quote

No kibitzers will be allowed and each player will have to be monitored, either at a club if possible or somewhere else.

That is definitely a good idea.

Quote

About matchpoints - IMPs across the field (even with top & bottom out, and we have no idea whether there will be enough pairs to do this) is VERY random, especially with a field of players of very wide ability. Matchpoints does a better job in a short pair event. And, sorry, but it is the same game. I won a relatively long (64 board) match last weekend by 1 IMP. Do you think the play of the hand in partscores was irrelevant? I don't.

I could not possibly imagine disagreeing more with a statement. There are tons of examples of players/pairs doing far better in the long run in one form of scoring than the other. You trying to argue they are the same game and then using one match as an example makes me think of the government trying to argue poker is a game of luck instead of skill, and then pointing to some poker hand to prove it. I mean you could probably give a quiz that is an even less-random indication of skill level than playing matchpoints would be, but you aren't trying out for a bridge quiz taking contest. It's the exact same logic.

This really seems simple. Matchpoints is more accurate at choosing the best matchpoint pair than imps is at choosing the best imp pair (in the same amount of boards). I agree with that. But matchpoints is NOT more accurate at choosing the best imps pair than imps is at choosing the best imp pair. Unprovable I know, but I would stake anything on it.

[cherdanno]

jdonn, on Apr 3 2009, 11:09 AM, said:

This really seems simple. Matchpoints is more accurate at choosing the best matchpoint pair than imps is at choosing the best imp pair (in the same amount of boards). I agree with that. But matchpoints is NOT more accurate at choosing the best imps pair than imps is at choosing the best imp pair. Unprovable I know, but I would stake anything on it.

If anyone can come up with a method to validate this claim (this isn't impossible, given enough data) I am happy to bet that a 3-session MP event is better at determining the 6 best IMP pairs than a 3-session IMP event.

This post has been edited by cherdanno: 2009-April-03, 10:41