[NickRW]

gwnn, on Mar 5 2010, 12:42 PM, said:

gnasher, I think not since they have #1 seed in all tournaments and so they have an easier route and then they get a very good seed for the trials. Not saying it's unfair but clearly the answer to your question is "no".

Well, I agree that the answer is no - but isn't that, to a certain extent anyway, a good thing?

The reason I say this is that a country (US or otherwise) has made a certain selection for team X, or pairs Y and Z which they are fairly confident is a good choice. Trials matches have significant variance even over as many as 200 boards - so you don't want your "good choice" being knocked out of the selection process too easily.

It starts to become a bad thing when the "good choice" people start to get past their best - then you want to be able to knock them off their perch - but no system will ever be perfect.

Nick

[glen]

Note that the US seeding process involves the results of events where non-US world class opponents are also involved - obtaining seeding points from these events is a good predictor of being able to effectively compete on the world stage.

[gwnn]

Nick, I agree with the system (or the basic idea at least, maybe byes all the way to the semis are a bit excessive). I just answered Andy's question.

[JanM]

gwnn, on Mar 5 2010, 05:42 AM, said:

gnasher, I think not since they have #1 seed in all tournaments and so they have an easier route and then they get a very good seed for the trials. Not saying it's unfair but clearly the answer to your question is "no".

Having the #1 seed in the Vanderbilt or Spingold (it's pretty irrelevant in the Reisinger) is helpful in the first few rounds of the event. If any of us were to be seeded #1 in Reno instead of Fred's team, which will in fact be the #1 seed, we'd have a better chance of making the third or maybe even fourth day of the event. But after the Round of 32, the field is sufficiently deep that high seeds don't get easier matches than lower seeds. And teams don't get Trials Positioning Points until the Round of 16, so a high seed may improve a team's chance of getting Trials Positioning Points, but not by much. In order to get a serious bye in the Trials, a team needs to do better than the Round of 16 in the Vanderbilt & Spingold. For example, the Nickell team won the Reisinger and reached the Spingold Round of 16. They have earned a bye to the Round of 8 in the Trials. To earn a bye to the Semi-finals, they will have to reach the Vanderbilt Finals.
Yes, teams with byes in the Trials have an advantage over teams without byes, but byes are based only on performance over the previous year (last year's Trials and the three major NABC team games). Everyone who hasn't earned a bye is in exactly the same position as you or I - we get to enter the Trials (well I don't any more because I'm too busy with administrative tasks), if our team does well enough in the Round Robin we get to advance to the KO. If we play well enough to beat all the other teams, we get to represent the US.

[fred]

JanM, on Mar 6 2010, 06:10 PM, said:

gwnn, on Mar 5 2010, 05:42 AM, said:

gnasher, I think not since they have #1 seed in all tournaments and so they have an easier route and then they get a very good seed for the trials. Not saying it's unfair but clearly the answer to your question is "no".

Having the #1 seed in the Vanderbilt or Spingold (it's pretty irrelevant in the Reisinger) is helpful in the first few rounds of the event. If any of us were to be seeded #1 in Reno instead of Fred's team, which will in fact be the #1 seed, we'd have a better chance of making the third or maybe even fourth day of the event. But after the Round of 32, the field is sufficiently deep that high seeds don't get easier matches than lower seeds. And teams don't get Trials Positioning Points until the Round of 16, so a high seed may improve a team's chance of getting Trials Positioning Points, but not by much. In order to get a serious bye in the Trials, a team needs to do better than the Round of 16 in the Vanderbilt & Spingold. For example, the Nickell team won the Reisinger and reached the Spingold Round of 16. They have earned a bye to the Round of 8 in the Trials. To earn a bye to the Semi-finals, they will have to reach the Vanderbilt Finals.
Yes, teams with byes in the Trials have an advantage over teams without byes, but byes are based only on performance over the previous year (last year's Trials and the three major NABC team games). Everyone who hasn't earned a bye is in exactly the same position as you or I - we get to enter the Trials (well I don't any more because I'm too busy with administrative tasks), if our team does well enough in the Round Robin we get to advance to the KO. If we play well enough to beat all the other teams, we get to represent the US.

Thanks for the good news, Jan - I had no idea that my team would be the #1 seed in the Vanderbilt. Hopefully we will avoid the "#1 Seed Falls!" headline in the Daily Bulletin early in the event

Do you know what my team's status is with respect to a bye in the Team Trials? We made it to the semi-finals of the Spingold and came 6th (I think) in the Reisinger. No doubt I could figure out where we stand through the USBF web site, but I am rather hopeless at reading conditions of contests. If you don't know already, please don't waste a lot of time trying to work it out.

Incidentally, I think the current system in place for selecting USA's international teams is very good. The USBC has the added bonus of beeing a lot of fun to play in (at least once the round robin phase is complete). It is a great event.

The system in Canada (where I used to play) is different - it is similar in nature to the ACBL's Grand National Teams (teams qualify to represent their districts and then play a round robin to qualify for a knockout). For Canada, this is a sensible way to do things IMO, but historically the Canadian system has not done as good a job as the USA system in terms of qualifying what most would consider to be "the best teams that entered".

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[JanM]

Oops - ACBL always gets me when I go to their website to look for something quickly - it's the defenders who get the 1 seed, and when I quickly went to the "bracket sheet" on the ACBL website for last year's Vanderbilt I thought that was you (I know, memory failing, you'd think I could remember from a year ago). So I don't actually know who'll have the 1-seed, as the Katz team won't have 4 players playing together in this year's Vanderbilt.

As for the Trials bye situation, you don't actually have to read any Conditions of Contest to find out that your team currently has a bye to the Round of 16 and will probably have to make the Round of 8 in the Vanderbilt to earn a bye to the Trials Round of 8 - just go to the usbf website and click on 2010 Open Trials.

[Aberlour10]

from the USBF site...

Quote

The 2010 USBC will select USA1 for the 2011 Bermuda Bowl

what about team USA2 for the BB 2011?

[fred]

JanM, on Mar 6 2010, 08:24 PM, said:

Oops - ACBL always gets me when I go to their website to look for something quickly - it's the defenders who get the 1 seed, and when I quickly went to the "bracket sheet" on the ACBL website for last year's Vanderbilt I thought that was you (I know, memory failing, you'd think I could remember from a year ago). So I don't actually know who'll have the 1-seed, as the Katz team won't have 4 players playing together in this year's Vanderbilt.

Rats! I was already making plans to go skiing in nearby Squaw Valley on the day of the bye I was anticipating we would surely have as the #1 seed

Thanks for the info about 2010 USBC byes.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[JanM]

Aberlour10, on Mar 6 2010, 01:30 PM, said:

from the USBF site...

Quote

The 2010 USBC will select USA1 for the 2011 Bermuda Bowl

what about team USA2 for the BB 2011?

That will be selected by the 2011 USBC.

[JanM]

fred, on Mar 6 2010, 01:37 PM, said:

JanM, on Mar 6 2010, 08:24 PM, said:

Oops - ACBL always gets me when I go to their website to look for something quickly - it's the defenders who get the 1 seed, and when I quickly went to the "bracket sheet" on the ACBL website for last year's Vanderbilt I thought that was you (I know, memory failing, you'd think I could remember from a year ago). So I don't actually know who'll have the 1-seed, as the Katz team won't have 4 players playing together in this year's Vanderbilt.

Rats! I was already making plans to go skiing in nearby Squaw Valley on the day of the bye I was anticipating we would surely have as the #1 seed

Thanks for the info about 2010 USBC byes.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Not to worry - I think the predictions are for just a few teams over 64, so lots of first day byes . Heavenly Valley is prettier than Squaw.

[Aberlour10]

JanM, on Mar 6 2010, 04:15 PM, said:

Aberlour10, on Mar 6 2010, 01:30 PM, said:

from the USBF site...

Quote

The 2010 USBC will select USA1 for the 2011 Bermuda Bowl

what about team USA2 for the BB 2011?

That will be selected by the 2011 USBC.

Thanks.

On this occasion another 2 cents.... I wonder a bit, why the acting world champions have to qualify for the next BB. In my opinion they earned with this great achivement the right to defend this title automatically. Would it be not fair?

[JanM]

Aberlour10, on Mar 6 2010, 02:24 PM, said:

On this occasion another 2 cents.... I wonder a bit, why the acting world champions have to qualify for the next BB. In my opinion they earned with this great achivement the right to defend this title automatically. Would it be not fair?

Perhaps, but there are only a limited number of teams in the Bermuda Bowl and I am confident that if any Zone "lost" a team because the defenders were automatically allowed to defend, there would be an outcry.

[awm]

I do think the Victoria method (teams competition, then pairs competition which the members of winning team cannot compete in, then top three pairs play against winner of teams competition) is quite good. This seems to avoid the problems inherent in both teams and pairs trials. The well-known issues with pairs trials include: (1) teams that know/trust/like each other usually do better than teams composed of unrelated good pairs (2) some players may not want to play on teams with particular others (3) captaincy/sit-out issues on teams composed of pairs (4) imp pairs is particularly random format and may lead to at least one "weak" pair in the top three. However there are also a number of problems inherent in teams trials such as: (1) the best pairs may not end up on the same team due to social and/or sponsorship issues (2) a very strong pair may have trouble "breaking in" to the team if people don't know about them and/or they are not full-time professional players, since they have issues getting good teammates (3) teams competition often favors professional teams since a weak sponsor can hire five strong players and make the national team, even though the team would clearly be stronger if the sponsor were replaced with a stronger player.

[rogerclee]

awm, on Mar 7 2010, 07:04 PM, said:

I do think the Victoria method (teams competition, then pairs competition which the members of winning team cannot compete in, then top three pairs play against winner of teams competition) is quite good. This seems to avoid the problems inherent in both teams and pairs trials. The well-known issues with pairs trials include: (1) teams that know/trust/like each other usually do better than teams composed of unrelated good pairs (2) some players may not want to play on teams with particular others (3) captaincy/sit-out issues on teams composed of pairs (4) imp pairs is particularly random format and may lead to at least one "weak" pair in the top three. However there are also a number of problems inherent in teams trials such as: (1) the best pairs may not end up on the same team due to social and/or sponsorship issues (2) a very strong pair may have trouble "breaking in" to the team if people don't know about them and/or they are not full-time professional players, since they have issues getting good teammates (3) teams competition often favors professional teams since a weak sponsor can hire five strong players and make the national team, even though the team would clearly be stronger if the sponsor were replaced with a stronger player.

Why is this a good idea at all? It seems like this takes a long time (adding to logistic costs and making everyone more tired) with no compelling positive reasons to me, other than making some people happy who think they are so unlucky that they are constantly not good enough to get on the best teams.

[NickRW]

rogerclee, on Mar 8 2010, 02:27 AM, said:

Why is this a good idea at all? It seems like this takes a long time (adding to logistic costs...

In the particular case cited, most of the potential paticipants live in one city - so the costs are much less than they might have otherwise been

[awm]

rogerclee, on Mar 7 2010, 09:27 PM, said:

Why is this a good idea at all? It seems like this takes a long time (adding to logistic costs and making everyone more tired) with no compelling positive reasons to me, other than making some people happy who think they are so unlucky that they are constantly not good enough to get on the best teams.

Since no one is forced to play in both trials, the only effective cost to the winners is one additional (longish) match. This is not a very big deal. On the other hand, having the additional trials probably makes more money for the relevant organization to use in subsidizing the eventual team.

In the US current team-based system, there are a few potential problems. For one, virtually all the best teams have playing sponsors. Being paid for one's time is a big deal, obviously. But this has a number of downsides. Some examples: we see pretty much the same top teams in the trials each year; it is very possible that better teams exist but are never formed due to long-standing sponsorship arrangements. Virtually all the teams with a real shot at winning the trials have a playing sponsor, which potentially makes them weaker than they would otherwise be. Good but less-established pairs have the choice of playing for a weaker sponsor (and getting paid, but having virtually no chance to win the trials) or trying to pair with other comparable less established pairs (and footing their own expenses, while still having an only slightly better chance at winning the trials) -- certainly these pairs might like to have an alternative "pairs format" route to qualifying.

Simply switching to a pairs format creates many alternative issues which are arguably a whole lot worse than the current system. But having a pairs event in this style could lead to the "discovery" of a very strong less-established pair which ends up improving the national team, or forming a sponsor-less national team in the event that the sponsorship issues are really having substantial impact on the team quality.

If the winners of the team trials really are the best squad we can field, forcing them to play one more longish match is hardly going to change anything.

[JanM]

One suggestion that was made for a way to choose the second US team for the Bermuda Bowl (in the one year out of four when two teams are chosen in one year) was to have the regular team trials and also have a pairs trials and then the team that had lost in the team trials finals would play the pairs trials team (which might have been the top 3 pairs or the top 2 and their choice from some subset of the remaining pairs).

I think the main reason that suggestion failed was because of the logistics - either you run the two trials at the same time, in which case there are issues about dealing with "drop ins" to the pairs trials from the team trials, or you have to hold them separately and then have the playoff match either at a third time or at the end of the pairs trials, giving the teams trials runner-up an advantage because they aren't tired.

Nick's point that having all of the competitors in one city makes life easier is a good one. With our players spread over a large country, the costs to the players as well as the organizers of two separate trials is very large. Of course, a way to achieve the same thing would be to hold trials online, but although we're trying to do that in some cases, the participants in the Open, Women's and Senior trials aren't yet ready to have those events online.

[mich-b]

Around here , the federation had avoided teams trials for many years , one of the main arguments being that teams trials will allow sponsors to "buy their way" into the national team.
But in reality , when teams trials were finally held , none of the entered teams had a sponsor. I think the main reason for this is that the best players want to play with each other to have a realistic chance to do well in internatonal competition.
This may be different in the USA , where teams believe (and were proven right many times during the years) that they can win abroad with their sponsor. But in smaller countries, where the sponsors do not often play very well, I think authorities can "risk" having teams trials without fearing that an "unworthy" sponsor sneaks in. At least this is what the (limited) experience here shows.

[MFA]

In Denmark we have a selection committee, which is probably the only practical way to do it here. There is not one single full time bridge professional in Denmark (unless we count bridge teachers who earn all their money not from playing bridge but from teaching weekly classes in bridge centers), and even though our bridge federation pays all immediate expenses for the chosen teams, there are other sacrifices for the players, and it's only natural that some of our strong pairs can't or don't want to play in the international events from time to time.

So, often the strong teams in Denmark have perhaps only one or two pairs competing for a spot on the national team. Actually of the team that won the Danish Teams Championships this weekend none of the pairs were available for the national team that was picked yesterday. One pair has retired from the national team, two players have kids to look after etc. So just wanting to have the winners of that tournament to represent Denmark would be pointless.

To get as strong a team as possible under these circumstances I think the only solution is to have a selection committee picking three pairs, even though in principle I favour team trials. Denmark is a small country and all strong players know eachother well, so there will rarely be social problems with forming a 'dream team' () for each separate event.

[paulg]

Denmark Scotland is a small country and all strong players know each other well, so there will rarely always be social problems with forming a 'dream team' for each separate event.

Perhaps time to move