[Siegmund]

There is a thread in the offline forum right now about how national teams are selected. It reminded me of something that has bothered me for a very long time.

In the casual Sunday Swiss, I can understand allowing 5- and 6-person teams; you collect more entry fees if you accommodate the people who can only play half the day, and nobody expects it to be a serious event anyway. (It's still quite rare - maybe one team in 10 or 20 actually has more than four people on it in a Swiss. In regional KOs, it's virtually unknown in the low and middle brackets, but common in the top brackets. Heh.) In a more serious event I feel very strongly that teams of more than 4 should be forbidden - I can understand having an alternate available in case of an illness, but not deliberately forming teams of 6 and rotating them so that they only play 2/3 of the time.

I asked such a question once before, and got answers like "these events can be many days long; don't you know how hard it would be to have the stamina to play the whole thing?" In many other types of competitions, not having the stamina to make it to the finish line is pretty much the definition of not being good enough to be on the team. A big part of the skill in e.g. marathons and cross-country ski races is pacing oneself to avoid burning out halfway through. Baseball was played for many years with the expectation of the starting pitcher pitching 9 innings, but somehow that became a rarity once exceptions were allowed. I don't think I believe that whole stamina argument at all, actually -- they aren't usually asked to play more than 2 sessions a day, and my bridge gets better, not worse, if I go to a regional and get to play all day every day for a week, as I get used to tuning out distractions, get acquainted with the playing site, learn who play opponents are, and so on.

IS there any defensible reason for teams of 6 being standard for a 4-player game?

[TylerE]

And in almost all TEAM sports, it is typical to have a few players in reserve so that the top stars get a break once in a while...

[PhantomSac]

I mean, yeah like basketball and football would be a good example of sports where the players often get to sit out so that they can regroup/catch their breath.

At the end of the day it's pretty arbitrary whether you want your sport (not that bridge is a sport to me obviously) to have large teams where the players don't play often/some are always on the bench, or small teams where everyone plays all the time, or something in between.

Obviously everyone playing all the boards would increase the importance of stamina and emotional control, and having larger team would increase the importance of depth etc.

I'm fine with the bridge rules, and honestly if anything I would like bigger teams like 8 people. My reason is just that I think it sucks that the finals of world championships and often even the Spingold/Vanderbilt are pretty bad bridge, much worse than if the teams had played early. I am not saying that the people who reach the finals are bad, they are much better than me, I'm just saying that stamina is a huge factor already. I don't want it to come down to which team is playing less badly by the end, I'd really like to see the best bridge team playing their best bridge fight it out for the championship.

If we had only 4 person teams, I think this problem would be amplified. The bridge by the end would be even worse (relative to the level the players are able to play when not fatigued), and the winner would likely be the team with the most stamina. IMO bridge should not place importance on stamina, it should place importance on bridge skill. Right now I'm fine with the balance that exists though, but I'm sure it's all a matter of personal taste.

I really disagree with you saying that stamina is not an issue at all though. Maybe your bridge gets better at the end of a regional because you are tuning distractions out, but that is not at all relevant to top level events. It is way more tiring, and the players at that level are used to tuning out distractions already. In the spingold for instance, the play often ends at 1 or 2. The play is very slow and behind screens, and the level of focus and concentration is much higher, and the level of opposition and pressure faced by their plays/bids is also much higher. It is really grueling.

I often play 3 sessions a day for 3 weeks straight 4 handed including drinking/partying/flying etc, and I am never as tired as I was during the final 8 of the spingold on a 4 handed team, and at the time I was 19 and in much better shape than I am now (but worse bridge shape probably). The comparison is really not close in my experience.

Hopefully Fred or someone who has gone really deep in these events can share their experience about this.

[nigel_k]

A team of six (or more) for a four player game is very normal, as Tyler said. Cricket is the only team game I can think of at the moment where you can't use substitutes.

As things stand now, this suggestion is mostly going to divide people into those who want sponsors in the game and those who want to force them out.

If sponsors weren't an issue, I think teams of six would definitely be best. In an event lasting up to two weeks you need extras in case of illness. A reserve pair that only played in an emergency wouldn't be a great idea because it would be boring for them and there would be accusations that people weren't really ill and just wanted a rest.

[Siegmund]

That's interesting about 3 sessions of regional bridge being less tiring than the Spingold. It is true that matches against stronger opposition are more work; I guess I just didn't think it was that much more work. (I did, in my mid-20s, play 3 sessions a day at regionals; I eventually started avoiding the morning session on days that I cared about the afternoon-evening main event, since I did play noticeably worse towards the end of my 3rd session of the day. But 2 sessions against strong opponents never left me as tired as 3 sessions against a random mix did.)

If "everybody" agrees that the schedule is too tiring, perhaps that means the schedule needs adjusting, rather than meaning that the teams need made larger.

But yes, it does come down to a matter of taste - and my taste is that I'd rather hear discussions about how the hands were played than about how if a different lineup had been chosen things might have worked out differently. As for 'large teams so the stars can rest' - in my view, the team selection for one championship is sort of like announcing the roster for one baseball game; sure, the same 4 people don't have to play every championship, and don't have to play a regional the week before the championship, but I wish they DID play one entire event.

[PhantomSac]

Siegmund, on Feb 26 2010, 03:35 PM, said:

If "everybody" agrees that the schedule is too tiring, perhaps that means the schedule needs adjusting, rather than meaning that the teams need made larger.

This would definitely be my ideal solution. However, world championship events are already like 2 weeks long I think. Making fewer boards each day while keeping everything the same amount of boards would make the events even longer, which would cost the organizers more money (playing space), and the players or federations more money (hotel rooms/food etc), and a lot of people are not pros and have jobs so it would make it even harder for them to take time off work to go etc.

You could make it less boards per day and also less boards total, but then you increase the luck factor (less boards = more luck obv), so that also would not be ideal.

It just seems like a really tough problem to me.

[Siegmund]

On a slight tangent, my only personal experience with 'playing team sports' was with quiz-bowl teams in high school and college (and I did win a state championship and go to nationals once for that.)

The actual matches, around a half hour each, were four-on-four.
Interestingly, in the context of selection... we had nine players to a team; at local- and state-level meets we could show up with up to 7 players, and for each match and at halftime of each match, we could rotate which 4 players were 'in'. BUT, for the nationals - we were required to submit only 5 names, and specify which 4 were in front and who was the alternate - in advance. The theory was that part of the coach's job was to try out different rotations in the pre-season to identify the strongest team, but in the end, he had to put forward one team.

It may well be that that experience (from when I was only a kitchen-table bridge player, not playing serious tournaments yet) is a factor in my opinions now.

[PhantomSac]

nigel_k, on Feb 26 2010, 03:32 PM, said:

As things stand now, this suggestion is mostly going to divide people into those who want sponsors in the game and those who want to force them out.

Always amusing that people are so outraged by sponsors, but they love watching their favorite stars play so well. The level of the best bridge players would not be nearly as high without sponsors.

[billw55]

Quote

If we had only 4 person teams, I think this problem would be amplified. The bridge by the end would be even worse (relative to the level the players are able to play when not fatigued), and the winner would likely be the team with the most stamina.

Perhaps, but on the other hand: if the team with the most stamina is not the team with the most skill, won't the "stamina team" be eliminated in an earlier round by a more skilled team who isn't tired yet?

[jdonn]

PhantomSac, on Feb 26 2010, 03:45 PM, said:

nigel_k, on Feb 26 2010, 03:32 PM, said:

As things stand now, this suggestion is mostly going to divide people into those who want sponsors in the game and those who want to force them out.

Always amusing that people are so outraged by sponsors, but they love watching their favorite stars play so well. The level of the best bridge players would not be nearly as high without sponsors.

I think it's an understandable feeling. I love eating bacon but I probably don't want to watch the path it takes from being a pig to get there. Well as far as not wanting to watch sponsors play anyway. If it's talking about people who don't want sponsors to exist at all I agree with you.

[ArtK78]

Many years ago I played in a regional in Atlantic City, NJ. Since I work in Atlantic City, I was able to stop in at work between sessions and check in on things (this was before Blackberrys).

Rather than the usual schedule of events (afternoon and evening for the main events) the tournament organizers decided to tinker with the scheduling of events. The schedule called for a first session at about 10:30 a.m., a second session at about 3:30 p.m. and a "late" session at about 8:30 p.m. The 2-session events were run at 10:30 and 3:30.

The tournament started on Monday evening at 8:00 p.m. The first event was an open KO teams (this was before bracketing became popular). There were about 30 teams entered. The second, third and fourth sessions were to be held on Tuesday at 10:30, 3:30 and 8:30.

My team breezed through the event to the finals, having completed our semi-final match at about 11:45 p.m. on Tuesday. Between four sessions of bridge beginning Monday night, look-ins at work and meals, I had been going essentially non-stop since early Tuesday morning. Our opponents in the finals were Paul Soloway's team, and they wanted to play the finals at MIDNIGHT! I assume that the pros on the team had pro dates for Wednesday. I was the only one who objected, so we played on.

Needless to say, I was running on fumes. I made some mistakes in the match, and we lost by about 12 or 13 IMPs.

Looking back on this, it would have made a lot of sense to have been playing with a 6-person team in this event. Even though the event was run in just over one day, the schedule made it difficult for a 4-person team. Of course, I am sure the tournament committee didn't foresee the finals being held at midnight after three sessions earlier in the day.

[Siegmund]

Quote

Our opponents...wanted to play the finals at MIDNIGHT! I assume that the pros on the team had pro dates for Wednesday. I was the only one who objected, so we played on.

I am sure the tournament committee didn't foresee the finals being held at midnight after three sessions earlier in the day.

It sounds to me like the tournament committee scheduled the finals for Wednesday, and if any one of the of 8 players involved objected for any reason to moving it, it should have remained at its original time on Wednesday. Maybe you were just too nice of a guy to insist on that

[ArtK78]

Siegmund, on Feb 26 2010, 04:50 PM, said:

Quote

Our opponents...wanted to play the finals at MIDNIGHT! I assume that the pros on the team had pro dates for Wednesday. I was the only one who objected, so we played on.

I am sure the tournament committee didn't foresee the finals being held at midnight after three sessions earlier in the day.

It sounds to me like the tournament committee scheduled the finals for Wednesday, and if any one of the of 8 players involved objected for any reason to moving it, it should have remained at its original time on Wednesday. Maybe you were just too nice of a guy to insist on that

Or not enough of an AH to insist upon it.

[Lobowolf]

Siegmund, on Feb 26 2010, 02:32 PM, said:

There is a thread in the offline forum right now about how national teams are selected. It reminded me of something that has bothered me for a very long time.

In the casual Sunday Swiss, I can understand allowing 5- and 6-person teams; you collect more entry fees if you accommodate the people who can only play half the day, and nobody expects it to be a serious event anyway. (It's still quite rare - maybe one team in 10 or 20 actually has more than four people on it in a Swiss. In regional KOs, it's virtually unknown in the low and middle brackets, but common in the top brackets. Heh.) In a more serious event I feel very strongly that teams of more than 4 should be forbidden - I can understand having an alternate available in case of an illness, but not deliberately forming teams of 6 and rotating them so that they only play 2/3 of the time.

I asked such a question once before, and got answers like "these events can be many days long; don't you know how hard it would be to have the stamina to play the whole thing?" In many other types of competitions, not having the stamina to make it to the finish line is pretty much the definition of not being good enough to be on the team. A big part of the skill in e.g. marathons and cross-country ski races is pacing oneself to avoid burning out halfway through. Baseball was played for many years with the expectation of the starting pitcher pitching 9 innings, but somehow that became a rarity once exceptions were allowed. I don't think I believe that whole stamina argument at all, actually -- they aren't usually asked to play more than 2 sessions a day, and my bridge gets better, not worse, if I go to a regional and get to play all day every day for a week, as I get used to tuning out distractions, get acquainted with the playing site, learn who play opponents are, and so on.

IS there any defensible reason for teams of 6 being standard for a 4-player game?

Why do you feel very strongly that they should be disallowed?

[fred]

PhantomSac, on Feb 26 2010, 08:07 PM, said:

Hopefully Fred or someone who has gone really deep in these events can share their experience about this.

Stamina is certainly a factor in high-level bridge. As far as I can tell, just about everyone gets tired to some extent after a long run in a major event - for sure I do.

I very much prefer to play on 6-person teams, not only because of stamina-related issues or because it is far from rare for a player to get sick - for me it is sometimes nice to be able to take a break! I suspect that there are plenty of high-level players who would not admit this (and may even not believe it) for ego-related reasons - some players seem to think it is macho or something to give the impression that they always want to play all the boards. In my experience it is best for those who feel this way to keep it to themselves (or to discuss it privately with their captain) - such attitudes tend to be very distructive to team morale.

For me it is normal to play 3/4 of the boards in each match in a Spingold or Vanderbilt. That's "only" 48 boards per day whereas 3 sessions a day at a Regional is typically 72 boards. Still, for me the Spingold/Vanderbilt experience is significantly more demanding. Some possible reasons for this:

- The bridge is generally MUCH MUCH tougher in the big events.
- People tend to play considerably more slowly in big events. Sometimes the bridge doesn't end until 2AM or so and if you are really unlucky you might need to spend another hour or two after that dealing with a committee.
- The results are a lot more important in the big events so people try harder and there is a LOT more stress and pressure.
- The stress can make it harder to relax between sessions, to sleep at night, and to eat properly during the tournament.
- Playing behind screens likely takes some kind of extra toll.
- I imagine that some players feel extra pressure from things like being on vugraph, having lots of kibitzers, looking stupid in tomorrow's NY Times etc... As far as I can tell, I am able to effectively shut out these factors - probably the same is true for many/most other highly-experienced players.

In a few tournaments things have worked out so that I played either all the boards or only half the boards. I can deal with either of these scenarios if necessary without complaining, but in general I prefer to play 3/4 of the boards.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[barmar]

One benefit of playing on a 4-man team is that if you're successful, or even only make it to the late rounds, the press will herald that you did it despite the handicap of being only 4-handed. And if you lose in the finals to a 6-man team, they'll even excuse you because you must be totally exhausted by that time.

So play 4-handed if you want your ego stroked by reporters, play 6-handed if you actually want to win.

[jdonn]

One advantage to a 4 handed team for me personally is I feel like I contributed more to the result, like I mattered 25% instead of 16% or whatever the case may be.

[rogerclee]

I don't even like to play 4-handed for an entire regional due to exhaustion (I am naturally slow and hopefully thoughtful).

For something like a week-long serious event/nationals I would always greatly prefer to play 6-handed. To me this is just an issue of being able to play your best bridge. Maybe stamina should be part of the contest but I would rather maximize the quality of bridge being played.

[barmar]

And I know some players who dislike being on 6-man teams because "I came to play, not sit on the sidelines." But they're not world champions yet (they won the 0-1500 Mini-Spingold 2 years ago, that's the closest they've come).

[nige1]

4-man teams obviously means more more teams eg 12 players become 3 teams instead of 2. The overwhelming desire by professionals for sponsors makes the argument academic but, otherwise, I think there would be a strong case for 4-man team trials, for example...

• It would be harder for teams to carry passengers.
  
• It would be a good test of fitness and stamina.
  
• New players would have a more level playing field and a better chance of good team-mates.

The benefit of six-man teams is that, in time, by self-selection, you get get a smaller and smaller crop of better and better teams comprising older and older cobbers: a possible problem is that the seed-corn may wither by the way-side.