[Mbodell]

And into the semifinals it is hte original seeds 11, 12, 15, and 16 with 10 players with
US addresses (this counts Fallenius and De Knijiff as US) and 4 from Sweden, 4 from Norway, 3 from France, 2 from Italy, and 1 from Switzerland for 14 players from Europe still in the event.

[Phil]

Aberlour10, on Mar 19 2010, 10:15 AM, said:

-very strong performance of both "french" teams
(strongest in V ever?)

There were 3 French teams. Gignoux didn't make it to the R64.

[sathyab]

xcurt, on Mar 17 2010, 08:01 PM, said:

* for R64, in general, there is a significant difference between being in the low forties than the high forties
* for R32, there is  a significant difference between being about 12 or higher, vs 13 or lower

I am not sure I agree with your assertion about seeds below 40 being significantly better than their counterparts above 40. In the last three big team events I have always played on teams seeded 66 or worse and yet beaten seed #26, #29 and #25 in Nashville, Washington D.C and last week in Reno. Unfortunately all these were 4-way matches and we were seed #62, #64 and #63 going into the second day. Had we had the chance to play these teams in 64-board matches I have little doubt that we could have beaten them and acquired their seeds. That happened only twice, once in Las Vegas when we lost to Fred's team and once in Toronto 2001 when we beat seed #15 (were seeded #114).

[jdonn]

I don't like letting teams choose their opponents. I don't much care how the seeds are chosen as long as it's reasonable, but everyone deserves the same random chance to play anyone else.

The other change I would make is to never have some 4 way matches and some 2 way matches in the same round. Have all either 2 or 3 or 4 way matches with some amount of byes. It's really unfair to teams in a 2 way when others get 4 ways.

As for the re-seeding I don't really mind how they do it. If someone is that good then they will either win enough to improve their own seeding, or be known by better players and get on a better seeded team, etc.

[the hog]

Cascade, on Mar 18 2010, 10:22 AM, said:

jjbrr, on Mar 18 2010, 03:14 PM, said:

An honest question:

Do you think the top players have a very good idea of who the foreign and/or junior players are for whom you think the current system is treating perhaps unfairly?

I mean if Team Precocious Somalian Juniors registers for the Vandy and gets a terrible seed despite being very, very good for their level of experience, do you think the Nickell captain would be able to accurately identify them as a team that deserved to be seeded much higher than they actually got and thus would avoid picking them? Are captains well equipped to make these kinds of decisions?

Obv this is all subjective... I'm just wondering if you think the captains are better barometers of skill than the system of seeding points, given the collective knowledge of the seeders and the potentially limited knowledge of the captain.

If they have Peter Gill on their team or giving them advice they will.

I would certainly agree with this. I would find it difficult to think of a better captain.

[fred]

xcurt, on Mar 18 2010, 11:38 PM, said:

jjbrr, on Mar 17 2010, 09:14 PM, said:

An honest question:

Do you think the top players have a very good idea of who the foreign and/or junior players are for whom you think the current system is treating perhaps unfairly?

Looking over the rosters I would guess that #30 (team Poland) and #42 (more or less team Argentina) are probably underseeded by 5-10 places.

As it happens #30 went out to Fred's team and #42 went out to Justin's team, so maybe they can comment on whether they felt they had a particularly tough draw for that stage of the event.

Yes, I think our round-of-32 draw was especially tough. IMO the team we faced was arguably one of the best 10 teams in the Vanderbilt. That being said, playing on a 4-man team in such a tough event after having to travel through something like 10 time zones would be a pretty serious handicap for most players (certainly including me).

In last year's Vanderbilt we played the Chinese (ladies) Team that won the Venice Cup in the round-of-64. A few years ago we had to play a very strong Israeli team in the round-of-64.

The problem of how many seeding points to give to foreign experts is a very difficult and contentious one.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[xcurt]

sathyab, on Mar 23 2010, 02:55 AM, said:

xcurt, on Mar 17 2010, 08:01 PM, said:

* for R64, in general, there is a significant difference between being in the low forties than the high forties
* for R32, there is  a significant difference between being about 12 or higher, vs 13 or lower

I am not sure I agree with your assertion about seeds below 40 being significantly better than their counterparts above 40. In the last three big team events I have always played on teams seeded 66 or worse and yet beaten seed #26, #29 and #25 in Nashville, Washington D.C and last week in Reno. Unfortunately all these were 4-way matches and we were seed #62, #64 and #63 going into the second day. Had we had the chance to play these teams in 64-board matches I have little doubt that we could have beaten them and acquired their seeds. That happened only twice, once in Las Vegas when we lost to Fred's team and once in Toronto 2001 when we beat seed #15 (were seeded #114).

Sorry, I should have been clearer. The step in the function strength[seed] is about #20. Therefore, if you are in the low forties, you can avoid one of the top-20 teams for another round. About #45 and above are playing one of the teams that, typically, consists of full-time professionals plus a sponsor. Assume equal talent between the first non-full-time-pros team (probably #27 -- and I know those guys and they can certainly play with anyone) and the last pro-client team (#24 DRIJVER). Drijver et al have a significant advantage simply because they play bridge all the time.

[Jlall]

The argentinians were certainly better than most seeded around them, they played very well and we had a low scoring match where we won some lucky big swings (like slams on a hook etc going our way).

It was funny cuz I have plauyed versus carlsop a ton online and the other 2 won the national imp pairs.

That being said the 41 and 40 seeds pulled off some big upsets, and they wer ethe 42 seed, so it's not the worst draw ever. I'd still rather any other team around them other than the 40 seed (consisting of my former partner DRG, and a bunch of youngish playuers)

[Jlall]

that said we got relatively good draws after that, even though the french crushed us in the round of 16 by playing very well, they're better than an average draw we can expect in that round. Basically its just a sickkkkkkkkkk event.

[sathyab]

The_Hog, on Mar 16 2010, 07:25 PM, said:

Phil, what's the problem? If you want to win the event, and I assume you do, you have to play top teams along the way. Wouldn't you rather play agains Lavazza or whatever than Fred Nerk anyway?

Every time we have a sensible debate about such a topic or try to have one, there's the usual mandatory post such as this one. Let's ask the finalists in Vanderbilt the same question: you have to beat the #1 seed between day 2 and day 7 anyway, so why don't you play against the #1 seed on Day 2 ? In fact let's ask the #1 seed if they would prefer playing against #64 on Day 2 or say #12 ? There're lots of teams with varying skills between #1 and #64 and it does matter to some of us that we have to face #1 or #2 very early on whereas if we had the chance to play a team in the high 20's we might easily prevail, as we do in 4-way matches quite often.

[awm]

Sometimes there are advantages to being a particular seed that may not be apparent.

This especially comes into play because there are some very good teams with relatively bad seeds.

If the four-way seeds were re-arranged the way Phil suggests, there would sometimes be an incentive for a team to throw their "first half" match so as to emerge from the process with a different seed and obtain a better draw. Note that emerging with a "worse seed" could in fact be more favorable depending on the other teams in the bracket. The current system tends to remove this incentive.

Another observation is that teams with sponsors often tend to play the sponsor throughout the "first half" of a four-way match. This way the sponsor gets to play his full share of boards regardless of whether the team has to play the "second half" or not. It also means that if the team loses the "first half" they can sit the sponsor out (fielding a stronger team) the entire "second half" to maximize their chance of advancing. The upshot is that beating a team in the "first half" means you beat their weaker lineup in a shorter match; it is really not equivalent for seeding purposes to beating the team head-to-head.

[Phil]

awm, on Mar 24 2010, 03:54 PM, said:

If the four-way seeds were re-arranged the way Phil suggests, there would sometimes be an incentive for a team to throw their "first half" match so as to emerge from the process with a different seed and obtain a better draw.

Then you misread my suggestion.

Reseeding after Day 1 has nothing to do with who you beat on Day 1. It has everything to do with with your relative ranking with the other 63 teams that survived.

[awm]

It's actually very unclear what your suggestion is. Reading your posts, it seems like at various points you are advocating any of:

(1) Beating the #25 seed in the first half of a four-way match should allow you to take over that seed.

(2) The field should be "reseeded" based on seeding points prior to the round of 64.

(3) The top-seeded teams should be allowed to select their opponents from the bottom half of the field, at least in the earlier rounds.

Obviously these three suggestions have little in common with each other. In response to each of them:

(1) I already replied to this; beating someone in a four-way is not the same as beating them head-to-head.

(2) This would mean that a large fraction of the field has no idea who they will play the next day until the last match completes, because of the ripple effect when a team wins and it pushes the whole field's seeds down a step. Since there is some need to prepare for the next opponent this might be a hassle. It also takes the directing staff surprisingly long to do seeding and might create more overhead than you'd expect.

(3) This creates a huge amount of extra work, as well as meaning no one knows who they will play until after the "breakfast" the next morning.

[Phil]

awm, on Mar 28 2010, 11:54 AM, said:

It's actually very unclear what your suggestion is. Reading your posts, it seems like at various points you are advocating any of:

(1) Beating the #25 seed in the first half of a four-way match should allow you to take over that seed.

(2) The field should be "reseeded" based on seeding points prior to the round of 64.

(3) The top-seeded teams should be allowed to select their opponents from the bottom half of the field, at least in the earlier rounds.

Obviously these three suggestions have little in common with each other. In response to each of them:

(1) I already replied to this; beating someone in a four-way is not the same as beating them head-to-head.

(2) This would mean that a large fraction of the field has no idea who they will play the next day until the last match completes, because of the ripple effect when a team wins and it pushes the whole field's seeds down a step. Since there is some need to prepare for the next opponent this might be a hassle. It also takes the directing staff surprisingly long to do seeding and might create more overhead than you'd expect.

(3) This creates a huge amount of extra work, as well as meaning no one knows who they will play until after the "breakfast" the next morning.

Adam:

- I never advocated #1. Not once. Others did.

- I have said in several places, both explicitly and implicitly that I like #2

- #3 was just an 'interesting idea.

As far as your beef about #2 and 'teams preparing' for the 'ripple effect' do you really think any of the top seeds stay up and watch the results of the 4-ways so they can prepare for Day 2 against what usually amounts to playing a relative unknown?

On a side note, I hate the idea of giving any team a bye on D1. Stamina seems to be an important factor in these long KOs.

[JanM]

Phil, on Mar 28 2010, 12:12 PM, said:

On a side note, I hate the idea of giving any team a bye on D1. Stamina seems to be an important factor in these long KOs.

No one likes byes, but every alternative that has been tried has been worse. Something like the Rosenblum approach might be better but is inconsistent with the concept held by many that a KO is a KO is a KO.