Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Mike Cassel
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
http://acbldistrict22.com/D22/DIR/GNT/gnt.php

long live Henry Bethe
every imp counts

you just gotta shake your head at all of the procedural gaffes.
was the moon in Scorpio last weekend in opposition to Venus?
June 3
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've said way way too much already… including something about ‘common law precedent’ up up above somewhere.

I could go along with your dog logic if other condo neighbors sharing a common forced air system had no allergy issues with pet dander. If a big majority of previous final day contestants thought they were playing W/L contravening the stated CoC, and the team who nominally won via VPs acceded to precedent… that would be very cool.

CoCs don't ‘talk about’. They state that imps will be converted to VPs in a RR. It's not illegal. reference the downthread link to Keith's post.

So much energy has already been expended. I wouldn't want to track down all prior 3-team finalists to mine their memories for past practice.

You can be a czar too. What's your solution?
June 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It wasn't a KO.
In previous three-team finals it may have been misunderstood as one.
All the procedural hiccups aside, the event,
ACCORDING TO VALID CONDITIONS OF CONTEST,
called for the net imps from the matches to be converted to VPs.

If I was the czar I would
1. Demand accurate match scores
2. Apply the appropriate VP scale
3. Name the team with the most VPs the district champion.
4. Give the aggrieved team $2,000 to spend in Las Vegas in other NABC events. (Alan Frank suggested this.. but after a playoff)
5. Apologize for the time and energy so many lovers of the game have spent trying to sort the mess out.
6. Promise more clearcut CoC and procedures down the road.

did anyone read Keith Wells' statement?
At all of the other levels (club, unit and District), the event sponsors are welcome to select any team event method they would like to use - Swiss, Knockout, Multi-phase Swiss into a KO, even Board A Match if they so desire.

http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/a-gnt-debacle-too-many-winners/?cj=812232#c812232
June 3
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jonathan,

both you & I are outsiders. It's not our bailiwick much as you would like to insert yourself into.

the CoC, as distasteful as they are, ARE VALID. The day was supposed to be scored as imps converted to VPs. I was curious what the actual VP totals look like.

There were many procedural issues that completely gum up the works. You seem to think the ACBL can swoop in to make their event a KO. IT WASN'T.

Guidance to the sponsoring organization for next year? Sure
Sending the TD to the gulag for re-education. Maybe… why be punitive? I'm sure he regrets his lack of preparedness and the ‘slings & arrows’ that have been flying.

Guidance does not equate to overturning a valid, if very flawed result. How many years did you coordinate your district's GNT event? What part of "by means of a fair competition that is not necessarily the same from district to district” don't YOU understand?

D22 did not want a 4th finalist to go home empty-handed. They wanted a nice MP award for reaching day 2 and finishing 3rd. They CHOSE the language converting the event from W/L to VPs. THEY WERE ENTITLED TO DO THAT.

I like both you and Don M. Both of you have given years in service to the game and have a certain ‘je ne sais quoi’ from your perches as former district BOD reps. But I think both of you are out of line re. if you think the ACBL's has jurisdiction to overturn a flawed, if valid, GNT district final result.

hmm. Maybe you should ‘give it up’. I'm going to stand up for the rights of the sponsoring organizations who get no financial support from the league, who are granted the ability to design their GNT district finals as best suits their district given time, distance, and other logistic concerns.

'free reign' and ‘anarchy’ YIKES!
June 3
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
By what margin did Kolesnik beat Hiestand?
How do you know Kolesnik won using VPs.
Apologies if that match result was posted somewhere. I didn't see it?
June 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“hit this issue in the Bulletin”
pls explain
June 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
An off the wall idea for reducing RR variance:
Use preduplicated boards from an IMP pair national final from the mists of time.
Adjust each team's imp score based on the ‘datum’ from that event.

Your raw imp differential from the actual match gets a boost when you beat the average score derived from play across a large number of tables.


better yet… no more three way finals
June 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you for the OP
Can you explain:
“A seven-team qualifying round robin to proceed into an eight-team KO, with two teams qualifying out of the round robin based on VP totals.”

I don't want to bring the travails of the other topic into this one, except to say there is a lot of contentiousness about whether a RR that determines a single overall winner is a knockout and/or if the general structure of that district's event is/was/or should be a knockout.

The comments above re. the impossibility of using the same boards in a 3-way and the variance that ensues is critical. Haven't we all bemoaned our fate competing for a VP swiss title in the last round as the event leader playing against an arch rival top team, playing them to a close win or loss, only to see someone a bunch of VPs behind us rack up a blitz.

this actually happened to us at the Gopher Regional in the Saturday Stratiflighted Swiss. The pro team's 50 imp blitz over an ‘X’ enabled them to overcome their 9VP deficit passing the A teams contesting a close one in the last round.

Any serious team event ought to strive for preduplicated boards and avoid 3-ways. If semifinal losers go home without a fat MP award its the rub of the green.

Leave the RRs to the penultimate.. or pre-penultimate rounds.
June 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, based on the recently posted Flight A results, one facile resolution isn't happening.
The A team captained by Shailesh Gupta finished second in a 4 team RR scored with VPs missing the top spot by 3 VPs. Four teams played a RR. 6 matches with 20VPs available.
https://live.acbl.org/event/1906622/D22A/4/summary

There will be no abdication of the Open title, assuming they get to keep it, so that the Gupta team can go to Vegas as the Flight A champions.
June 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
check your email tonite. i will research the timeline.
June 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
ok Art we can disagree
I can tell you for a FACT that the ACBL read my conditions of contest and did not approve them.
The reason they didn't had to do with their conception of FAIRNESS

The ACBL CoC state: “each ACBL district will name a district champion in each category by means of a fair competition that is not necessarily the same from district to district”

You certainly must surmise that I have a great passion for the GNTs and am fiercely protective of a sponsoring organization's (district's) rights in the face of zero support for the event by the ACBL.

You might ask Sherry Terraciano, the ACBL Special Events staff, when, if ever, the ACBL was merely a recipient of and not reviewer of a district's CoC.
June 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
20% of each districts Grass Roots Fund Raise is withheld by the ACBL for redistribution. Before the redistribution takes place the GNT entry fees for the one or two days that the district's teams played the previous summer are deducted.

This is the latest 2018 GRFd distribution

DISTRICT #Gross Collected Net of GNT Paid Direct to
Amount Entry Fees Entry Fees Districts = 80%
1 5,164.00$ 272.00$ 4,892.00$ 3,913.60$
2 2,244.00 340.00 1,904.00 1,523.20
3 12,090.50 374.00 11,716.50 9,373.20
4 5,977.00 408.00 5,569.00 4,455.20
5 3,348.50 221.00 3,127.50 2,502.00
6 8,374.00 442.00 7,932.00 6,345.60
7 50,194.50 408.00 49,786.50 39,829.20
8 2,672.50 272.00 2,400.50 1,920.40
9 36,528.00 476.00 36,052.00 28,841.60
10 12,882.50 425.00 12,457.50 9,966.00
11 5,500.00 476.00 5,024.00 4,019.20
12 4,305.50 612.00 3,693.50 2,954.80
13 6,200.00 442.00 5,758.00 4,606.40
14 6,333.00 476.00 5,857.00 4,685.60
15 1,655.50 204.00 1,451.50 1,161.20
16 21,710.00 442.00 21,268.00 17,014.40
17 9,578.00 476.00 9,102.00 7,281.60
18 3,870.40 204.00 3,666.40 2,933.12
19 2,699.20 374.00 2,325.20 1,860.16
20 3,306.00 374.00 2,932.00 2,345.60
21 2,374.00 510.00 1,864.00 1,491.20
22 7,964.00 544.00 7,420.00 5,936.00
23 780.00 374.00 406.00 324.80
24 1,362.00 408.00 954.00 763.20
25 15,419.50 374.00 15,045.50 12,036.40

Districts with 3 successful teams get ‘docked’ as much as $612
So, free to the players.. paid (collected) from a district's Grass Roots Funds
June 2
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Your team captain has been competing in Florida since Monday this week. Who is representing your team's interest in working toward a resolution in these matters?

Your district's CoC has a section “Applicable Authority”. One would assume “In emergency situations only… the District Director (or his designee) may on his own make decisions consistent with the spirit of these conditions of contest.”

One might expect that the affected teams would be a party to the decisions being considered, but in all of this brouhaha, no one claims to be involved in the resolution…
Not that they owe the BW community any explanation. Only Phil has hinted that something is coming.
June 2
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Points of Information

Entry fees are not free for the GNT, your district pays for them. (I don't know if the ACBL retains extra funds for five & six player teams)
Each district's Grass Roots Fund raise is reduced by the amount of GNT National Final entry fees in the three lower flights for the first two days
It is free insofar as the Flight A, B, & C players are not charged an entry fee for Wednesday's Swiss or Thursday's KO if they play well enough Wed. to reach the KO phase.



If, in an altered universe, that treated Mike's suggestion as reasonable, the Open Flight entrants would be responsible for $30/session/day/player.
June 2
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why not start a new topic? I wasn't an ACBL member when VPs became popular overtaking W/L for scoring Swiss Teams. For that matter I wasn't around when BAM scoring gave way to IMPs.

I can't figure out what you are talking about. You can run a KO via W/L with imp quotients or net imps or whatever to break ties.
You can decide to employ VPs. Why would you try to create a hybrid that scores by VPs but give extra weight to wins? Go left or go right but don't go left and right. Doesn't the 30VP scale give extra weight to a small win? Why tinker with a 20pt scale?
June 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
"Updated with VP scales 5/31/19“ might have allayed concerns. The addition makes sense considering that two flights of their GNT district finals are being held this weekend.

Ed, I'm pretty sure ”common law precedent“ should NOT be applied.
If previous day 2 finals contested among three teams was not scored as IMPs converted to VPs doesn't mean that this year's results should reflect previously unfollowed, if commonly understood, procedure.

”But that's not how we did it in, e.g. 2016", carries no weight in the face of black & white language re. RR conversion of IMPs to VPs.

The combined experience of final day contestents from previous years should inform the GNT coordinator in revising D22's CoC for next year.

It is important to have the players weigh in on revisions. In D14 the expressed wishes of Flight C players led to a change from a 4-session event to a 2-session GNT district final.
June 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
http://acbldistrict22.com/D22/DIR/GNT/2018/D22_GNT_2016-2018_COC.pdf

when i went to the acbl website for CoC I got directed to the district website and didn't find them.

It's perfectly understandable that “hold all tickets” for this race happened
I hope cooler heads will prevail and an equitable resolution found.

If an aggrieved team appeals the district's attempts and gets the ACBL involved that will be unfortunate imo.
Aside from some necessary education/re-education for the DIC I think the league should let the sponsoring organization work on a solution first.
June 1
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I cannot speak to how the CoCs were interpreted in the past. It is conceivable that they were ignored, or that the results were immaterial because, in the years there WERE three teams competing, there was no conflict in ascertaining the winning team.

D22 has clearly stated procedures that are valid, approved by the ACBL by virtue of their posting, over years, as the CoC for their event. There is no common law precedent that means that scoring should be W/L, aka KO style, because that's how we all thought it meant in the past.

Issues to be resolved include lack of an imp scale in the CoC, lack of clearcut instructions by the DIC at commencement of play on day 2, and availability or lack thereof of CoCs to review.

The DIC was clearly insufficiently prepared: I would have sought clarification of how to score a three-team RR, (you, in fact, helped our Open Flight RR on day 1 run more efficiently). This person knew, at commencement of play on Saturday that there would be three teams qualifying for Sunday. It was troubling that the issue of imp scale popped up at the end of the day after a woefully inadequate switcheroo.

One captain claimed to know that the event would be imps converted to VPs but didn't inquire about the VP scale. How do you strategize for the second half of the day if you don't know where you stand VP-wise at the midpoint?

All of these issues can be resolved locally. It was suggested that the issue could become moot if the declared winner also won this week's Flight A event.

I do not see this as a situation for the ACBL to step in and try to resolve unless the parties involved cannot come to their own satisfactory resolution.

The experience is certainly a ‘teachable lesson’ for sponsoring organizations, GNT coordinators and ACBL-assigned DICs in future GNT district finals.
June 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
don

there have been plenty of pronouncements that you cannot run a three team RR on imps converted to VPs

anarchy has nothing to do with it. D22 submitted GNT CoC. the language has been in previous CoCs. They aren't making it up as they go along and they aren't doing something in direct violation of ACBL regulations.
June 1
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jonathan asked “Should there not be repercussions when organizers and TDs make mistakes?”

I would agree that the league has a responsibility owing to its role assigning a DIC for the event. I have no idea what repercussions you'd employ for the organizers.
no question but that finding out the result changed when you are no longer at the event… and you left thinking you'd won is AWFUL.

If the team captains, D22 GNT coordinator, D22 ACBL Board rep., and DIC cannot agree to a resolution, possibly after consultation with the DIC's field supervisor, then the ACBL will be forced to step in.

I still contend that this is a district's issue to resolve… before the ACBL comes in to take control of an event that they sanction, but do not run.

It Would make sense for the ACBL to review the proceedings and attendant confusion with a mind to helping future GNT DICs and GNT coordinators for that matter, to adequately prepare and conduct district final competitions.

If I complain that an ACBL event was run improperly to someone in Horn Lake I would hope they would direct me back to the sponsoring organization and/or district officials first.

Invalidating a result after agreeing to a district's CoC is what I was referring to as an overreach.
June 1
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 1
.

Bottom Home Top