Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Mike Cassel
1 2 3 4 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 87 88 89 90
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Your Chief Illiniwek recaps look exactly right. Many other acbl live RRKO reports do not.
I'm going to find out what Rick Beye knows and does that so many others don't.
June 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The ‘Soloway’ RRKO format which was experimental and now authorized is a headache for both ACBLScore and ACBL Live.

Our Gopher Regional which ended six days ago, did not recognize the day one RR and its match awards for either of the 2-day, 4-session RRKOs. The teams that did not Q for the KO SFs did not receive match awards and there is no bracket showing who they played and how they did as you would normally see in a one day, 2-session Swiss.

Tournament DICs need to find a way to post the day 1 bracket just as if the event WAS one day. Then we wouldn't be wondering why a 4 team bracket was earning big MPs for all of them.

I don't think ACBLScore is set up to ‘dbadd’ 1/2time match awards from a RR or Swiss when day 2 is a KO SF and final. There must be workarounds.

In my Gopher bulletins I received text files of the first day results and pasted the four qualifiers into an html ACBLScore BUL command template from a previous year.
June 1
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Art,
I could be all wet, but I think the reason they call the 1 day bracketed RRs “Swisses” is because they award masterpoints based on the percentage of the matches you play.

It's not a Swiss in the sense that winners play winners and rounds are discrete.

In a compact KO you can only have 4 players. In this 1 day, 2-session event, you can have five or six players, but if you have a five, and two players each play one session, they are entitled only to 50% of the overall award, or, if the team did not hit the overalls, only the match awards for the matches they played and won.

I wish for a common nomenclature: Bracketed RR teams would be used. Leave Swiss out of it except for the proviso that a bracket of more than 9 teams WILL devolve into a 2-session Swiss, not a round-robin.

the D6 descriptor of the event is as good as I've seen
https://www.districtsixbridge.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Round-Robin-Fact-Sheet-.pdf

but doesn't really explain why the event isn't a Swiss.
June 1
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would have solicited one other team to play up in the top bracket as the guest of the tournament at no charge.
You get a day of free play, and probably lessons (if you ask for them) and bracket 1 gets a 2-day event legal event paying 4! OA places when the semifinal losers play off for 3rd/4th.
June 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It looks like the second and third brackets were confirming to the new RRKO format where the top 4 teams from a first day RR qualified to a 4-team KO semifinal and final.

With only 4 teams in the top bracket they probably should have played a RR rather than head to head. In any event, I don't think a 4 team event qualifies for two overall places.

Maybe there has been a change? Depth of field and its relationship to number of overall granted places is elucidated in the Masterpoint Plan. http://web2.acbl.org/codification/MPBOOK.pdf

DEPTH OF AWARDS – TEAM EVENTS
Tables Places

3-4 1
5-6 2
7-8 3
9-12 4
13-18 5
19 + 6
For more than 19 tables, additional awards will be given if the calculated
award is not less than one (1.00) masterpoint. The depth of the award is at
least 10% of the number of teams in the field, up to a maximum of 25% of
the number of teams in the field.
June 1
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Don,

the D22 CoC are what they are. Do you think the ACBL should tell D22 that they ran an illegal event after posting their CoC online for all to see?

I have no trouble with the ACBL making an announcement re. the outcome of this dispute. My quibble was with the notion that it is the league's role to investigate… and report “findings”.

One more thing

I see lots of slings & arrows toward organizers, directors, CoCs
and very little said about the responsibility of team captains to inform their teammates what the goal of the day is and how the event will be scored.

Making assumptions based on past experience doesn't cut it. And it doesn't matter a whit what Walt or Finn claim unless one of them was their team captain. Or for that matter Shailesh maybe. Was Shailesh a captain?
June 1
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
more than quibble with J Steinberg

IMO, The ACBL is not in a position to investigate. They certainly can make suggestions re. an acceptable resolution to a dispute.
This is a matter for D22 to resolve.
The ACBL can inform D22 that they will not invite multiple winners to Las Vegas.
It is NOT the role of the ACBL to announce findings.
The ACBL does not run district GNT finals. They approve CoCs.

Were they to invoke D22's clause
“ACBL rules and regulations govern play at every level of the event and supersede district conditions in cases of conflict.”

in effect, overriding the district's own stated CoC re. conversion of IMPs to VPs

I would consider that a serious overreach by the league.

The ACBL should stay out. They can extend or not extend an invitation to D22's designated champion. They can, if they choose to not extend an invitation, tell the district what they would have to change so that an invitation could be extended.
June 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Art
Why can’t you call it a VP elimination?
Or what they DID call it?
Or a KO match utilizing VPs instead of W/L.

Of course, a recent post suggests that one team's “win” became a tie when the length of the match turned a small win into a 10-10 VP tie.
June 1
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why didn't the director at commencement of play on the last day announce how the day's matches were going to be scored…
so everyone knew the conditions of contest.

This is what I can't comprehend.
June 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
normally I appreciate Alan's posts

District GNT coordinators are supposed to forward updated Conditions of Contest before October at the start of the next GNT cycle which begins every September 1.

GNT coordinators received this last August 22
"attached to this e-mail you will find the following information:

Grand National Teams 2018-2019 ACBL Conditions of Contest

These conditions of contest should be included in your district’s GNT conditions of contest and submitted to ACBL for approval by September 30, 2018. Please send by e-mail to SpecialEvents@acbl.org. The documents will be posted online here.


Its quite confounding to see so many opinions expressed by folks who are not GNT coordinators, don't know the procedures that GNT coordinators follow, and don't understand that district options that are considered “fair” don't necessarily equal the ACBL KO conditions of contest.

The ACBL provides zero financial support to the districts for the GNTs and lets district design district final competitions that best suit the individual district (as long as the competition is deemed fair)

Maybe opinions re. how to resolve this situation should be directed toward John Kissinger and/or David Lodge. I wouldn't expect either of them to be poring over bridgewinner threads to find an equitable resolution.

Assuming D22 has the resources, and they certainly do based on their assets, I do like the idea of providing a subsidy to the second team, whoever that is, to use in Las Vegas for other events. They would, of course, need to demonstrate they actually played in other events rather than at the roulette, or craps table.
May 31
Mike Cassel edited this comment May 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
the D22 CoC clearly state, first that

The District 22 GNT Finals are knockout team events scored by IMPs (and converted to VP’s when a team plays in a round robin.)
The ACBL Knockout Team Conditions of Contest apply to the conduct of this event.

Your contention then, is that their District final was not a legal event if the second day RR converted raw imps to VPs?

i'd joke “what part of district option do you not understand” but you'd come back with “ ACBL rules and regulations govern play at every level of the event and supersede district conditions in cases of conflict. ”

D22, for whatever reason, decided that their district final for a seven team field WOULD NOT END AS A KNOCKOUT. They have that option, based on a presumption/determination of fairness and the fact that the ACBL could have ruled their event did not meet guidelines, but didn't confirms the validity of their, obviously flawed?! option.

If you were running the show what would you do? I'm curious.
May 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“electing social media over judicial process for justice”
this is an overbid

I've created two threads this month based on desiring feedback from this community on appeals from various USBC competitions.
We, all the time, see ATB, YBTJ, and other queries to solicit opinions.

The OP started with inaccurate, at least incomplete, information.
Were there or were there not CoCs available?
Was there or was there not clear instructions on how the second day's event was to be scored?
Did or didn't the team captains know how the final day was being scored?

This vacuum was filled with all kinds of opinions and pronouncements, including mine.

Finally, the actual D22 CoCs were linked. John K's wife said copies were brought to the site.


We love to jump on our DICs for their shortcomings and this weekend was certainly a whopper. I've run district finals for over a decade and I can assure you that everyone knows what the goal is for each day in each flight.
The continuous VP scale for varying match lengths is an appendix to the CoC. This year our DIC asked me a number of questions where he was unclear what the CoC meant. I was impressed with his diligence.

This will become a learning experience for many. Strength through adversity?
May 31
Mike Cassel edited this comment May 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Art,
You are the guy that posted the ACBL's Special Conditions of Contest

You certainly read: "a fair competition that is not necessarily the same from district to district."

If D22 has decided that the final day contested among three teams by converting each longer match into a VP scale it IS their right… that is what they consider to be fair.

District GNT coordinators are not bound to follow ACBL KO conditions of contest if they decide the final day is not a KO.
You might not like it, I don't like it, but choosing the one team of three that garners the most victory points in a three-way RR is ‘fair’…at this point, to them.
May 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The ACBL has the authority to extend, or not extend, an invitation to the summer GNT finals to a district's championship team.
I do not think it is the ACBL's prerogative to intercede in D22's snafu.

If the ACBL does not feel that the situation is fairly resolved they can choose to invite either, both, or neither nominal champion.

I cannot imagine inviting both teams as other districts will cry foul that D22 gets 2 apple bites. Unless D22 is unable to resolve the problem I don't see the ACBL denying the district a team to represent them.

How we love to wade into affairs that are not ours
May 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“This is a team event in which 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.”

D22 has determined that a three team round robin day 2 final will convert net match imps to victory points.
That is their right.
We may think it unfair, but it's not our call.

The lack of communication, miscommunication, and lack of clear cut VP scales need to be addressed according to D22's procedures.

“Applicable Authority
District 22 GNT Coordinator and District Director Authority.
All ACBL tournament regulations, though not specifically included in these
conditions, apply throughout this event.
Unforeseen situations should be referred to the District 22 GNT Coordinator who will then consult with the District Director relative to the situation’s solution. Only in such unforeseen situations may the D22 GNT Coordinator, in consultation with the District Director (or his designee) make exception to these conditions.
In emergency situations only, e.g. at the district final, the District Director (or his designee) may on his own make decisions consistent with the spirit of these conditions of contest. The District Director has final authority on any item not specified in the Conditions of Contest”
http://acbldistrict22.com/D22/DIR/GNT/2018/D22_GNT_2016-2018_COC.pdf

David Lodge needs to wade into this. He can solicit input from the three teams competing, what their understandings were about the day 2 final scoring conditions. He can ask the DIC what announcements were made prior to the commencement of play. He can clarify how the change in the VP scale happened (originally employed for much smaller match lengths?).

I wish him the wisdom of Solomon.
May 31
Mike Cassel edited this comment May 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In an event that receives zero support from the ACBL, where districts design their own CoCs and have to come up with their own resources to subsidize travel for their GNT championship teams you want to schedule a second weekend paying ACBL director, hotel, per diem fees, so the eventual Open Flight winner is a truly championship caliber team?
May 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Don may be quite the historian but

I can state for a fact that an ACBL director reviewed my new GNT conditions of contest after the Honolulu revisitation of the motion to allow a SECOND TEAM in Flights B & C and refused to allow us to reward a team with no member holding 1500 masterpoints who played well enough on the qualifying day to reach the KO phase a chance to go to the summer GNT finals.

I cannot speak to other district-generated CoCs that may conflict with ACBL CoCs, but the GNTs allow for districts to have their own… up to a point.

The ACBL's ‘one size fits all’ posture has led to my resignation as district GNT coordinator after more than a decade. They liked and adopted our 4-session, small bracket KO proposal, but wouldn't consider that our district could promote and grow and sustain the game of bridge by encouraging lower echelon B teams to participate in this Special Event if they outperformed during the qualifying Swiss.

We ended up offering to handicap Flight B as a nominal, but inconsequential incentive, but accomplished B teams raised such a ruckus that the Executive Committee demanded that handicaps not be employed.

Now I hear that the Bridge Committee will be having a motion for Las Vegas will rule out handicaps in the GNTs.

Given the demographic challenges and declining table counts you'd think the league would be interested in ideas that could generate increased interest and participation in the GNTs. The disparity in experience between new LMs and Gold Rush graduates and teams with 2,000MPs is a disincentive to enter the event.
May 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What is kind of strange is that a nine team field, which would pay four overall places, also calls for only three survivors to the second day final.
May 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
y must have fatfingered
May 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It doesn't matter what makes sense. The district CoC clearly state that 7 teams qualify 3 for a RR. The RR converts the imp differential in each match to VPs.

Though not in keeping with ACBL KO CoCs the district is within its rights to adopt their own CoCs. The ACBL approves each district's CoC.

Of more concern is the confusion, the disappearance? of district CoCs and the failure of the DIC and/or tournament staff (GNT coordinator) to communicate how the winner of the second day will be determined including this business about IMP scales. The team captains bear some responsibility in communicating to their teammates what will determine the winner.

Quite a lesson to be learned here. I'll be curious to hear how it gets resolved.
May 30
Mike Cassel edited this comment May 30
1 2 3 4 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 87 88 89 90
.

Bottom Home Top