Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Mike Cassel
1 2 3 4 ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ... 88 89 90 91
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, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 2, 2019
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, 2019
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 2, 2019
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, 2019
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 2, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 1, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 1, 2019
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, 2019
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 1, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 1, 2019
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, 2019
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 1, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 1, 2019
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, 2019
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 1, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 1, 2019
1 2 3 4 ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ... 88 89 90 91
.

Bottom Home Top