Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Mike Cassel
1 2 3 4 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ... 88 89 90 91
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, 2019
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, 2019
Mike Cassel edited this comment May 31, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
Mike Cassel edited this comment May 31, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
Mike Cassel edited this comment May 31, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
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, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
y must have fatfingered
May 30, 2019
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, 2019
Mike Cassel edited this comment May 30, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
After finally seeing the district CoC I am going to have to change my tune:

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.)

Evidently a team which wins both matches on the final day is not the winner. The size of the entry field called for a round robin and RRs call for imp differentials to be converted to VPs.


The relevant issues then are
1. no identified VP scale for the match length. So who is changing the scales.
2. no agreement on the final imp score in the critical match
3. a claim that the conditions of contest for day 2 were not adequately understood
4. Conditions of contest were not clearly available.
5. The DIC did not inform the finalists that they were not playing a KO, but a RR with match imps converted to VPs.

Team captains bear responsibility for knowing what the CoC are, even in the face of confusion.
Team captains ought to confirm the match scores at the conclusion of play.
Winning captains usually report the result.

The team that claims to be the winner ought to be able to produce their match scores to confirm the results. Cripes there are four of them on each team and they ought to have some idea of what discrepancies exist and how to resolve them.

This is a situation without an easy solution. I think the two team captains, in the interest of fairness, need to work together with the DIC and GNT coordinator to sort it out.
May 30, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
that is certainly untrue. at the point that play was curtailed he did not know the spades were 4-1.

Just another example that less experienced players are better off playing a hand to a clear conclusion rather than claiming when it only seems to be clear, but isn't.
May 30, 2019
Mike Cassel edited this comment May 30, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
He KNEW the J was a loser. That is all you need to know. Not winning the first ruffing finesse was pretty weird, no? Declarer had every reason to suspect the K was on his left. Play of the third heart would definitely clarify the heart layout, right?!!

You cannot lose a trick you cannot lose (spades)
May 30, 2019
Mike Cassel edited this comment May 30, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Someone evidently decided that, if a seven team event will only pay 3 overall places, it didn't make a lot of sense to qualify 4 teams for the second day because someone will lose both matches and be shut out of all but match awards from day 1.

I believe most reasonable folk will agree that this arrangement is less than desirable.

In our district we'd be overjoyed to get a fifth team so that we can pay an award for 2nd place in the Open Flight. Carving out Flight A from the Open Flight in a small population district with a big geographic footprint did not serve D14 well. Ah, but who cares about equity when it comes to the GNTs?
May 30, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In our universe :)
1 either gets to choose from 3 or 4 or
1 gets to choose any of the others or
the semifinal draw is random

If qualifying play reduces the field to 4 teams, the #1 seed chooses between seeds #3 or #4 for their semi-final match.
http://web2.acbl.org/documentLibrary/play/coc/gnt/14.pdf

Small-Bracket Knockout Teams: What to Know
A Better Descriptor: RRKOs
. The top seed from qualifying day may choose their semifinal opponent.

• Knockout events shall have random draw throughout with no duplicated matches until the semifinals or finals. Playbacks are to be avoided as long as possible.
http://www.acbldistrict14.org/district.html tournament policies


The length of the qualifying event matches, the structure of the semifinal and final KO, and the rights of the second place team from day 1 qualifying vary between the different events:

GNT where the second place team gets consideration (can't be chosen to play #1 in semifinal)
4 session KOs where playbacks don't happen until SFs or finals
small-bracket RRKOs where the top team gets to choose among the other three
May 30, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
from the ACBL Special Conditions of Contest for the GNT

ACBL rules and regulations govern play at every level of the event and supersede district conditions in cases of conflict.
http://web2.acbl.org/documentLibrary/play/coc/gnt/GNT2018-19.pdf

This unfortunate ___________ should have an easy disposition. I think that any team nominally declared the winner who recognizes that another team was undefeated in finals play should gracefully abdicate.

Having served over a decade as our district GNT coordinator I've made a number of changes in our CoC based on feedback from players over the years. I cannot conceive of running a district final without putting the current CoC into the hands of the DIC and having copies available before the event begins of the CoC for players to review.

I find it a bit surprising that players in the event wouldn't be clear about day 2 and the scoring before the 3-way (Really?? a 3-way) commenced.

Getting to the second day can be a challenge if you've started poorly on day 1. You take chances to close a large deficit. We eliminated carryover into day 2 because your strategy on day 1 is only to Q for day 2. You should not be punished/burdened with a large c/o deficit if your tactics worked to get you there, but left you with a large imp loss against a team you might be facing in a KO semifinal or final.

I'm sure John feels badly. In my limited experience with him at the GNT/NAP Coordinator forum he IS one of the good guys.
May 30, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3 = limit+ for ?
I like
2N> 3
3>3
3 constructive raise
3 competitive

You can confirm a fit showing bid after a transfer by raising spades
May 29, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
what about this is rare?
I'm more concerned that an experienced world class pair doesn't know what they are doing.
They surely face Multi where the opening 2 might be an even weaker weak 2.
Surely they know their sequences in response to strong takeouts. I would think that some form of strength clarifying bids are needed. Wouldn't lebensohl come into play here as well?

lebensohl, rubensohl, transfer lebensohl, even Herbert

You can talk, you can bicker.
You can talk, you can bicker.
You can talk, talk, talk, talk
You can bicker, bicker, bicker.
You can talk all you wanna,
But it's different than it was.
CHARLIE:
No, it ain't, but you gotta know the territory.

Music Man - Rock Island Lyrics
May 18, 2019
1 2 3 4 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ... 88 89 90 91
.

Bottom Home Top