Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Mike Cassel
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So, you would ignore the CoC.
I can pretty much guarantee that the ACBL would not invite a team that did not win the event according to the stated CoC.

I was told has much when I pressed the issue of inviting a Bronze LM team who reached the KO phase of the Flight B GNT yet was a SF KO loser to be our district's second representative.

custom, tradition, precedent, and KOs in other district GNT finals do not trump black & white instructions in the D22 CoC. Shoulds and shouldn'ts don't overtake the rule of law, Mark.

Unjust maybe, but not a decision that can be overturned.
June 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can guarantee that D22 is on it. They sent a query to our new GNT coordinator with questions about format, correction periods,and how appeals are handled.

the insinuation by Barden “ to be determined after it's known how the choice will affect the result”
in effect saying that the scale was adjusted to alter the result is outrageous.

In fact, if a continuous VP scale had an example chart instead of a formula on the page where the integer scale chart for a 30 board match was found, the ‘true winner’ might, luckily, still have prevailed.

I had a conversation this week with Keith Wells. ACBLScore does not have the formula for the continuous scale built in so that you can just plug in the length of the match and print out the continuous scale.
June 21
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
AFAIK, and Special Events confirmed, the winning teams have been confirmed although many district rosters are yet to be posted online: https://live.acbl.org/special-event-roster/2018-19GNT

Pitiful is not the word I would have chosen

An injudicious, but evidently resolved result

Mark, let's say that you were the GNT Coordinator. You are informed at 10pm on Sunday by the DIC that the scale he used to assign VPs did not represent the actual match length. The DIC has recalculated and it turns out that the Gupta-Schafer match should have been a 10-10VP tie and now Gupta earned more VPs than Schafer. He updated the game files sent to the ACBL and ACBL Live now indicates that Gupta, not Schafer is the winner.

What do you do now?
June 21
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You cannot deny the D22 option to score the 3-way by converting the match imp scores to VPs.
Period.
End of controversy. D22, its intent is clear even if the language is inaccurate. Both days were RoundRobins scored by VPs.

LOL not, of course.
This chasm cannot be bridged.

If D22 had decided to score the final day using BAM scoring and crowning the team with the most board wins over the course of 60 boards the winner they could have done so.

There is no question but that the written CoC lack clarity. But the intent of running a three way by converting match imps to VPs is. And the ACBL is not in the position to come on top of a district's right to have screwy CoC. They let D22 produce a winner. They are supposed to according to both the ACBL Special conditions of contest and the D22 ‘Applicable Authority’ clause.

You can have the next/last word.
June 20
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Could the original OP have whistled by the censors and been reposted if a Ctrl-F Find and replace whoever with “Snidely Whiplash”?
June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
should've pronounced should of
June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On June 2 Keith Wells, on the original “Too Many Winners” thread posted

"if you have read the GNT Coc, then you will notice that the only phase of the event where the play conditions are described are for the National Finals. 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.“

https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/a-gnt-debacle-too-many-winners/?cj=812232#c812232

No amount of repetition of facts are evidently going to change your mind, nor those of a few others who refuse to understand that the sponsoring organizations are not the ACBL, they are the districts who can devise their own CoC. D22's CoC are clear that the final day, if contested between three teams, is not a KO and is not to be scored as W/L.

You may continue to assert that final authority means unfettered, but the actual language: ”the District Director (or his
designee) may on his own make decisions consistent with the spirit of these conditions of contest" belies your claim.
June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Chip Boyle has made a number of statements I take issue with:

“We played youse guys head-to-head and won by 3 IMPs. But the rules say we tied. The only explanation for the result is that it emanated from California.”
The issue of the VP scale has been discussed at length. Team Schafer scored 3 more imps than Gupta. But on a 20pt integer VP scale for 30 boards each team receives 10VPs. It's one reason why a continuous VP scale is employed in many of the more serious events.

“Well, Russ, my District Director (D7), with the unfettered final authority you have given him”
The ACBL Special Conditions of Contest state The District Director has final authority on any item not specified in the conditions of contest. The D22 CoC has a section called “Applicable Authority” which gives the D22 BOD member the authority to make decisions in unforeseen circumstances "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.

Nothing about this is unfettered.

“a District Director can, with a wink and nod, turn an ACBL mandated KO scored in IMPs into a Swiss scored in VPs.” The CoC are quite clear that a three-way will convert a match score into VPs. What does winking and nodding have to do with anything? THE EVENT WAS NOT A MANDATED KO SCORED IN IMPS

After devoting over a decade and thousands of hours of volunteer time working on and promoting the GNTs, fighting for its value, and advocating for changes that could make it a more meaningful event, I'm just another poster here looking at a lot of noise having to consider the Macbeth quote about sound & fury.

I have yet to be told who comprised the the designees for David Lodge, but I have been assured that no fewer than 5 dozen emails re. the real and imagined transgressions of the weekend WERE forwarded to the group. They are the persons responsible for interpreting the spirit of the CoC and making the determination of the winning team.

Their seemingly single-minded focus on getting the match scores converted to VPs so that a winner could be finalized while ignoring other potentially “meritorious” claims (the one Boyle post with more signal than noise) was unfortunate.

The D22 decision to ‘silo’ the relevant issues of DIC actions (or lack of actions) and questionable player behavior under the guise of “no correction period” is particularly unsatisfying.

It appears that this episode is all over but the recriminations.
I wish it weren't so.
June 19
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This comment has been marked as inappropriate by the moderator(s).
June 19
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you want to discuss the GNTs and how to make the event a true Grass Roots event start a new thread.

I would start by eliminating the Open Flight.
Focus on opportunities for CLUB players to earn trips to NABCs, not experienced NABC attendees who have already drunk the KoolAid
Recalibrate the flights
Gold flight (if necessary) =3K to 6 or 7.5K
Ruby flight =1,500 to 3,000
Bronze flight =500 to 1,500
Flight C NLM 0- 500 NLM

If there were only three flights in the GNTs districts would have more resources to offer less experienced players a larger award to attend NABCs as district champions. Having enjoyed the NABC experience they will come back for more. We need strategies to get Gold Rush graduates and Bronze/Silver LMs competing and the GNTs could be a vehicle to drive participation. The bottom rung of the current Flight B GNT ladder is too difficult a climb.

The secretary will disavow any of my further excursions on this topic in this thread. And recall that I did not raise the issue of handicaps in the GNT Flight B on this thread. Yes, it relates to format…tangentially.
June 19
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Evidently there was a link, but it was broken.
As best as I can tell there was a
2015-2016
2016-2017 and
2016-2018
2018-2019 didn't appear until May 31

none of the first three had an identifiable VP scale

last night I compared my ‘unrevised’ version to the revised.
Mike Bodell had reported on this on ‘too many winners’

there were other clarifications and changes beyond the VP scale addition.

These changes were not retroactively applied to the events of the prior weekend except
The DIC applied the integer scale for the longer matches late on Sunday night because he had initially used the scale for a short Swiss match.

As I've mentioned a number of times I believe he had a responsibility, based on Law 83, because there were irregularities during the Sunday matches that could have triggered the right to appeal that were not explored because the Schafer team didn't think they needed to be.
June 19
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
GOOD G*D ALMIGHTY

You people.
Incoherent and inconsistent are not illegal
You cannot twist the arm of the ACBL to declare that the final day three-way was a KO when

the CoC clearly identify that this day long 60 board competition will be scored by VPs. They believe that the team who does the best against each of the other teams deserves to be the Open Flight champion.

D22's stated intent, one that I sought explicit clarification from John Kissinger on, is CRYSTAL CLEAR. For D22 best is NOT winning both matches. It is garnering the most VPs. The fish you keep trying to fry have disintegrated.

Even the president of the ACBL as well as Keith Wells ratify the district's right to set flawed contest conditions.
http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/a-gnt-debacle-too-many-winners/?cj=812232

There are so many other substantive issues that raise concerns about the decision reached and you JUST KEEP HAMMERING AT A DEAD END ISSUE

Art,
you want to ignore me because a premise is flawed. yeah, i get it. You would crown a team that won both matches. So would I. But my premise is that the given CoC are allowable, even if flawed, and you cannot overturn the spirit of their conditions.

That is why I decried the naming of Gupta as winners… until I saw the odious language.
June 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peg,

There were 14 B teams and 7 Open Flight teams that weekend.

I do not know what CoC was available onsite on May 25-26.
A CoC was linked on May 30 on the original “Too Many Winners” thread.
It caused me to change my view because it included the language about the imp to VP conversion

I have not seen a CoC doc identifying the cycle 2018-2019 that existed before the May 31 revision.

I do not see the lack of an updated CoC as grounds to abandon the key language that had been in effect going back to the 2015-2016 published CoC.

I do think there are due process issues that could reopen the adjudication.

I further believe that if Russ Jones and the ACBL was sincere in stating “The league wants what is good and fair for our members in this event” that no invitation will be extended to the D22 Open flight until they are satisfied that the rights of the Schafer team to appeal have been adequately addressed.
June 19
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Per M. Kopera's D24

Item #6 or #8 should include the prescription that the GNT flyer shall include a live link to the upcoming CoC as well as the ACBL GNT Special Conditions of Contest
June 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ira,

Maybe none of us understand why, that even with an original field of 8 or 9 teams, D22 chooses to qualify only 3 teams to the final day so that all would come away with decent MP awards and no team would finish fourth and get essentially shut out.
They could pay 4 overall places… Did anyone question why they weren't Q'ing 4 teams with and original field of 8 or 9? Aren't the contestants also responsible for helping their district have a ‘BETTER PRODUCT’

I just don't understand why so many commentators assume that their CoC are a mistake or illegal. The unique aspect of the GNTs is that there are DISTRICT OPTIONS to create conditions that are supposed to work for their contestants.

As far as I can tell this is the third year with essentially the same structure and language. Flaws have been exposed in the CoC both in clarity and completeness. I think it is understandable that the lack of an appended victory point scale was a factor in the confusion about how the second day would be scored. Why, with VP language front and center, has no one ever asked about what scale is in use?

It does bother me, however, that almost everyone wants to point fingers at everyone except the players and team captains. If you don't understand what is meant ASK. If you don't bother to ask for and review the CoC before the event isn't some of the fault your own?

Nobody, in three years, sought clarification re. converting imps to VPs?
June 18
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Russ,

Perhaps, but I hope not.
When an ACBL screener reviews a district's CoC perhaps they can question language that is unclear or contradictory.

I agree with Art that the primary designators:

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.

are statements that seem at odds with each other.
June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Art,

Really….
Did you not state yourself that your D4 CoC had a 3-way anomaly?

REPEAT ALOUD TO YOURSELF THE FOLLOWING UNTIL IT GETS INTO YOUR CONSCIOUSNESS BECAUSE YOU AREN'T UNDERSTANDING WHAT HAS BEEN PUT UPON THESE PAGES TO READ:

The final day of the D22 GNT Open Flight was contested among three teams as a 60 board event. Thirty boards were played against each opponent. The imp score in each 30bd match was converted to VPs.
The team that performed the best by winning the most VPs in the two matches is the D22 Open Flight Championship team. IT WAS NOT A KO.

The final day of the D22 GNT Open Flight was contested among three teams as a 60 board event. Thirty boards were played against each opponent. The imp score in each 30bd match was converted to VPs.
The team that performed the best by winning the most VPs in the two matches is the D22 Open Flight Championship team. IT WAS NOT A KO.

The final day of the D22 GNT Open Flight was contested among three teams as a 60 board event. Thirty boards were played against each opponent. The imp score in each 30bd match was converted to VPs.
The team that performed the best by winning the most VPs in the two matches is the D22 Open Flight Championship team. IT WAS NOT A KO.

The final day of the D22 GNT Open Flight was contested among three teams as a 60 board event. Thirty boards were played against each opponent. The imp score in each 30bd match was converted to VPs.
The team that performed the best by winning the most VPs in the two matches is the D22 Open Flight Championship team. IT WAS NOT A KO.

Give it up, man.
June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One of the things that District 6 didn't do was have the GNT CoC sent to the ACBL
One of the things that District 6 did do REALLY WELL is address the issue of Applicable Authority front and center
at the top of the first page:

Immediate rulings on interpretations of these conditions and treatment of unforeseen situations will be based on the intent of the rule and may be made by the Grass Roots Committee Chair; the Chair may also choose to refer a question to the full Committee. Players who have questions or encounter problems interpreting the Conditions of Contest should contact the Chair. Any Grass Roots Committee member who is on a team that has an interest in a ruling shall be recused from deliberations and decisions about the ruling. The on-site tournament committee consists of all available members of the Grass Roots Committee and the District 6 representative to the ACBL Board.

Identifying the “Grass Roots Committee” as the authority accomplishes a couple of things:
takes a burden off of the GNT coordinator who may have biases and vested interests in the issue raised (assuming that the Chair & GNT coordinator are not the same person)
identifies a cohort of committee members who are probably qualified to make rulings in the case of unforeseen circumstances that are consistent with the spirit of the CoC.
June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There are clubs that now use robots to fill in when you have a half-table. In a similar fashion with robust internet access at your district final site you could have a movement with both live and virtual tables where offsite teams would be sitting.
You would have to have pre-registration and be willing to accept BBO's constraints and the logistical challenges of having enough tablets/laptops if there are multiple offsite teams registered.
D14 explored this, but the potential offsite teams backed away.

IIRC there were problems if three-way RRs were required. I was also unhappy that the three previous bids would not appear essentially simultaneously to eliminate potential tempo problems. Monitoring online play also requires extra volunteers.

Cheap venues can have bandwidth issues. Library hours may not jibe with your district final schedule. Computer labs can be expensive. Local schools or universities have their own issues if classes are still in session.
June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The longer the matches the more the cream rises to the top. If I were qualifying three teams to the second day I would run a two-session RR. I don't see the benefit of penalizing a team that might be down a few imps to each of the other teams at the half.
June 18
.

Bottom Home Top