Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Mike Cassel
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve,

that doc did not cite the original source
http://web2.acbl.org/documentLibrary/laws/ComparableCallsGuide.pdf

for that matter we do not know who penned the doc for the ACBL
June 28
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve
https://www.bridgewebs.com/comoxvalley/ComparableCallsGuidelines-November2017.pdf

E Deals
South opens 1♥ out of turn,
not accepted by West
W N E (Dlr) S
1♥
-------------------------
W N E (Dlr) S
1♠ ?


South opens 1♥ out of turn with East as dealer, not
accepted by West. East opens 1♠. 2♥ would be a
comparable call for South, but double would not.
Double is not a subset of 1♥ openings, and the
distributional differences between the two calls are
too much to deem them “similar”.
June 27
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I really don't know why we are polluting a thread which is focused on persistently confusing reporting in the small bracket regional RRKOs which has been known as ‘mini-Soloway’ KOs

The confusing, as written, CoC in D22 may or may not have been a knockout competition. It was dependent upon the size of the initial field. This year there were 7 teams.

A RR was played, much like the mini-Soloways we are describing in this thread. Whereas we might expect that the RR qualifying day would produce four teams for a KO SF, as is done here…

D22 was VERY SPECIFIC. From an original seven, three teams will qualify for a second day, a 60 board three-way to be scored in two 30-board matches. The net imps from each match were to be converted to VPs and the team with the most VPs at the end of the day would be the Open Flight champion.

I believe that you cannot call this arrangement a KO.
I happen to almost certainly KNOW that it won't be continued. D22 has been studying other district CoCs and coming to a power of 2 for the second day is ubiquitous.
June 27
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Porky Pig KO looks like it didn't get set up right. No round 2 qualifiers in the menu.
Road Hog KO looks perfect.
June 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Adjective Bridge

fun for holiday parties
not for sanctioned games
June 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
moved downthread
June 27
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On another thread I suggested inviting one of the teams in the second bracket to play up at no cost. Enjoy a full day of competing against strong opponents. If your luck is in you might find yourself in the KO semifinal.

Otherwise you run a 2-session, 4 team RR, using W/L. The event will only pay 1 overall place.
June 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The small bracket KO format works well when you cannot field 9 competitive teams in the top bracket.

You would not have a 5-bd match. Robert, in a small field if you suffered a slam swing leading to e.g. suffering a 6-14VP result, but you averaged 11VPs in your other 5 matches so that you were over average in VPs for the day wouldn't you have to end up in the top 4?

8 teams > 7 8-bd matches
7 teams > 6 9-bd matches (play 5 against each team in the second session, four in the first which usually starts a little late as the brackets are being set)
6 teams > 5 10bd matches

in our regional we do not play discrete matches. We play a half-match in each session. At the end of the day you convert each match on the 20pt scale. It has been suggested that if discrete matches are played you get to adjust your directions and lineups after every match. There is something to be said for that. OTOH, we like using preduplicated hands to avoid the variance in shuffle,deal, play.

I suppose it would be possible to have preduplicated board sets remain on the tables and have the teams move around the room, but have never tried to figure that kind of movement.

It would be a far different event if the 4 teams with the most net plus imps moved into the KO phase. I suppose you could do this, but I wouldn't.
June 26
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This small bracket 4-session KO does pays 4 overall places if the semifinal losers play for 3rd/4th. Russ Jones and Sol Weinstein explained how the MPs work.
http://web2.acbl.org/documentLibrary/about/HawaiiAgenda.pdf
When RR played to Q 4 teams to KO:

5 or 6 teams in RR
semifinal losers may play off for 3rd place
if played, 3rd pays 35% of 1st, 4th pays 20% of 1st
if not played, no ranks, both teams get 20% of 1st

7 or 8 teams in RR
semifinal losers may play off for 3rd place
if played, 3rd pays 45% of 1st, 4th pays 35% of 1st
if not played, no ranks, both teams get 20% of 1st

9+ teams in RR
semifinal losers need not play off, both are 3/4
if played, 3rd pays 45% of 1st, 4th pays 35% of 1st

The sponsor may stipulate that, as a condition of contest, the 3/4 playoff exists.
If the sponsor so stipulates, and one team pays to play but the other team forfeits,
ranks and awards for 3rd and 4th apply as if played, by RR size, as above."
June 26
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is a technique to get this reporting done properly. It OFTEN is not done properly. Rich N. pointed out that I was able to get text results from day 1 at the Gopher Regional, but the game file for day 1 did not produce qualifiers that I could use in the daily bulletin.

If you look at how Rick Beye handled the Champaign IL KO the same week in May you will see that he coded the event in such a fashion that the qualfiers after the first day post properly.
https://live.acbl.org/event/1905045/231A/2/qualifiers

You can also view the day 1 RR bracket:
http://bridgefinesse.com/ACBLLive/R1905045231A2Swiss.htm

I spoke with Keith Wells about this. It has something to do with casting the event as “multi-phase”. I was concerned that the teams that did not Q for the second day were not receiving their match awards. Although you don't see their match awards on ACBL Live if the “multi-phase” thingy isn't set up properly, the match awards do come through for the players if they look up their own MP history
https://live.acbl.org/event/1905045/231A/2/summary

If done correctly you can look at results after either the 2nd or 4th session. If not done correctly, you only see 4th session (final) results.

ACBL Field Supervisors should obtain the sequencing that Rick Beye follows to set up the ‘Mini-Soloway’ RRKOs and send the instructions flowsheet to all DICs who are running the small bracket 4-session KOs
June 26
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In my discussion two weeks ago with John Kissinger he was not aware of the continuous VP scale. Neither was the DIC. I sent John the link to the Appendix K formula. He rapidly produced an excel file and emailed it to me. I would have no idea how to do this.
IIRC John told me that Scott did not have access to the 20VP scale for a 30-bd match at his fingertips.
I suppose ACBLScore will produce an appropriate scale for printing.
It will not produce a scale for continuous VPs.
If you have an internet browser you can produce a continuous scale using https://woefulwabbit.com/wbf-vp/
June 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
WA 1984 was my first NABC. And MIT? students were cheating in the Spingold. Made me think of “head shoulders knees and toes” LOL. SICK! It was an exciting introduction to a tournament with hundreds milling about talking a language I barely knew but wanted to learn.

George changed the world. And helped inform ours. We were and are blessed by his contributions.
June 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
if you put {code} inside the brackets on the front of your list and {/code} inside the brackets at the end.
the output will be justified and look a lot better
use the square lower case bracket not the Shift brackets

0 10 10
1 10.23 9.77
2 10.45 9.55
3 10.67 9.33
4 10.89 9.11
5 11.1 8.9
6 11.31 8.69
7 11.52 8.48
June 21
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
if they'd used the 2014-15 CoC Schafer would have won.
my suggestion was that there was a clear differentiation between the iterations of the CoC that make it CLEAR that the new CoC called for converting imps to VPs in a three-way.

It wasn't a slip of the tongue or misinterpretation of custom or tradition.

I can assure you that Peg Kaplan would not have been playing in an event where she didn't know how the scoring would be conducted. I don't doubt people were confused. That there was no link to current CoC (and maybe not a 2018-19 update of the previous version) is really bad form. No one seemed to complain beforehand. The event proceeded.

Mass confusion upon hearing that VP would be employed. No one, since the fall of 2015 bothered to inform themselves? I feel badly for the contestants. They deserved better. But you still can't overturn the decision to award Gupta champion based on the application of an appropriate imp scale. That was the focus of the D22 committee.
June 21
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“after it's known how the choice will affect the result.”
The improper scale first used was for the much shorter Swiss matches the first day.
The scale applied Sunday night was a 20VP scale for matches of 28-36 boards.

Are you suggesting the DIC changed the scale so as to affect the result?
June 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peg,
same question as was posed to Mark:

Peg, let's say that you were the GNT Coordinator. You get a call on Monday morning demanding to know why Gupta was declared the winner when you ‘won’ both matches. The callers, and there are bunches of them, complain that there were procedural issues that would have been raised. not felt necessary the day before because they thought they'd won so the issue of opponent behavior problems was moot.

What steps would you take now?
June 21
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Would this help?

the 2014-15 CoC states:
Three team round robins are two sessions of 32 boards, with one survivor. For three team round robins, the scoring is by standard ACBL quotient.

starting with the 2015-16 CoC the language has changed:
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 seven team format was changed from 2 head to heads and one ring (RR) coming down to three to
A seven table RR using the AWL movement.

I don't think it is the role of outsiders to tell D22 that they don't know what they are doing. A conscious decision was made to NOT score the final day RR as a KO.

It's a pretty universal opinion, that present or not, the 2018-2019 GNT CoC were not clearly available online or at the playing site. It may be that the CoC were not updated. But the language that had been in place since the fall of 2015 hadn't changed.
June 21
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 21
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
.

Bottom Home Top