Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Mike Cassel
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Art: A valid VP scale for the length of the matches were applied on Sunday night. The integer scale for the longer match turned a win for Kolesnik, probably 11-9 or 12-8 from the inappropriate scale into a 10-10 VP tie for matches of 28-36 boards.

Before the advent of the continuous scale there has been and continues to be a lively dialectic: do you reward small wins using the 30 pt scale: 1 imp win garners 60% of the VPS. Or do you reward a day of small losses: you get 45% of the VPs for a 1 imp loss. I've plotted the two on a graph, but have never compared them to the new scale.

A point of reference: this year the 10K Swiss in Memphis used the 20VP integer scale on day 1 and the continuous VP scale on day 2.
I have played in NABC+ Swisses where the continuous scale was used throughout.

Why choose one over another? If the VP scale used to determine the winner is referenced in the CoC, that would be fine. Was it?
The D22 CoC refers to a 20VP scale. A VP scale was not supplied initially, but was added to the 5/31 revision.

If the NABC+ VP scale is used to determine the winner, which team wins? Is there a difference?
Had the continuous VP scale been used to determine VPs the Kolesnik team would have earned 10.67 and the Gupta team 9.33 Kolesnik WOULD have prevailed.

As I mentioned elsewhere recently, had the ACBL not stuck the new NABC+ continuous VP scale language at the bottom of their document on VPs AND supplied a chart, as they did for the integer scales, instead of the formula with no chart, this whole expenditure of energy, emotion, & time might not have happened.

I am not saying that the NABC+ VP scale should be used, but if the scale that was used is not specified in the CoC, then the NABC+ VP scale has just as much validity as the one actually used.

I think the PTB should have looked at this as a potential solution, but they didn't have to… and they evidently didn't. It WOULD have awarded the team that won the match a small VP differential that might not have made a difference if Gupta had blitzed the team that lost both matches, but in this case, would have restored Kolesnik as the victor.
June 12
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ya can talk, ya can talk, ya can bicker, ya can talk
Ya can bicker, bicker, bicker, ya can talk, ya can talk
Ya can talk, talk, talk, talk, bicker, bicker, bicker
Ya can talk all ya want but is different than it was

No it ain't, no it ain't, but you gotta know the territory

A D14 denizen, Meredith Wilson, who wrote ‘The Music Man’

MK is correct.
Scott Campbell received a call from a member of the Gupta team after leaving the playing site
after scoring the event with a 20VP integer scale for a short match
A recalculation was made later Sunday evening that flipped the win when the 3 imp differential became a 10-10VP tie.
June 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
will call you
June 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The integer scale isn't obsolete. It just isn't used for important events: e.g. NA Swiss, GNT Qualifying Swiss at the summer NABC, finals of 10K Swiss.
The appendix K link states:
At the option of the sponsoring organization, Swiss Teams scored by Victory Points (VPs) may use any of three different scoring scales: the 20 point scale, the 30 point scale, or the NABC+ VP scale. Details for all three scales are shown below.
June 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No one contacted them directly soon after

because it was deep into Sunday evening, after the DIC returned home, that the event was recalculated using the integer scale found at:

Had the ACBL posted a link to the widely used continuous VP scale at

instead of the arcane calculation only:

The ACBL NABC+ Victory Point Scale is calculated by the following formula:
1) Calculate 15 times the square root of the number of boards in the match. Call this B.
2) Calculate the “Golden Mean” which is (square root (5)-1)/2, approximately 0.618.
Call this value Tau.
For any IMP margin (value M) where M is less than B, the winner’s VP will be given by
V=10 + 10*(1-Tau^(3M/B))/(1-Tau^3).
If M greater than or equal to B, the winner gets 20 VP.
The loser gets 20-Winner’s VP

we might very well not be trying to follow 1500 impassioned posts. The team that won both matches via imps would have prevailed using the continuous scale… barely!

If you want to hold the ACBL responsible re. VP scales you can question why they didn't highlight the continuous VP scale, which is employed at the Wednesday GNT qualifying Swiss at the summer NABC. by putting it at the top of the document instead of bottom. I think the ACBL's GNT Special Conditions of Contest should, in the future, specify the use of the continuous VP scale.

The CoC of NABC+ Swiss team events or NABC+ events with a Swiss component shall be modified to reflect the new NABC+ Victory Point Scales

The lack of a posted VP scale at the game site is EXTREMELY troubling and was not, imo, adequately addressed by the PTB.
June 11
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
directly after West's2?
or after South's double?
June 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
"there remains a point at which the League can step in. I surely think that point was reached - and then some. And - I agree that the League did not deal with this as I felt would be appropriate."

Given the D22 CoC where would you have the ACBL step in? The OP post states "We have also conferred with the ACBL in coming to this determination.

How do you know they didn't direct how the problem would be resolved?

I am going to make every effort to find out EVERYTHING that transpired after calls and emails went out on Monday morning asking why Kolesnik was no longer the winning team.

For the 25 GNT coordinators who volunteer their time and rarely come up against contentious contingencies. So that all of us can have procedures that respect the parties involved.
June 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The logic for the three-way final is the belief that longer matches offer a better opportunity for the strongest team(s) to prevail.

I spoke with John Kissinger about this. I think this was in the context of a 3-way semifinal to eliminate one team that a 15 board match wasn't long enough. The district is constrained to complete the event in four sessions.

Recall that in an event where they can only pay three overall places they weren't of a mind, when these CoC were written, to qualify four teams to a KO semifinal.

In our GNT finals we WOULD have a 28 bd KO semifinal using preduplicated hands followed by a 28 bd KO final.

I'm sure the D22 BOD and GNT coordinator will look closely at this for next year.
June 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At some point I hope to know how the PTB came to their decision, if they considered a process that included the team captains, and how they formed the group that would make the decision.

This unfortunate “learning lab” can be used to help all GNT coordinators fashion better CoC with more detailed procedures for contingencies.

The PTB determined that there were CoC onsite.
I posted a link to the CoC pre-revision. Phil Clayton posted the 2016 CoC, which as far as I could see, were exactly the same as the current one

This is my link to the 2016-2018 CoC
It does NOT have the 5/31 revised addition of a VP scale.
Someone said that when they click on the link they get the new one. Well… mine is the old one that existed when the Open flight was contested the prior week.

This is where the decried language first appeared:
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.)

I've spent a LOT of time looking at what went wrong, carefully reviewing reports of past finals, past CoCs, procedural errors and ideas for improvements.

you get 15 likes for complaining about how muddled and unfair the event was and how maybe you should just get on BBO with your friends
I get next to no responses that move the ball constructively forward. That speaks to the frustration so many of us feel about how things are run. But I fail to see why more people aren't focused on the REAL ISSUES raised by the OP's decision.

Correction Period
DIC Failure to advise contestants of right to appeal
Were there appealable issues that could have changed the outcome
Marty Harris' concept of reliance

We can't do better if people don't focus on how to do better instead of complaining.
June 10
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

If you had just posted the D22 Board's message it would have been fine…assuming you asked permission to post, or in the absence of permission, stated that it deserved to be seen in any event. The message did not appear to be addressed for wide distribution.

You could have then taken the first post to share your cogent, if biased, analysis.

You accurately mention valid issues like the lack of a VP scale, questions about the DIC, fuzzy match imp scores, and raise a valid concern about the value of precedent.

Referring to ‘legal action’ hearsay WRONG
Calling the decision a “disgraceful” ACBL action WRONG. It was an action taken by the sponsoring organization, D22.

Your experience doesn't trump the stated, VALID, conditions of contest and demeans the work of the group making the decision in accordance with the CoC.

Your comments set the tone for yet another wave of ignorant, if passionate, griping from posters who haven't read the CoC (or don't care) and who, except for a very few, care nothing for engaging in dialogue aimed at moving constructively forward.

Very few of this thread's posts examined the document raising concerns about the points that the decision-making body chose not to focus on.

As a leader you could be setting a tone for reconciliation … but no

“The District has done all it can over the last 12 days to sort through the facts.” I rather disagree and have made numerous posts pointing to unaddressed facts.
June 10
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The lack of a posted VP scale is troubling.
When our district has a qualifying Swiss every team captain receives a copy of the continuous VP scale from an appendix of the CoC for the length of the matches they will be playing.

I looked through all of Phil Clayton's links to CoC and have yet to see any presentation of a VP scale.

I guess it is understandable that most of the posters here are not GNT coordinators and are more focused on injustice than focused on using the stated CoC to adhere to a resolution process for disputes.

At some point I will present recommendations to every district GNT coordinator that they should take care in their CoC to address the problems faced this year in D22:

Straightforward online access to CoC with adequate time for team captains and/or participants to get clarification if necessary

Readily available CoC at the event site.

CoC that include reasonable correction periods, description of the process more detailed than boilerplate “Applicable Authority” language(this deserves consultation with Horn Lake, and input from GNT coordinators with experience in resolving disputes), (continuous) VP scales, clear instructions re. RoundRobins that adhere to common KO CoC, and bullet points on the table of contents or index page of significant changes from previous CoC versions.

Pre-event coordination with the DIC on logistics, new CoC language, etc. Written procedures re. announcements at the commencement of play (i.e. demand cessation of general clamor so that all participants know what is going on each day and how events, matches, and scoring will be conducted)

Advisability, if possible, to use preduplicated boards with hand records available after the session. (Our district had trouble one year when all flights used the same hand records and an Open Flight team with 3 pairs kibitzed an A flight match before coming in for the second half only to find they had watched boards they were going to play)

Team entry forms that require the team captain to include email address and phone number… just in case.
June 9
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
authorized small bracket regional 4-session KOs to avoid single bracket handicapped events

allowed a second Flight B & Flight C GNT representative if your district final field is 8 or more

ACBL Live now with ability to replay hands using the BBO handviewer
June 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is it possible to focus on the the facts, the legalities, and the process rather than the using this thread as more opportunity to vent?

1. DIC behavior and performance
If the DIC had a duty, according to Law 83, to offer a right to appeal to team Schafer, and didn't, this cannot be written off as not affecting the outcome.

2. Conditions of Contest (COC)
agree that, though flawed, they probably did not affect the outcome. However, if no VP scale previously existed that supports the use of integer scales in longer matches this is problematic.

3. Suggested improper player behavior
If this was a conduct/ethics issue ok. If this would have led to a change in the imp score of the match and the subject of an appeal that could have been, but wasn't lodged, this is a problem.

4. Actual IMP differentials in the three matches and the resulting VPs
The PTB did what they could to ascertain the match scores and apply the scale that dictated the 3-imp win as a 10-10 VP tie.
June 9
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ed, A GNT district final is unlike other forms of contest due to time and travel constraints. In this case a change in the designation of the winning team occurred after players on the Schafer team had left the venue and also, evidently, having not seen the necessity of a close examination of imp scores or lodging appeals.

I would think that any reasonable interpretation of the actual circumstances would allow the Schafer time a reasonable amount of time to appeal.

Much as I love Ellis, to state there was no time limit for corrections was maybe tongue-in-cheek? The CoC does not mention any correction period. How can you make something of nothing?

However, once the VP scale was adjusted to one that was more representative of the length of the match…and one which reversed the order of finish I think the Schafer team had rights which were not granted:

LAW 83
If the Director believes that a review of his decision on a point of fact or exercise of his discretionary power could well be in order, he shall advise a contestant of his right to appeal or may refer the matter to an appropriate committee.

I see no evidence that this happened. And it is troubling that “director behavior, item 1, in the OP was NOT found to affect the outcome.

If there was an ”egregious" incident that would have been subject to appeal, but wasn't, the Schafer team was not advised of its right to appeal I believe the PTB (including the ACBL) have failed in their duty in adjudicating the chain of events. Joe Hertz mentioned this in the other thread on May 31, but no one particularly followed up on it.

What role DID the ACBL have in assisting in the process?
June 9
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have asked on more than a couple of occasions about the correction period. The statement in the OP
“The COC did not state a correction period” doesn't mean there isn't one.

One beneficial outcome of this mess might include discussions about when a GNT district final results are final.

Given the unique nature of a GNT District final and the reality that many districts pose geographic challenges where contestants are loathe to have a playoff of semifinal losers and want to ‘get on the road’ common correction period guidelines are inadequate.

In fact, I think districts have until June 15 to submit final GNT rosters and district CoCs might reflect that the correction period doesn't end until that date. I am concerned that the ‘PTB" were under significant time pressure to produce a victor, and that a longer correction period could have taken more of the disputed contentions into account.

I can understand why the D22 board chose to focus only on the match scores (imp differentials) and VPs, and that issues of DIC behavior and performance don’t directly affect the table results.

Marty raised the issue of miscommunication. Issues that might have been appealed if the contestants knew that the intially announced winners had changed hinge on the rights of the Schafer to bring an appeal forward, an issue that was moot if they had won.

I question, therefore, the implication that the lack of a correction period in the CoC means there isn't one.
And I am still waiting for someone to identify when, if ever, in the past 3-4 years when VP scales were used, what they were.

A case might be made, given tradition/precedent across the league in recent years that a continuous VP scale should be used in important competition. Not necessarily for six-board swiss or RR matches on qualifying day, but certainly for longer KO matches.

I think the VP scale issue is of a magnitude that the ACBL Special Conditions of Contest for the GNTs should have an appendix with the recommended continuous VP scales or a link to a site that offers them.
June 9
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I did a search for D22 GNT CoCs
I found one for 2014-15 that looked different and had different language saying nothing about converting imps to VPs
The 2015-16 had the “conversion language”
the 2016-18 has the same language. It got a 5/31 update before the Flight A finals last weekend.

The PTB used that “conversion language”. We mostly all decry it and would wish it out of existence, but it IS the language that the PTB had to honor in making a decision.

I promoted the notion of tradition, precedent, culture, but have no idea how one might inject these concepts without a procedure that would be aimed at consensus rather than ‘law’.

Ctrl-F in the other thread for “czar”
I'll pretend to be czar again, tho the horse may have proverbially left the barn.

John K. & David L. should convene a meeeting/conference call with the team captains to distill issues and seek a mutually satisfactory disposition among themselves. If a non zero sum outcome is impossible, only then, admit to the ACBL that D22 is unable to resolve the conflict.

Unfortunately, the ruling has come down, as it had to if going by the ‘law’, that Gupta, on the basis of the VP integer scale, lost the match but tied in VPs.
June 8
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thomas Rush proposed this on June 5 in the other thread, but it did not generate much enthusiasm. I thought it a fine idea with the proviso that the D22 teams cannot face each other during the Wed. Swiss.

And I think both teams should receive the $2,000 subsidy with a promise to do better and an apology for the lack of clarity.

This malarkey about a solution allowing both teams to play in the GNT Swiss, but allowing only one to move into the KO phase being unfair to other districts…

The teams competing in the Swiss have to perform well enough to be in the top 16 at the end of the day. Given the confusion and sense of outrage exhibited by so many you would think that thoughtful bridge players might find that bit of inconvenience a rather elegant solution.

And it fulfills what rarely occurs in an ACBL adjudication: a non zero sum outcome. I find people complaining about a possible two bites at an apple, given the current furor over fairness in this matter, disturbing. Believe it or not we are members of a family and should be trying to take care of those who feel wounded by whatever fog fell over San Juan Capistrano the last weekend in May.
June 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Phil & Weishu,

You might be thinking about 2015? with 6 teams in the Open field?
Assuming that the field was seeded properly there was supposed to be two rings of 3 with 1 team from each ring proceeding to a 2 team all day final:
The teams will be divided into two round robins, with seeds 1, 3, and 6 in one bracket and 2, 4, and 5 in the other. Each team will play 32 boards against the other teams in the bracket, divided into four quarters. The top team in each bracket will be determined by the standard ACBL quotient. The other two teams will be eliminated. The two winners will play the final match. lists the top three but not the size of the field.
June 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Can anyone point to a CoC in the last 5 years that has a VP scale in an appendix? If so, what is the range of the length of matches? i.e. how many columns? did the VP scale extend to matches in the 30-board range?

I'm not talking about the scale that was appended in the recent “updated on May31” CoC. I see no problem insuring that the upcoming Flight A district final had a published VP scale.
June 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Are you suggesting that the train of Mike E.'s comments are well justified criticism?

I am happy that you started a new thread. But I see no benefit, whatsoever of rehashing why people want to relitigate the controversy about whether or not a three-team second day is or isn't a KO.

Asserting that every other similar contest uses W/L, or had four teams KO structures or what not are immaterial. The language of the CoC is clear, no matter how flawed we all think it was.

I think it is safe to say there will be no more three ways with imps converting to VPs. I hope, in fact, that John Kissinger will dispense with Masterpoint-itis and follow the lead of the current practice in ‘mini-Soloway’ regional KOs with fields from 5 -9 teams playing a round-robin to come to a 4 team KO semifinal.

I'd be more interested in hearing how or if, custom, precedent, or culture could have been factored into the decision-making process.

After reading all of the hundreds of posts in the other thread I feel fairly confident that there is a consensus that, no matter what the current CoC states, past practice treated final day three ways by W/L.

Does anyone have ideas about how the GNT Coordinator, D22 BOD rep., and the D22 BOD could have used ‘the collective wisdom of the crowd’ to fashion an outcome that could be embraced by the affected teams, a non-zero sum outcome?

Or does the adjudication process dictate a winner and a loser?

Phil Clayton posted a number of CoCs. Do any of them have VP scales? The absence of them in prior CoCs lends credence to a conclusion that the CoC as written, were intended to state:
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 on qualifying day.)

If there are VP scales but they only include scales for matches of e.g 6-8, 7-9, or short day1 type matches that is another data point indicating the the imp-VP conversion was not intended for a three-team day2 final.
June 8
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 8

Bottom Home Top