Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Mike Cassel
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
less than or equal to 2 imps on qualifying day in a Swiss match.
possibly double digits over 28 boards in the KO rounds if your team averages more than 1,000MPs less than your opponent.

you average 750MPs
your      your 
opponent handicap
1,750MP 6.62
2,000MP 9.17
2,250MP 12.41
2,500MP 16.73
June 17
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Can someone who is math oriented explain the difference between net imps and imp quotient?

Is imp quotient like the integer VP scale? no longer in fashion?
June 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Re. #10
I think the ACBL should proactively work with district GNT coordinators to encourage them to identify suitable correction periods.

As well, procedures to handle unforseen circumstances have to be more specific than boilerplate “Applicable Authority” clauses.

The now defunct GNT/NAP Coordinators Forum discussed the potential to have a “best practices” function. This is the most problematic snafu I've ever heard re. the GNTs in over a decade.

It deserves careful analysis once the everything is resolved followed by guidance to district GNT coordinators on how to address some of the concerns that have been raised:

correction period, clear language, appeals process, applicable authority and resolution procedures (how to constitute an effective group to address a conflict). The ACBL can contribute ideas of when/how they will to step in to assist in the resolution process.

There has been a LOT of rancor in the recent threads about how the ACBL should ‘take over’ for an inept sponsoring organization. The GNTs are unique, not just another ACBL tournament.
June 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you Rick for this post. I hope it will generate positive and constructive ideas to help GNT coordinators design and implement CoC that can be readily understood and accepted and motivate players to be more prosocial as well.

The second sentence of the preceding comment is false.
OTOH, those who review district CoCs may not catch all inconsistencies in a complex set of conditions.
They did catch my failure to appropriately identify the new guidelines for convention charts.

Had they closely looked at D22's CoC they might have sought clarification or asked that the CoC more clearly distinguish their intent AND post a VP scale if VPs were to be a scoring mechanism.

I suspect that things slipped through the cracks because there was no identifiable change from the two previous CoCs.

re. #11
1. Local venue organizers are in the best position to build table count through effective marketing/promotion
2. Good hospitality requires motivated volunteers
3. If you are running a Swiss don't forget to have a caddy.
4. A GNT Coordinator may be responsible for creating a CoC, but they aren't solely responsible if it is misunderstood. Potential contestants/team captains have a responsibility too.

I would add
#12 The index/table of contents/ or opening statement of a district's CoC should note new language, procedures or significant changes from prior versions. If the document looks the same folks may think it IS the same. In the best of all possible worlds proposed changes could be accompanied by a comment period from interested potential contestants.
June 17
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
re. 5 The issue of carryover and potential for dumping is problematic.

In our district we do not conduct discrete matches so that ~1/2 of your matches are completed in the first session. We use AWL and Thurner movements with field sizes less than 10 teams.

In a field of 11 or more teams a Swiss is conducted with preduplicated hands. If a team was dumping it might be possible to review their unusual results.

The goal for day 1 is to Q for day 2. If you are in a Swiss and well under average after the first 4 of 8 matches, you are going to employ a high variance strategy to get yourself into the top four qualifying spots. That could put you at a severe disadvantage if your fifth of eight matches did not go well and your tactics led to a big imp loss.

We used to employ a carryover. No more.
June 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Re #3
If the final day 3-way is conducted with W/L and ACBL-approved procedures when all teams are 1-1 or two teams are 2-0 (head to head result?) I don't see a problem.

The other thread identified any number of reasons why converting imps to VPs is problematic.

I would not cut a 3 team field to 2 teams after one session, but I would guess it is up to each district IF they don't want to Q 4 teams for a KO semifinal.
June 17
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peg K has no idea what she is claiming re. D14 proposal to handicap Flight B.

Had handicaps been in place during the Flight B qualifying Swiss in D14 no team would have received more than a 2 imp handicap. When I applied the handicap to the entire event the strongest team averaging less than 1500MPs would have seen their VP total rise from 87 to 89 and they still would not have reached the top 4 teams that moved onto the KO phase. A couple of imps on a 20pt VP scale will only make a significant difference if the match is extremely close. In most cases the VP assistance is nominal. BUT IT IS AN ENTICEMENT TO THE WEAKEST OF THE B TEAMS TO DIP THEIR TOES INTO A COMPETITION IN WHICH THEY ARE ALMOST CERTAINLY OVERMATCHED.

The sour taste of handicaps in single bracket regional KOs makes people paranoid. If you are not a GNT coordinator in a district where Gold Rush graduates and Bronze LMs are not competing in open events where the table counts won't support mid-flight events then you will not appreciate the strategy of giving the lower echelon B teams support to compete in the GNTs.

The GNTs and NAPs are events that are supposed to appeal to our GRASS ROOTS. The huge disparity in strength between 500MPs and 2,500MPs warrants handicaps. Kneejerk opinions on the awfulness of handicaps, whether or not the lead time was sufficient (it wasn't) was unwarranted.

At 150% handicap in the KO phase in 28 board matches a team averaging 750MPs would have received less than 17 imps from a team averaging 2,500MPs. If a team of experienced Flight B players cannot overcome 17 imps in 28 boards vs. a team of newly minted LMs they don't belong as district champions.

This is neither the time nor place to discuss this issue. Beyond which there is a rumor that the BOD in Vegas will legislate handicaps out of the GNT picture.
June 17
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
re. 6 &8

District GNT Coordinators receive a packet with a number of attachments before the beginning of the GNT cycle on September 1.

I received mine last August 22

"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.


There is no reason not to post a district's CoC as soon as they are approved.

Believe it or not, they don't post a district's CoC until they are reviewed.
June 17
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We play Cappelletti over 1N overcalls of 1minor
This is a marginal double and I would probably bid 2 planning to raise and hoping partner isn’t 2-2 or 3-2 in the majors
On second thought I think playing the first X as t.o. Is easier
You won’t be in a 7 card fit at the 3 level
June 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
sigh?! call me
June 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jonathan, I agree with you on some of your points and am not going to rehash (much) on those I don't

I prefer to look at the BIG picture, examine all the variables, and do what is just and fair. This is a no brainer.

and paraphrasing Mark R.
“ We all know the true winner of the event, and until that is corrected…”

After a more appropriate VP scale was applied long after the event was concluded the Gupta team was posted on ACBL Live as the winner.
BIG picture includes optics:
1. John K. was informed of the change late Sunday evening. He should have, and agrees, that all team captains were owed a text or email. Calling after 10pm is pretty late.
2. Scott Campbell and John should have discussed the ramifications of upending the result. As the DIC, I think Scott owed all team captains of their right to appeal:

LAW 83
NOTIFICATION OF THE RIGHT TO APPEAL
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.

3. The group that was convened to adjudicate this unfortunate tangle should have included non-partisan experts who play in this event but didn't play this year. Custom & precedent don't trump the CoC, but can be ameliorating factors.

4. The FACT that the CoC makes no mention of a correction period does not mean there isn't one. or that an appropriate timeframe to allow for negotiations to get this right because

5. The CoC addresses unusual issues:
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.

John Kissinger & I discussed the inappropriateness of the boilerplate. It is really the D22 BOD, has the executive function of the sponsoring organization, that should be consulted. The ACBL Board rep might not even be, but usually is, a member of the district's BOD.

In any event, the selected ‘powers that be’ should have taken the necessary time to " do what is just and fair in making a decision consistent with the spirit of these CoC

6. The PTB should have taken the confusion of the weekend into consideration.
The PTB should have taken the deficiencies of the DIC into direct account
The PTB should have determined if the at the table behavior that some claimed objectionable had resulted in a director call, and/or if an appeal in a more timely fashion would or could have changed the resultant match score.
The PTB could have explored the lack of a posted VP scale and the subsequent substitution of a valid, but inappropriate given the gravitas of the event, scale to apply the continuous VP scale.

7. If due process had been engineered, I'd like to think that the Gupta team captain, would recognize that, given all of the above, that recognizing Schafer as the victor if all of the above were taken into account is just and fair

So many feathers have been ruffled by this conflagration.

8. If I was the ACBL, given the failure of the PTB, to uphold the Laws of Duplicate Bridge (Law 83) and afford due process to the Kolesnik team, I would choose to deny D22 an invitation to participate in the GNT Open Flight final.

I have no idea how involved the ACBL was in the decision-making but, imo, they failed D22.

A lot of people have bitched about the CoC, but it seems no one charged with adjudicating the dispute paid much attention to resolving it in the spirit of these conditions of contest

Jonathan,
It is definitely NOT a "nobrainer, but doing the right thing instead of what appears to have been an inadequate, inexpedient decision that, unfortunately, is in keeping with the ACBL's propensity to muck up PROCESS over and over again, no matter the issue. On the other thread ‘the wisdom of Solomon’ was mentioned, maybe by me? I did not see wisdom displayed in the message Jonathan presented in the OP.

Isn't it just good manners to apologize? D22 BOD, there is still time to DO THE RIGHT THING! Maybe there is still hope for a positive outcome? Put me in the I'm hoping camp. Mike Edwards can tell me not to hold my breath.

Barring the need to clarify, this is my last post on the subject on this thread. I will be contacting all GNT coordinators about this experience and how their CoC should be reviewed for consistency and meaningful language re. contingencies.

edited to correct captaincy from Kolesnik to Schafer
June 16
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael,

Are you trying to confuse us with facts?
I think the language you are citing is focused on qualifying day play.

Being the pedantic guy that I am, once more I will offer:

1. the primary descriptor: “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.)” is not cherry-picked. It appears in front of (well, above) the statement about the ACBL KO CoC.

2. Many of those decrying the stated CoC are just plum unwilling to face the reality the the second day was NOT A KO. I spoke with John K., and specifically asked if he had left off ‘on qualifying day’ the hated ‘conversion to vp’ clause.

3. John was perfectly clear that the three team final WAS intended to be 30 bds contested against the other two teams and that the net imps of each match were to converted to VPs. There were to be 3 overall places earning MPs based on their VP performance against the other teams. The team who garnered the most VPs would be designated the winner.

4. The weaknesses of this arrangement have been exhaustively magnified and are not in dispute. As well, the fact that the previous 3-team final using the same language ignored the converting to VPs doesn't mean it should be ignored in this situation. A VP tabulation was evidently moot.

John Cleese “Archie” to Kevin Kline “Otto” from A Fish Called Wanda

I apologize… unreservedly
June 16
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We require all four semi finalists to pay for 2 sessions
There is no 1session team game as our ‘primetime’ is a.m. & aft.
We discussed allowing semifinal losers to play in the side game
But decided no
June 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In an 8 team RR q’ing 4 you can use a Thurner
Play 7 4bd matches in each session
You can predupe bds and have hand records
At the break you are at the halfway of each match
A third pair can come over in after rnd 3
The format is not ideal for 6 baggers where, based on the draw you want to switch directions
June 14
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Keith
A sample chart might have sufficed
Common match lengths
6 8 10 14 24 28 32

Can we presume that ACBLScore can produce
Them?

Jonathan
Custom or precedent does not trump the CoC
Rules? You jest
Given your history I find your lack of respect for the nature
Of the GNT’s troubling
In 2014 and 2016 the winning teams evidently had commanding wins
Doesn’t excuse not converting to VPs
Had they done so this back & forth would
Be focused on the need to treat final 3-ways as you would wish
And as is customary ELSEWHERE

What right do you think you have to overrule a district that decides the best way to choose one of three teams in a final is to reward the team who garners the most VPs?

Phil
I believe you
But custom isn’t the rule of this road
I think it should have been considered
I think experienced competitors from previous 7 team fields should have been involved in the resolution

Given that the ‘odious’ conversion language has been in the CoC since 2015-2016? No one Ever got a clarification?
Mind-boggling
June 13
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John K confirmed my question
I asked if the RR converting imps to VPs was intended only for the qualifying day
He said NO

You owe me an apology
June 13
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
BELIEVE IT OR NOT

IT WAS NOT A KO
BY CONSCIOUS DESIGN

according to the CoC
& given that the VP scale used was valid

The adjudication, focused solely on OP item#4
Means Gupta won

Life isn’t fair
It will be different next time

If you want to challenge the decision pick a different topic
e.g. DIC & law 83

We may all believe that the confusion is criminal
At this point it isn’t a crime.

If you want justice then focus on due process and if it was denied
Not overturning the flawed process that led to this
June 13
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 13
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

Charlie
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
.

Bottom Home Top