Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Mike Cassel
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
if you look at the URL the identifer is pg 01
if you type in the URL and change 01 to 16 you will see a discussion of the concurrent Flt B GNT district final

if Eugene deleted all posts with the words KO vs RR vs three-way this thread would be tiny
June 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Wysiwig
June 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2014 D22 Open Flight GNT results
Seven teams entered the Open event, and all played all day on Saturday, with the field reducing to three teams at the end of the day. The three teams shown below qualified for Sunday’s playoff in
a three-way round-robin that was played all day. The winning team won both of their 32 board matches (by about 10 and 30 IMPs), well deserving of their right to represent our districtat Las Vegas this summer
https://contractbridgeforum.com/14/May/22p01.pdf

2016 D22 Open Flight GNT results
Seven Open teams played a round-robin movement: ten boards/match, six matches for 60 boards total. The top three teams qualified for the second day. The Clayton team won five of their six Saturday matches Saturday, and, on Sunday, beat both of their opponents to finish in 1st place.
https://contractbridgeforum.com/16/May/22p01.pdf

No mention of VPs in either year… not that it mattered for either year

The 2015 CoC includes the same language re. RRs converting imps to VPs. If only the CoC had qualified that by stating “on the first qualifying day”
June 4
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Weishu

I am certainly not speaking for your district.
Are you suggesting that your district was holding a GNT district final and that no conditions of contest were previously posted or available??
One of my initial questions awaaaay upthread asked about the conditions of contest.
Someone did post them. I had not been able to find them until they did. They encompass what appears to be a span of three years. They shouldn't have been a mystery and I think I am within my rights as a concerned bridge citizen that CoC should be widely and broadly available so teams can make plans to compete. I don't know how you can claim they didn't exist. Maybe they just couldn't be found?

Once I did see them I supported the district's right to set whatever ‘fair’ conditions they deemed appropriate.
Fair & Square Peg in a Round Hole may be flawed as most people now seem to agree, but not contravening ACBL guidelines.

I've tried to indicate that many parties have responsibilities including the team captains.
If I have created confusion please spell it out. I do apologize if I've added to it.

I've certainly made no claim that D22 did everything right, in fact quite the opposite. I've only reiterated ad nauseum that confusing or not, followed in the past or not, the CoC indicate that a 3-way is scored by imps converted to VPs. It is your district's right to do so even if no one, today, thinks it was right.

Not to sound snippy but you asked “how many people would think of it's a VP scoring method for a 3-way match in the open flight?” The answer is, of course, anyone who read the CoC at some point before commencement of play on Sunday morning.

I don't know what became clear after the update. I don't want to know…it's not my business. Whatever changes were made, imo, cannot be applied retroactively. (I got major grief in my district for a CoC change 6 weeks before the district final!) A continuous VP scale would change the current VP outcome. It's a better, more fair scale. Unless all parties recognize and agree to a recalibration, I don't see how it can be applied.

I do hope you all can reach consensus without appealing to authorities beyond the district.
June 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Seems to me ……. as a result of last year's 4th place team whining, so they prostrated themselves before the masterpoint gods.

poi what is the difference between a 3-way and a RR?
June 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
10 teams in our district is a unique contest condition. In the first session EW pairs cross over to the other section. Hand records are used. The session movement is like a BAM. Bds down 1 and pairs down 2 after each round.

In the second session each section plays an internal BAM movement.
Every team plays a 6-board match against every other team.

Variability due to swingy shuffle deal play matches is eliminated.
You get to go to the bar after the sessions and everyone played most of the same hands so you get that benefit too.

If the field size exceeds 10 a regular Swiss is conducted.
June 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In our D finals, conducted over 4 sessions,

$756 the ACBL director fee
128 transportation
122 per diem
235 hotel

This is all cut & dried ACBL Tournament sponsor invoice and balance sheet stuff.
June 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
AFAIK the only change in the CoC was to rectify the lack of a VP scale the prior weekend and the fact that the GNT Flight A finals were upcoming.

The following is the D22 GNT CoC I first saw and it does not have the VP scale. I did not compare the two so don't know if any substantive changes were made

http://acbldistrict22.com/D22/DIR/GNT/2018/D22_GNT_2016-2018_COC.pdf

it's possible that if you click on the link you get the revised one. mine pops out without revision probably because it's in my download folder?!

if you only get the revised one I don't mind emailing the older one to you
June 3
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
http://acbldistrict22.com/D22/DIR/GNT/gnt.php

long live Henry Bethe
every imp counts

you just gotta shake your head at all of the procedural gaffes.
was the moon in Scorpio last weekend in opposition to Venus?
June 3
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've said way way too much already… including something about ‘common law precedent’ up up above somewhere.

I could go along with your dog logic if other condo neighbors sharing a common forced air system had no allergy issues with pet dander. If a big majority of previous final day contestants thought they were playing W/L contravening the stated CoC, and the team who nominally won via VPs acceded to precedent… that would be very cool.

CoCs don't ‘talk about’. They state that imps will be converted to VPs in a RR. It's not illegal. reference the downthread link to Keith's post.

So much energy has already been expended. I wouldn't want to track down all prior 3-team finalists to mine their memories for past practice.

You can be a czar too. What's your solution?
June 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It wasn't a KO.
In previous three-team finals it may have been misunderstood as one.
All the procedural hiccups aside, the event,
ACCORDING TO VALID CONDITIONS OF CONTEST,
called for the net imps from the matches to be converted to VPs.

If I was the czar I would
1. Demand accurate match scores
2. Apply the appropriate VP scale
3. Name the team with the most VPs the district champion.
4. Give the aggrieved team $2,000 to spend in Las Vegas in other NABC events. (Alan Frank suggested this.. but after a playoff)
5. Apologize for the time and energy so many lovers of the game have spent trying to sort the mess out.
6. Promise more clearcut CoC and procedures down the road.

did anyone read Keith Wells' statement?
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.

http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/a-gnt-debacle-too-many-winners/?cj=812232#c812232
June 3
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jonathan,

both you & I are outsiders. It's not our bailiwick much as you would like to insert yourself into.

the CoC, as distasteful as they are, ARE VALID. The day was supposed to be scored as imps converted to VPs. I was curious what the actual VP totals look like.

There were many procedural issues that completely gum up the works. You seem to think the ACBL can swoop in to make their event a KO. IT WASN'T.

Guidance to the sponsoring organization for next year? Sure
Sending the TD to the gulag for re-education. Maybe… why be punitive? I'm sure he regrets his lack of preparedness and the ‘slings & arrows’ that have been flying.

Guidance does not equate to overturning a valid, if very flawed result. How many years did you coordinate your district's GNT event? What part of "by means of a fair competition that is not necessarily the same from district to district” don't YOU understand?

D22 did not want a 4th finalist to go home empty-handed. They wanted a nice MP award for reaching day 2 and finishing 3rd. They CHOSE the language converting the event from W/L to VPs. THEY WERE ENTITLED TO DO THAT.

I like both you and Don M. Both of you have given years in service to the game and have a certain ‘je ne sais quoi’ from your perches as former district BOD reps. But I think both of you are out of line re. if you think the ACBL's has jurisdiction to overturn a flawed, if valid, GNT district final result.

hmm. Maybe you should ‘give it up’. I'm going to stand up for the rights of the sponsoring organizations who get no financial support from the league, who are granted the ability to design their GNT district finals as best suits their district given time, distance, and other logistic concerns.

'free reign' and ‘anarchy’ YIKES!
June 3
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
By what margin did Kolesnik beat Hiestand?
How do you know Kolesnik won using VPs.
Apologies if that match result was posted somewhere. I didn't see it?
June 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“hit this issue in the Bulletin”
pls explain
June 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
An off the wall idea for reducing RR variance:
Use preduplicated boards from an IMP pair national final from the mists of time.
Adjust each team's imp score based on the ‘datum’ from that event.

Your raw imp differential from the actual match gets a boost when you beat the average score derived from play across a large number of tables.


better yet… no more three way finals
June 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you for the OP
Can you explain:
“A seven-team qualifying round robin to proceed into an eight-team KO, with two teams qualifying out of the round robin based on VP totals.”

I don't want to bring the travails of the other topic into this one, except to say there is a lot of contentiousness about whether a RR that determines a single overall winner is a knockout and/or if the general structure of that district's event is/was/or should be a knockout.

The comments above re. the impossibility of using the same boards in a 3-way and the variance that ensues is critical. Haven't we all bemoaned our fate competing for a VP swiss title in the last round as the event leader playing against an arch rival top team, playing them to a close win or loss, only to see someone a bunch of VPs behind us rack up a blitz.

this actually happened to us at the Gopher Regional in the Saturday Stratiflighted Swiss. The pro team's 50 imp blitz over an ‘X’ enabled them to overcome their 9VP deficit passing the A teams contesting a close one in the last round.

Any serious team event ought to strive for preduplicated boards and avoid 3-ways. If semifinal losers go home without a fat MP award its the rub of the green.

Leave the RRs to the penultimate.. or pre-penultimate rounds.
June 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, based on the recently posted Flight A results, one facile resolution isn't happening.
The A team captained by Shailesh Gupta finished second in a 4 team RR scored with VPs missing the top spot by 3 VPs. Four teams played a RR. 6 matches with 20VPs available.
https://live.acbl.org/event/1906622/D22A/4/summary

There will be no abdication of the Open title, assuming they get to keep it, so that the Gupta team can go to Vegas as the Flight A champions.
June 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
check your email tonite. i will research the timeline.
June 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
ok Art we can disagree
I can tell you for a FACT that the ACBL read my conditions of contest and did not approve them.
The reason they didn't had to do with their conception of FAIRNESS

The ACBL CoC state: “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”

You certainly must surmise that I have a great passion for the GNTs and am fiercely protective of a sponsoring organization's (district's) rights in the face of zero support for the event by the ACBL.

You might ask Sherry Terraciano, the ACBL Special Events staff, when, if ever, the ACBL was merely a recipient of and not reviewer of a district's CoC.
June 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
20% of each districts Grass Roots Fund Raise is withheld by the ACBL for redistribution. Before the redistribution takes place the GNT entry fees for the one or two days that the district's teams played the previous summer are deducted.

This is the latest 2018 GRFd distribution

DISTRICT #Gross Collected Net of GNT Paid Direct to
Amount Entry Fees Entry Fees Districts = 80%
1 5,164.00$ 272.00$ 4,892.00$ 3,913.60$
2 2,244.00 340.00 1,904.00 1,523.20
3 12,090.50 374.00 11,716.50 9,373.20
4 5,977.00 408.00 5,569.00 4,455.20
5 3,348.50 221.00 3,127.50 2,502.00
6 8,374.00 442.00 7,932.00 6,345.60
7 50,194.50 408.00 49,786.50 39,829.20
8 2,672.50 272.00 2,400.50 1,920.40
9 36,528.00 476.00 36,052.00 28,841.60
10 12,882.50 425.00 12,457.50 9,966.00
11 5,500.00 476.00 5,024.00 4,019.20
12 4,305.50 612.00 3,693.50 2,954.80
13 6,200.00 442.00 5,758.00 4,606.40
14 6,333.00 476.00 5,857.00 4,685.60
15 1,655.50 204.00 1,451.50 1,161.20
16 21,710.00 442.00 21,268.00 17,014.40
17 9,578.00 476.00 9,102.00 7,281.60
18 3,870.40 204.00 3,666.40 2,933.12
19 2,699.20 374.00 2,325.20 1,860.16
20 3,306.00 374.00 2,932.00 2,345.60
21 2,374.00 510.00 1,864.00 1,491.20
22 7,964.00 544.00 7,420.00 5,936.00
23 780.00 374.00 406.00 324.80
24 1,362.00 408.00 954.00 763.20
25 15,419.50 374.00 15,045.50 12,036.40

Districts with 3 successful teams get ‘docked’ as much as $612
So, free to the players.. paid (collected) from a district's Grass Roots Funds
June 2
Mike Cassel edited this comment June 2
.

Bottom Home Top