[Aberlour10]

There is an announcment about The Cavendish in the last EC-Bulletin, it tooks place in Monaco this year. The " online auction " seems to be an interesting new feature. Tja, Monaco works intensively on their new role as a "bridge power".

[Mbodell]

paulg, on 2012-June-25, 06:46, said:

Well planned rather than incredible. Perhaps the playing requirements (to achieve medal and points) should be changed to one third of the boards in each round-robin.

In events with a round-robin followed by KO stages, the WBF regulations require you to play one third of the boards in the round-robin and then one third of the boards in the KO stages: I expect the EBL is similar. The format of the Europeans, with its double round-robin, is unique so no-one really addresses it, but one third in both round-robins sounds both fair and reasonable.

If the ACBL or USBF were running the event, then each player would have to play half the boards in both round-robins.

I think the rule should be 1/3 minimum in the first RR, and then 1/3 of the counting matches in the second (so if fewer carried over you have to play more in the 2nd round).

[paulg]

Mbodell, on 2012-June-25, 20:42, said:

I think the rule should be 1/3 minimum in the first RR, and then 1/3 of the counting matches in the second (so if fewer carried over you have to play more in the 2nd round).

I think this goes further than most would wish. Even the top teams with three professional, or non-sponsor, pairs had a weaker third pair who did not play a big role in the final round-robin. It also means the performance of the other teams affects you, which I'm not keen on. If you wanted something more draconian, then I'd aim for the US rule of 1/2 the boards in each round-robin.

[iviehoff]

paulg, on 2012-June-26, 01:09, said:

Even the top teams with three professional, or non-sponsor, pairs had a weaker third pair who did not play a big role in the final round-robin.

According to the Butler scores, Fantoni-Nunes were the weak pair in the Monaco team, averaging about -0.5 a board. Zimmerman topped the Butler table.

Though the Butler scores are weird. England came 4th, but two pairs had negative Butler scores, and the other was only barely positive.

[Mbodell]

paulg, on 2012-June-26, 01:09, said:

Quote

I think the rule should be 1/3 minimum in the first RR, and then 1/3 of the counting matches in the second (so if fewer carried over you have to play more in the 2nd round).

I think this goes further than most would wish. Even the top teams with three professional, or non-sponsor, pairs had a weaker third pair who did not play a big role in the final round-robin. It also means the performance of the other teams affects you, which I'm not keen on. If you wanted something more draconian, then I'd aim for the US rule of 1/2 the boards in each round-robin.

This really isn't that far. There are going to be 17 matches that count (8 of the 16 from the first round, and 9 in the second round). To demand that someone have 1/3 of them, or 6 matches, is not a tall order. In the first round there were 16 matches. To demand that someone play 6 of them is not a tall order. To be clear I'm not demanding that someone play 6+6 = 12 matches necessarily (although it could work out that way if someone only played non-qualifiers in the first round). Someone could play as few as 6 matches if all 6 of the teams they played in RR1 also advanced to the second round.

The purpose of having a minimum playing requirements, and of formatting the qualifier such that it is really an 18 team round robin with other matches that are more exhibition (the first round matches against non-qualifiers), work against each other unless you apply the minimum playing requirement the way I describe. There were 8 matches that didn't count towards the final standings => those 8 shouldn't count for minimum playing requirements.

[Zelandakh]

Mbodell, on 2012-June-26, 02:54, said:

Someone could play as few as 6 matches if all 6 of the teams they played in RR1 also advanced to the second round.

They might also have to play 6 of the 9 second round matches if none of the teams they played against in round 1 advanced. Of course you could set the condition for round two to be the lower of 1/2 of the matches in R2 or 1/3 of the matches in R1 + R2. That would give between 0 and 5 as the minimum requirement for round 2. Or change the 1/2 to 1/3 - then the minimum is between 0 and 3. Such a mix would certainly be a compromise between opposing objectives.

Note that Butler ratings are often a poor guide to performance. For example, what were the quality of Zimmerman's opponents in comparison with Fantunes'?

[Avoidance]

iviehoff, on 2012-June-26, 01:27, said:

According to the Butler scores, Fantoni-Nunes were the weak pair in the Monaco team, averaging about -0.5 a board. Zimmerman topped the Butler table.

Though the Butler scores are weird. England came 4th, but two pairs had negative Butler scores, and the other was only barely positive.

You are only looking at the last 9 rounds. The qualifier was cross-imped separately.
In total for all 26 rounds

Gold/Forrester +152 +35 = +187/380 boards = +.49 IMP per board
Bakhshi/Townsend +108 -12 = 96/340 boards = +.28 IMP per board
Crouch/Patterson = +21 -10 = 11/280 boards = +.04 IMP per board

Fantunes =+361 -73 = 288/420 = +.67 IMP per board
Hegelmo/Helness = 192 +122 = 314/400 = +.79 IMP per board.
Zimmerman/Multon = -17 +36 = 19/180 = +.11 IMP per board.

[mfa1010]

Mbodell, on 2012-June-26, 02:54, said:

There were 8 matches that didn't count towards the final standings => those 8 shouldn't count for minimum playing requirements.

Doesn't seem sensible, because the teams only know which matches that count AFTER that stage is over. At that point they can't go back in time and change their line-ups.
It is not fair if a pair needs to do a big catch-up in the playing requirements during the second stage, because they happened to have played the wrong teams during the first stage (regardless if on purpose or not).

[TimG]

In all team sports that I can think of, there are players who get little or no playing time, but who still receive a gold medal or championship ring, etc. (I know: bridge is not a sport.) Does it really matter whether someone who hardly plays at all wins a championship?

[iviehoff]

TimG, on 2012-June-26, 07:43, said:

In all team sports that I can think of, there are players who get little or no playing time, but who still receive a gold medal or championship ring, etc.

Depends what you mean by team, but I can think of plenty of exceptions: rowing, track relay events in athletics, various multi-rider events in track cycling, synchronised swimming/diving, etc.

[TimG]

iviehoff, on 2012-June-26, 07:58, said:

Depends what you mean by team, but I can think of plenty of exceptions: rowing, track relay events in athletics, various multi-rider events in track cycling, synchronised swimming/diving, etc.

Good counter examples. Relay events in track may be a particularly good case.

[gnasher]

I'm surprised that anyone thinks it matters much. Regardless of how many boards Zimmerman played, nobody will think of him as a European Champion. When a sponsor wins something, the assumption is that the team won it despite the sponsor, not because of him. Even if the sponsor had played throughout, people would just think that the rest of the team deserved more credit for carrying him for longer.

This may be a bit unfair on someone who has spent a lot of money on putting together a good team, obtaining the right for them to compete, paying for them to compete together in other events, and so on, but it's the way things are.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-June-26, 11:26

[jeffford76]

TimG, on 2012-June-26, 10:21, said:

Good counter examples. Relay events in track may be a particularly good case.

Actually in these you aren't typically required to run the same team in every heat. So it's more like bridge.

[jallerton]

EricK, on 2012-June-21, 23:39, said:

But in each case, the final 18 teams have played each other once each and their final score is determined by the total VPs won against the other 17 teams. It only seems random because you are taking into account the extraneous information about how well those teams did against teams who never made the final.

It seems random because it is random which particular information from the round robin stage happens to become extraneous. The teams play a lot of boards during the group round robin stage. During that time, every team will have matches where the team plays well and/or is lucky (resulting in high VP scores), and other matches where the team plays relatively badly and/or is unlucky (resulting in low VP scores). Will a team get to carry forward its high scores or its low scores?

In fact, later posts have revealed that some of the information from the group stage against non-qualifying teams was used in some sense.

EricK, on 2012-June-21, 23:39, said:

If there had been some entirely separate tournaments which determined who the final 18 were, and then they did a round robin, you probably wouldn't be concerned with how those people did against teams which never made the final.

Maybe, but in these championships they did not play a complete round robin in the final stage of the tournament.

iviehoff, on 2012-June-22, 01:33, said:

In the real world, with 18 teams in the second stage, the teams that have anamalous carry-forward scenarios - like Iceland who have qualified into the second stage despite being way behind Estonia and Wales in terms of their performance against the leaders - are likely to be so far behind the leading teams as to be irrelevant.

I agree that the teams finishing 8th and 9th in the group stage are likely to be too far behind the leading teams to catch up, but my point was about the scores carried forward by the leading teams from the matches against the teams finishing 8th and 9th in the group stage.

[jallerton]

TimG, on 2012-June-26, 07:43, said:

In all team sports that I can think of, there are players who get little or no playing time, but who still receive a gold medal or championship ring, etc. (I know: bridge is not a sport.) Does it really matter whether someone who hardly plays at all wins a championship?

iviehoff, on 2012-June-26, 07:58, said:

Depends what you mean by team, but I can think of plenty of exceptions: rowing, track relay events in athletics, various multi-rider events in track cycling, synchronised swimming/diving, etc.

Are you seriously suggesting that synchronised swimming is a sport?

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2012-June-26, 11:20, said:

This may be a bit unfair on someone who has spent a lot of money on putting together a good team, obtaining the right for them to compete, paying for them to compete together in other events, and so on, but it's the way things are.

It would also be more than a bit unfair on a sponsor who also happened to be a good player. If there are any such.

[JLOGIC]

gnasher, on 2012-June-26, 11:20, said:

I'm surprised that anyone thinks it matters much. Regardless of how many boards Zimmerman played, nobody will think of him as a European Champion. When a sponsor wins something, the assumption is that the team won it despite the sponsor, not because of him. Even if the sponsor had played throughout, people would just think that the rest of the team deserved more credit for carrying him for longer.

This may be a bit unfair on someone who has spent a lot of money on putting together a good team, obtaining the right for them to compete, paying for them to compete together in other events, and so on, but it's the way things are.

It depends on who the sponsor is I think

[mrdct]

I think what Zimmerman has done for bridge in bringing these two top-class pairs together in the face of all of the problems they were having with their respective NBOs is to be applauded. Surely, it's in the best interests of bridge to have the best players in the world contesting the major championships. It's certainly in the best interests of humble spectators such as myself.

I would have no objections if other well-heeled sponsors undertook similar projects and I'm somewhat surprised that none of the top American sponsors have looked at taking over getting in bed with a Caribbean NBO, many of which routinely don't send national teams to zonal or world championships. I imagine it would be relatively easy for an American pro to split their living arrangements between Florida and <insert Carribbean country of choice> to meet WBF eligibility requirements and still be able to play all of the NABCs, etc. Also, in many Carribean countries if you pull-off a win in a major sporting event you get knighted!

Any takers for Sir Justin Lall?

[Mbodell]

jallerton, on 2012-June-26, 15:34, said:

Are you seriously suggesting that synchronised swimming is a sport?

Says the bridge players considering bridge a sport? I don't think we are in a position to cast stones.

[Mbodell]

gnasher, on 2012-June-26, 11:20, said:

I'm surprised that anyone thinks it matters much. Regardless of how many boards Zimmerman played, nobody will think of him as a European Champion. When a sponsor wins something, the assumption is that the team won it despite the sponsor, not because of him. Even if the sponsor had played throughout, people would just think that the rest of the team deserved more credit for carrying him for longer.

This may be a bit unfair on someone who has spent a lot of money on putting together a good team, obtaining the right for them to compete, paying for them to compete together in other events, and so on, but it's the way things are.

But if this is the case, why even require the 1/3 boards in the first place?