how to select Mixed Team for Wroclaw 2016

[jstansby]

WBF is having a Mixed Teams Championship in addition to Open/Women/Senior

http://csbnews.org/wbf-future-events/?lang=en

Each country allowed to send one mixed team.   How do we go about selecting this team?

JoAnna

[Jan Martel]

The USBF Board is discussing this. I just sent a questionnaire about this event to everyone registered on the USBF website. In case you didn’t get the email (some email clients don’t like emails sent by mass mail), the link to the questionnaire is http://goo.gl/forms/PrUsrmDAXc. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

  Jan Martel

mart...@gmail.com

[Adam Wildavsky]

I have a couple more suggestions:

1. This might be a good time to try an online trial.

2. Likewise for a pairs trial, either traditional or online.

[rj...@sbcglobal.net]

For a variety of reasons, I oppose an online trial.  It starts with security and goes on with totally changing the dynamics of the game.

Bob Katz

---

From: Adam Wildavsky <ad...@tameware.com>
To: Jan Martel <mart...@gmail.com>
Cc: JoAnna Stansby <jsta...@gmail.com>; ITTC Mailing List <usbf...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 9:06 PM
Subject: Re: how to select Mixed Team for Wroclaw 2016

[Greg Humphreys]

The security issues for an event of this size can be dealt with by having a number of set sites and proctors; I believe District 18 already does this for its GNTs.  It's not as convenient as playing in your PJs from home, but it does reduce travel costs for many participants.

The other issues... well, at some point it probably just comes down to subjective preference eventually; not a debate that's likely to get resolved in any satisfactory manner.

Greg Humphreys

ɯoɔ˙lıɐɯƃ@ɹǝdɯnɥ

[BPol...@aol.com]

We talked about pairs trials quite often, but haven't done had one in ~25 years, I beleive.  Yes, this could be a good time for it.  I think online trials, even with monitors, is too problematic.

 

bp

[michael.d...@gmail.com]

I would also strongly oppose an online trial

[Alan Frank]

Could something be scheduled for a couple of days either immediately
after the spring NABC? (Not before, due to the NAP.)

--Alan

[Howard Weinstein]

We cannot realistically have a mixed trials until after all the other trials. I can see the case for a pairs trials — there aren’t really many (any) set mixed teams out there, and many teams cannot be fully formed until after all other trials, If we are ever going to have a pairs trials, this seems like a reasonable situation to try it.

Howie

[Alan Frank]

I was going to suggest that players could enter both the mixed pairs
trials and the others, then forgo their pairs qualification if they win
the main event. Unfortunately, that doesn't work, because often only one
member of the pair would make it.

On Tue, 20 Oct 2015, Howard Weinstein wrote:

> We cannot realistically have a mixed trials until after all the other trials. I can see the case for a pairs trials ? there aren?t really many (any) set mixed teams out there, and many teams cannot be fully formed until after all other trials, If we are ever going to have a pairs trials, this seems like a reasonable situation to try it.

[Mike Passell]

I think this is a very bad idea between the security risks and possibly forcing pairs to play with team mates they may not be happy with for various reasons 

Sent from my iPhone

[Kit Woolsey]

I am opposed to any online trials for many reasons.

>
> I have a couple more suggestions:
>
> 1. This might be a good time to try an online trial.
>
> 2. Likewise for a pairs trial, either traditional or online.
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Jan Martel <mart...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The USBF Board is discussing this. I just sent a questionnaire about this

> > event to everyone registered on the USBF website. In case you didn=E2=80=
> =99t get
> > the email (some email clients don=E2=80=99t like emails sent by mass mail=

> ), the
> > link to the questionnaire is http://goo.gl/forms/PrUsrmDAXc.
> >
> > On Oct 5, 2015, at 9:59 PM, jstansby <jsta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > WBF is having a Mixed Teams Championship in addition to Open/Women/Senior
> >

> > http://csbnews.org/wbf-future-events/?lang=3Den

[Robb Gordon]

This is a very difficult situation.
First of all the scheduling is such that nobody who is competing in the open or women's or senior's will be able to play. That excludes (presumably) 18 candidates.
Secondly our trials schedule which we don't want to compromise takes up a lot of time.
Thirdly our NABC schedule plus the demands on professional players at regionals leaves little time.

An online trial would address a lot of these issues, but I don't think having such a trial across the nation would be logistically feasible at a reasonable cost.

Therefore I reluctantly suggest we go to the Sport Accord model of selection.
It does not consume time. It can be postponed until the other trials are over.
We can decide whether to accept entries of pairs or of teams.

Robb

-----Original Message-----
From: usbf...@googlegroups.com [mailto:usbf...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Kit Woolsey
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 8:33 PM
To: Adam Wildavsky
Cc: Jan Martel; JoAnna Stansby; ITTC Mailing List
Subject: Re: how to select Mixed Team for Wroclaw 2016

[Uday Ivatury]

The cost of an online trial is negligible for both the organizers and the participants, and if it is not, BBO can make it so. 

As Greg H. points out, security can be dealt with. Security at an adequately proctored online trial can be far tighter than security at a physical event. Consider this in the light of recent events. 

One issue that gets inadequate airplay is accessibility of the Trials. Perhaps an online trial, by virtue of convenience, cost, vacation time, ease of entry would inject some fresh blood into the event. 

For a pro, for a sponsor, these events are opportunities. For amateurs, bridge is a pastime. A typical Trial involves  an open return ticket, hotel reservations of indeterminate length, vacation time, being away from home for extended periods.  None of these expenses are tax deductible for amateurs, and no one pays them to show up. 

Perhaps we should consider attempting to service our amateurs to some larger extent than we usually do, by having *one* Trial, in *one* year, for *one* mixed event be somewhat amateur-friendly.  Making the Trials easy and inexpensive would be a step in the right direction.

Not even I dispute that an online Trial would bring with it new some kinks and oddities, and lose some old ones. We're all bridge players, and we breathe both in with every breath at every NABC; surely we can handle the trauma of seriously considering an online venue this one time.  

If and when we do that, we can list any issues and attempt to address them individually. Of course, "I just don't like that online thing" is difficult to address. However, it is possible that cutting loose the players who are unwilling to adapt and embracing the open-minded will lead to a large net gain in attendance, and just perhaps, in quality. 

Uday Ivatury

[Robb Gordon]

I support online bridge and always have.

Believe it or not, I have played bridge online since 1986 (quantum link network, predecessor to AOL).

But the nature of this event would require physical locations to be designated, even if that isn’t technologically required,

I believe the contestants will insist on it.

 

That will be costly.

 

Robb

 

From: usbf...@googlegroups.com [mailto:usbf...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Uday Ivatury
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 9:41 PM
To: ITTC Mailing List
Subject: Re: how to select Mixed Team for Wroclaw 2016

 

The cost of an online trial is negligible for both the organizers and the participants, and if it is not, BBO can make it so. 

--

[Jan Martel]

A very high percentage (62%) of the 91 people who responded to the questionnaire we sent to USBF members thought that the team should be selected by a team trials. 22% thought we should select by voting and the others had individualized answers (two wanted to select pairs, one suggested this year might be different than others because we just found out, one suggested online, a few demonstrated that they didn’t know what they were talking about “send the defending champions from Lille” “make the NABC Mixed Teams important again” “best record in Mixed events.” 

  Jan Martel

mart...@gmail.com

[JoAnna Stansby]

I like Uday & Greg's idea for having an online *TEAM* trials.  Bob Hamman suggested a  demo electronic bridge.  This looks like the perfect opportunity to experiment and meld those 2 ideas.

JoAnna

[Greg Humphreys]

I didn't say anything that could be construed as advocating for online trials.  I said there were ways to alleviate the security concerns through proctoring and having a small set of sites.  There are a host of other concerns, of course.

In general I like the idea of experimenting with trials formats, particularly for this event, but my gut tells me that we're going to go with manual team selection for the purely practical reason that we might not be able to put together something reasonable with this short notice.  Doing something radical like online trials, even if we could convince this committee to put aside their grave concerns, would require some very careful planning and thinking through.

[Josh Sher]

We could always save money and not send a team.... I don't mean to offend anyone, but this is a silly event.

Sent from my iPad

[Adam Wildavsky]

We can save money and still send a team, in at least two ways. One is to not pay the team's expenses. Another is to charge a relatively high entry fee and use the excess of revenue over tournament expenses to defray the winner's expenses for travel to Poland.

I won't take sides regarding whether this event is more or less silly than others -- it is a world championship.

[mark feldman]

Why not have an auction? ☺

[Howard Weinstein]

Auction bridge leading to contract bridge?

I suspect they sort of do this already in some other countries, but we are not FIFA.

[Michael Kamil]

I'm whistful about the whole thing.  (okay...I'll shut up now)

[steve robinson]

Most of our teams already have clients on them and the other five players are very good. Since it would very inconvenient to have a mixed team trials, why not let the clients bid among themselves. Whoever wins the bidding would probably hire the five best eligible players. I'm sure the USBF could use the money and I think we'd get the best team possible since I doubt that the best professional bridge players would go on their own dime.  

Make every card count

[Danny Sprung]

Thanks for the laugh, Steve.

Danny

[JoAnna Stansby]

​how about a lottery where

1)  every team entered starts with 4, 5, or 6 tickets matching the number of players registered on the team.

2)  the team gets 1 additional ticket for each year in the last 10 (5? , 15?)  years each player has played in​ 1 or more trials  (so if I played both open and womens in 2009  I would get 1 extra ticket for my 2009 participation in a team trials;  If another player on my team played open & seniors in 2009 then the team also gets 1 additional ticket for his 2009 participation).  For any given year it is possible for the team to receive up to 6 extra tickets if each player on a 6 person team participated in a trials that year)

3) anyone can buy additional tickets for their team at the price of A dollars for the first B extra tickets for this team;   C dollars for the next D extra tickets for this team,  E dollars for the next F extra tickets, etc (price going up as you buy more)

The proceeds from the lottery:

a)  first USBF deducts any expenses for running this lottery

b)  USBF then subsidizes the team from the remaining money just as they would subsidize any other team EXCEPT if there is a shortfall then too bad,  the team just gets what ever money there is.

[Mike Passell]

Finally a great idea  

Sent from my iPhone

[Kit Woolsey]

Why stop there? We can dispense with all trials in this manner. They are a waste of time anyway, aren't they? We will wind
up with a Bill Gates team, a Warren Buffet team, etc. Money talks. The USBF gets rich, and everybody is happy. It's the
democratic way.

[Mike Passell]

Now you are talking

Sent from my iPhone

[nikde...@gmail.com]

I am pretty sure I filled up the questionnaire but reading through the emails I felt the urge to voice my opinion:

1. trials cost money and time
2. it is unclear how much interest there will be for this event as (with a couple
of exceptions) there are no primary mixed partnerships.
3. so this event will be last on everyone's list - "if there's nothing else
may be...."

what i suggested to be a fair draw is to have eligibility among the players
from the top finishers of the Open and Womens trials.

Here how it goes roughly:
stage 1.
ask the runners up if they are interested to go as individuals. then go to
3-4 placed teams and then go down the list.
stage 2.
say we have a pool of 10 people interested (5 women, 5 men). then they form partnerships
between them. then prioritize pair eligibility on certain criteria (higher
finish) break ties if necessary, have a playoff for 3rd in the USBF to secure prioriy in the eligiblity (if either team is not interested they can forfeit)

let's summarize:
cost: $0.00
time: 1h is plenty
fairness: couldn't be fairer. those people already competed in the current
usbf
practical issue: sponsors - the sponsors placed in the top finishers get to
say yes on no and down the list. let's not be shy to say it. in todays pro
bridge settings this is how it is.

If all of a sudden the Mixed WBF becomes very popular in a few years, then would be the time to review the selection process and talk about separate trials etc. I am sure there will be voiced disagreement from people who want to forward their personal interest so I challenge anyone to come with better and more efficient suggestion than mine.

Regards,
Nik

[Gavin Wolpert]

I don't want to give a strong opinion about the method of selecting trials, just wanted to give feedback from mine and Jenny's perspective.   If we have the ability to work in the trials/world championships then one or both of us might play.  If there is a pairs trials or a selection we will definitely not play.   

[Brad Moss]

i think this is a perfect opportunity to experiment with an online trials.  while i do not want our future to be four players in four rooms, i believe we must adapt or die out to some degree.  lets take this moment to start working out the kinks for something like this.

--

[mec...@aol.com]

It is way too difficult to have good security for such an online event IMO. I have to respectfully disagree Brad. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Brad Moss <bradfor...@gmail.com>
To: Gavin Wolpert <gavinw...@gmail.com>
Cc: International Team Trials Committee <usbf...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tue, Oct 27, 2015 8:14 pm
Subject: Re: how to select Mixed Team for Wroclaw 2016

[Brad Moss]

fair enough, Jeff

[Adam Wildavsky]

Please elaborate, Jeff. I imagine competitors playing from their local bridge clubs, with their screens projected onto the wall so that locals can watch the action in real time. If a pair lived in the same city they would find different clubs to play from or some other accommodation could be made.

[Fred Gitelman]

"Other accommodations" are not exactly complicated or difficult to arrange - you just need someone you trust to keep an eye on the players.

Suppose for the sake of argument that the format of the event is a bunch of qualifying heats in clubs in major cities plus a final in a single physical location.

Regardless of whether or not the qualifying heats use real cards or computers, you are going to want someone you trust to keep watch in each club. This is especially true since recent events have demonstrated that it is easy to cheat effectively even when playing with screens (particularly if nobody is paying attention) and it is not as if it rates to be logistically possible to set up screens in various clubs across the country.

An event like this that uses computers instead of cards is arguably more secure for at least 2 reasons:

1) The computer keeps a perfect record of the bidding and play making it easy to review all actions taken by any suspect pair.
2) Online cheating is not exactly subtle. It is obvious if someone is talking on their cellphone or launching a chat program on their computer. The same is not true of live bridge where you can see your partner and extremely subtle mannerisms can convey information.

[Alan Frank]

I agree that it is "difficult," but not "way too difficult." Given what
has been offered as a schedule, I believe there is enough time to propose
and review a security model for this event. I've seen enough technical
knowledge on this list and on BridgeWinners to expect that this could be
pulled off successfully.

--Alan

[BPol...@aol.com]

I recall agreeing to do something like this for USBF Juniors, as both an experiment and to contain costs and logistics, and it seemed to work.  

 

The worse case would seem to be that a wannabe cheats their ways to the finals, where they probably don't Q, or a 'bad' pair makes it, and the other two pairs change their minds.  All that seems possible, and pairs could drop off (thus we then Q pairs 4, 5, 6, whatever). 

 

Seems better than the proposed alternatives, and worth a try.

 

In a message dated 10/27/2015 12:46:26 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, fr...@bridgebase.com writes:

"Other accommodations" are not exactly complicated or difficult to arrange - you just need someone you trust to keep an eye on the players.

Suppose for the sake of argument that the format of the event is a bunch of qualifying heats in clubs in major cities plus a final in a single physical location.

Regardless of whether or not the qualifying heats use real cards or computers, you are going to want someone you trust to keep watch in each club. This is especially true since recent events have demonstrated that it is easy to cheat effectively even when playing with screens (particularly if nobody is paying attention) and it is not as if it rates to be logistically possible to set up screens in various clubs across the country.

An event like this that uses computers instead of cards is arguably more secure for at least 2 reasons:

1) The computer keeps a perfect record of the bidding and play making it easy to review all actions taken by any suspect pair.
2) Online cheating is not exactly subtle. It is obvious if someone is talking on their cellphone or launching a chat program on their computer. The same is not true of live bridge where you can see your partner and extremely subtle mannerisms can convey information.

On 10/27/2015 9:24 AM, Adam Wildavsky wrote:

Please elaborate, Jeff. I imagine competitors playing from their local bridge clubs, with their screens projected onto the wall so that locals can watch the action in real time. If a pair lived in the same city they would find different clubs to play from or some other accommodation could be made.

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 12:19 PM, meckles via International Team Trials Committee <usbf...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

It is way too difficult to have good security for such an online event IMO. I have to respectfully disagree Brad. 

[Michael Bodell]

In addition to human monitors, it likely would be possible to set up some video monitoring also.  Not necessarily instantly live streaming, which might be hard in the distributed and volunteer setup, but a fair number of people have access to video cameras (digital or otherwise) and some video proctoring supplementing human proctoring should be doable and able to mitigate nearly any reasonable security concerns.

[steve robinson]

Isn't it important to find out who would want to play in the mixed KO?

If you had a list of either singles, pairs, or mixed teams who would want to be considered, (assuming they would not win the Open, Seniors or Women's trials) you could then try to figure out a way to select the final six based on the list..  

Make every card count

[mec...@aol.com]

Seems like a good idea. I would play as a single if not in the other events. 

Sent from my iPhone