2017 Match Lengths

[Jan Martel]

Thank you for voting on the format for 2017. We will be using Format 2 (USA1 losing finalist drops into USA2 Semi Finals – the format we have used for the last two Senior USBCs) in 2017. Now I’d like to move on to the question of match length, which will determine event length.

To try to simplify our discussion, I’d like to propose three possible alternatives and ask you to discuss them and then in about a week I will make a ballot on which you can vote. In all three of these alternatives, I am assuming a 2 day Round Robin, but have some possible ways to deal with an entry that makes us feel strongly we need 2.5 days for the Round Robin.

1.    Longest matches, longest event:

All USA1 matches are 120 boards (2 days) long. USA2 SF and Final are either 90 boards (1.5 days) or 120 boards (2 days). This would mean that the entire event would be either 13 or 14 days long. Advantages are longer matches and all matches start at the beginning of a day. Disadvantage is longer event. If the entry is such that we prefer 2.5 days for the Round Robin, the Round of 16 would be 90 boards (1.5 days).

2.     In between

USA1 Rounds of 16 and 8 are 90 boards (1.5 days) long. USA1 SF and Final are 120 boards. USA 2 SF and Final are either 90 or 120 boards. This would take 12 or 13 days, depending on the length of the USA2 SF and Final. If we feel we need a 2.5 day Round Robin, we could either start the Round Robin half a day earlier, or reduce the Round of 16 to 60 boards (I really don’t like this), or extend the event by making the Round of 8 2 days long – it would then be 13 or 14 days long depending on USA2 SF and Final lengths.

3.    Shortest

All KO matches are 90 boards (1.5 days) long. The event would be 11 days long. If we feel we need a 2.5 day Round Robin, we either start the Round Robin half a day earlier or end half a day later.

Please discuss, and of course if anyone has any other options to suggest, please do so.

If it matters, my plan is to try to hold the 2017 USBC and Senior USBC at the Schaumburg Hyatt, where I hope we will be able to use small rooms for the entire event, as we did for the Seniors this year. I would like to find an East Coast location for 2018 and any help with that would be appreciated!

Thanks

  Jan Martel

mart...@gmail.com

[Danny Sprung]

I still maintain 13/14 days is just too long.  Stamina will trump skill.  Even at 11 days, playing 60 boards a day is too much.  I won't bother with my proposal again, since it received less than zero support, but I strongly suggest making the event a maximum of 11 days.  90 boards for a KO match is probably only slightly less formful than 120, and you have to lose twice, which will give the best teams a second chance if a USA1 match goes poorly.

Danny

--
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.

[Jonathan Weinstein]

Agree completely with Danny. A team that loses two 90-board matches is (very likely) at best a very small margin better than the actual winners. At some point the extra days are turning the event into an endurance contest more than they are decreasing variance. Henry Bethe would surely remind us that 120-board matches are only a bit more formful than 90.

[Jeff Aker]

Jonathon and Danny,

 

Do you think that the entry would be larger (which I’d view as a plus) with shorter matches?

 

Jeff Aker

Senior Trader

The Gargoyle Group

ja...@gargoylegroup.com

201-227-2247

The information contained in this electronic message is confidential, for information and/or discussion purposes only and does not constitute advice about, or an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to purchase, any security, investment product or service. Offers of securities may only be made by means of delivery of an approved confidential offering memorandum or prospectus, may be legally privileged and confidential under applicable law, and are intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. We do not, and will not, effect or attempt to effect transactions in securities, or render personalized advice for compensation, through this email. We make no representation or warranty with respect to the accuracy or completeness of this material, nor are we obligated to update any information contained herein. Certain information has been obtained from various third party sources believed to be reliable but we cannot guarantee its accuracy or completeness. Our investment products involve risk and no assurance can be given that your investment objectives will be achieved. Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Email transmissions are not secure, and we accept no liability for errors in transmission, delayed transmission, or other transmission-related issues. This message may contain confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. Neither confidentiality nor any privilege is intended to be waived or lost by any error in transmission.

[Mike Passell]

After back to back trials I can attest to 90 boards being enough  Playing less than 60 a day would be awful.  Mike

Sent from my iPad

[Robb Gordon]

I think the entry might be larger if the event was shorter. It might even include me (but don't let that discourage you).

Robb

[Danny Sprung]

Jeff:

Might add 1 or 2 teams, but I tend to doubt it matters too much. 

Danny

[BPol...@aol.com]

I agree with Mike on both counts.

 

Bill P

 

In a message dated 6/16/2015 12:21:19 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, mnpa...@sbcglobal.net writes:

After back to back trials I can attest to 90 boards being enough  Playing less than 60 a day would be awful.  Mike

Sent from my iPad

On Jun 16, 2015, at 11:08 AM, Jonathan Weinstein <jlw...@gmail.com> wrote:

[mark feldman]

The World Championship is two weeks. So if a team gets exhausted in a 13 day Trials, why should we dismiss that

as a consideration for how well  a team would play in the WBF competition?

[Bruce Rogoff]

Mark,

The WBF events are 3 16-board sets per day, a less taxing schedule for sure. 

Bruce 

Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S® 5 ACTIVE™, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

[Mark Feldman]

Yes, but play for Trials is in the Hotel where most everyone is staying. In WBF events often the case that transportation and not having a nearby hotel room when sitting out makes it at least as tiring.

Sent from my iPhone

[Alan Frank]

Assuming I remember Henry's number correctly that the average swing per
board is 4 IMPs, a team which is .1 IMP/board better has a 61% chance to
win a 120-board match and a 58% chance to win a 60-board match.

With a .5 IMP/board advantage, those numbers are 91% and 83%, meaning the
chance of an upset is twice as great with a shorter match.

The biggest absolute difference comes with a .43 IMP/board advantage, at
88.5% to 80%.

In any case, the values for a 90-board match are slightly more than the
average of 60 and 120.

If my memory is incorrect or otherwise you want to use an average swing
value of 2.5 IMPs, the numbers are as follows:
.1 IMP/board advantage, 67% vs 62%
.5 IMP/board, 98.6% vs 94%
.27 IMP/board (biggest difference), 88% vs 80%.

If the best team in the R16 averages .3 IMP/board better than its
opponents, the chance that it will qualify for the BB (as either USA1 or
USA2), based on 4 IMPs/board average swing is
48% with 60-board matches
58% with 90-board matches
66% with 120-board matches.

With 2.5 IMPs/board average swing, the numbers are
73% with 60-board matches
84% with 90-board matches
90% with 120-board matches.

There are a lot of simplifying assumptions here, but given the timeframe
for voting I'm not going to be able to do a full simulation.

--Alan

P.S. For you dark horses, if you average .1 IMP/board worse than your
opponents, then 60-board matches give you a 4% chance of qualifying, while
120-board matches reduce that to about half.

On Tue, 16 Jun 2015, Jan Martel wrote:

>
> Thank you for voting on the format for 2017. We will be using Format 2 (USA1

> losing finalist drops into USA2 Semi Finals ? the format we have used for the
> last two Senior USBCs) in 2017. Now I?d like to move on to the question of

> match length, which will determine event length.
>

> To try to simplify our discussion, I?d like to propose three possible

> alternatives and ask you to discuss them and then in about a week I will
> make a ballot on which you can vote. In all three of these alternatives, I
> am assuming a 2 day Round Robin, but have some possible ways to deal with an
> entry that makes us feel strongly we need 2.5 days for the Round Robin.
>
> 1.    Longest matches, longest event:
>
> All USA1 matches are 120 boards (2 days) long. USA2 SF and Final are either
> 90 boards (1.5 days) or 120 boards (2 days). This would mean that the entire
> event would be either 13 or 14 days long. Advantages are longer matches and
> all matches start at the beginning of a day. Disadvantage is longer event.
> If the entry is such that we prefer 2.5 days for the Round Robin, the Round
> of 16 would be 90 boards (1.5 days).
>
> 2.     In between
>
> USA1 Rounds of 16 and 8 are 90 boards (1.5 days) long. USA1 SF and Final are
> 120 boards. USA 2 SF and Final are either 90 or 120 boards. This would take
> 12 or 13 days, depending on the length of the USA2 SF and Final. If we feel
> we need a 2.5 day Round Robin, we could either start the Round Robin half a

> day earlier, or reduce the Round of 16 to 60 boards (I really don?t like
> this), or extend the event by making the Round of 8 2 days long ? it would

> then be 13 or 14 days long depending on USA2 SF and Final lengths.
>
> 3.    Shortest
>
> All KO matches are 90 boards (1.5 days) long. The event would be 11 days
> long. If we feel we need a 2.5 day Round Robin, we either start the Round
> Robin half a day earlier or end half a day later.
>
> Please discuss, and of course if anyone has any other options to suggest,
> please do so.
>
> If it matters, my plan is to try to hold the 2017 USBC and Senior USBC at
> the Schaumburg Hyatt, where I hope we will be able to use small rooms for
> the entire event, as we did for the Seniors this year. I would like to find
> an East Coast location for 2018 and any help with that would be appreciated!
>
> Thanks
>
>   Jan Martel
> mart...@gmail.com
>
>
>
>

[Bruce Rogoff]

I don't think the potential 15-minute ride back to one's hotel is nearly as tiring as an extra 2-hour session.

Look, I'm fine with 60 boards per day: I suspect my stamina is as good as anybody's, and the event will be shorter as a result.  I just think 13-14 straight days of that schedule is extremely tough, and for many top players the quality of their bridge will suffer.

The proponents of 120 board matches claim that it's slightly more formful than 90 boards.  In a vacuum I'm sure that's true, but the brutal 13-14 day schedule will almost surely (IMO) randomize the latter stages, perhaps defeating the purpose of finding the best teams.

[Frank Nickell]

I think we should play 60 boards a day. 90 board matches.  2 matches every 3 days.

If you want to make the finals and/or semifinals 120 boards, i am ok, but that will add a day to the event, and may make it difficult to match up with the USA 2 bracket.

Purist would say that instead of 90 board matches, do 96. This results in 16 board quarters rather than 15. Every seat opens 4 times per set, rather than 1 seat only opening 3 times to everyone else's 4. This ways bothered my old partner, Richard. I never felt too strongly about 15 vs 16.

Sent from my iPhone

[mark feldman]

Bruce,

Some people have told me the combined travel and no convenient place to rest makes it more tiring on a daily basis than having four fifteen board sessions. But I am not opposed to 90 board matches when two teams are being selected. 

[Adam Wildavsky]

Depends on the venue and the players' (and USBF's) budgets. Some years the playing area is in a hotel, and some years that hotel is reasonably priced.

The world championship tends to be more tiring, though, even when staying as close to the playing area as in a NABC. For one thing there is added pressure in representing one's country. For another there are opposing methods to deal with that are not legal in the ACBL. Conditions of contest and tournament organization are somewhat different than the ACBL's. And foreign countries are, well, foreign. We are less used to them than we are to our own, and simple things can take longer to accomplish.

A pair that is anchoring will feel the strain most. Otherwise one plays at most 30 boards at a stretch in the USBF and 32 at a stretch in the WBF.

All told I'd say that 48 boards per day at a world championship is about as strenuous as 60 per day at our trials. The reason I advocated 48 per day in the early rounds of our trials was not because of the strain, but because I didn't think the extra boards in the early rounds made the event significantly more formful and because shorter days are more comfortable for the players. I don't want to propose that again now, I'm just trying to clarify the pros and cons as I see them.

[steve robinson]

 I think 90 board matches is enough

Make every card count

[Adam Wildavsky]

I think shorter early matches and longer late ones makes the best use of our time, so I prefer alternative 2.

On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Jan Martel <mart...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Adam Wildavsky]

I'm pretty sure Henry found that the average swing per board in high level play is close to 4.25 IMPs. This is easy enough to calculate -- we could confirm by looking at the results from this years' trials.

I found this on Al Levy's site. spb == average swing per board.

For the 2007 Bermuda Bowl/Venice Cup/Senior Bowl/Transnational Teams, the combined spb = 4.25

[Alan Frank]

In the Open USBC round of 16, there were 3770 IMPs scored over 915 boards,
for an average of 4.12.

On Wed, 17 Jun 2015, Adam Wildavsky wrote:

> I think shorter early matches and longer late ones makes the best use of our
> time, so I prefer alternative 2.
>
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Jan Martel <mart...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thank you for voting on the format for 2017. We will be using

> Format 2 (USA1 losing finalist drops into USA2 Semi Finals ? the

> format we have used for the last two Senior USBCs) in 2017. Now

> I?d like to move on to the question of match length, which will
> determine event length.
>
> To try to simplify our discussion, I?d like to propose three

> possible alternatives and ask you to discuss them and then in
> about a week I will make a ballot on which you can vote. In all
> three of these alternatives, I am assuming a 2 day Round Robin,
> but have some possible ways to deal with an entry that makes us
> feel strongly we need 2.5 days for the Round Robin.
>
> 1.    Longest matches, longest event:
>
> All USA1 matches are 120 boards (2 days) long. USA2 SF and Final
> are either 90 boards (1.5 days) or 120 boards (2 days). This
> would mean that the entire event would be either 13 or 14 days
> long. Advantages are longer matches and all matches start at the
> beginning of a day. Disadvantage is longer event. If the entry
> is such that we prefer 2.5 days for the Round Robin, the Round
> of 16 would be 90 boards (1.5 days).
>
> 2.     In between
>
> USA1 Rounds of 16 and 8 are 90 boards (1.5 days) long. USA1 SF
> and Final are 120 boards. USA 2 SF and Final are either 90 or
> 120 boards. This would take 12 or 13 days, depending on the
> length of the USA2 SF and Final. If we feel we need a 2.5 day
> Round Robin, we could either start the Round Robin half a day

> earlier, or reduce the Round of 16 to 60 boards (I really don?t

> like this), or extend the event by making the Round of 8 2 days

> long ? it would then be 13 or 14 days long depending on USA2 SF

[Adam Wildavsky]

Thanks!

Shall we increase the sample size? I'd be interested in whether the figure varies by round, and also how much variation there is from year to year and event to event. I also don't know how much data we'd need to be confident of the result. Fortunately I don't think the calculation of the odds of winning a match is sensitive to small changes in this figure.

[Chris Compton]

This is over management. Every couple of years we rehash this issue and we have the overwhelming urge to "change" for the sake of "change." It comes back to this: more "formfull" is what we desire. Longer equals more "formfull." True stewardship requires restraint. 

Chris 

[Chris Compton]

I will agree that as long as we keep round of 8 on At 120 boards, I can live w the earlier rounds at 90.

Chris 

[Adam Wildavsky]

You are over simplifying, Chris. We will be using a new format for 2017 -- we need to decide on the match lengths. We have to exercise restraint somewhere. We could make every match 300 boards, but that would satisfy no one. Further, you are begging the question. Agreeing that we'd like to make the event more formful says nothing about whether it would be more formful to make every match the same length or to make later matches longer than earlier ones. I would love to see a mathematical analysis of that question. Sadly I like the statistical skills to perform it myself.

[Danny Sprung]

Chris:

Do we really need 14 days to pick 2 teams?  Is that even remotely fair to those who don't play bridge professionally and actually have a real job outside of bridge?  If one were to win, they would need to take 2 weeks off from work for the trials AND at least 2 weeks off for the BB.  Note, that while Europe takes about that much time, they have the 'trials' and the BB in different years.

90 boards is sufficient since everyone gets 2 chances, not 1.

Danny

[Frank Nickell]

For a double elimination event, 90 is plenty of boards. 

Sent from my iPhone

[Chris Compton]

I wish it to be remembered that I was the last man of my tribe to surrender my rifle. OK On the 90 boards only for double elimination. I would rather eliminate double elimination! (Ok, for bonus points, whose quote did I copy?)

 

 

From: usbf...@googlegroups.com [mailto:usbf...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Adam Wildavsky
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 9:54 AM
To: Chris Compton
Cc: Danny Sprung; Jan Martel; ITTC Mailing List
Subject: Re: 2017 Match Lengths

 

You are over simplifying, Chris. We will be using a new format for 2017 -- we need to decide on the match lengths. We have to exercise restraint somewhere. We could make every match 300 boards, but that would satisfy no one. Further, you are begging the question. Agreeing that we'd like to make the event more formful says nothing about whether it would be more formful to make every match the same length or to make later matches longer than earlier ones. I would love to see a mathematical analysis of that question. Sadly I like the statistical skills to perform it myself.

[Jeff Aker]

I misguessed on the quote…it was my second choice. As to the other point, about double-elimination, remember that it’s only once every 4 years – unless those who want the United States to have multiple teams in the Mind Sport Games get their way.

 

Jeff

 

Jeff Aker

Senior Trader

The Gargoyle Group

ja...@gargoylegroup.com

201-227-2247

 

The information contained in this electronic message is confidential, for information and/or discussion purposes only and does not constitute advice about, or an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to purchase, any security, investment product or service. Offers of securities may only be made by means of delivery of an approved confidential offering memorandum or prospectus, may be legally privileged and confidential under applicable law, and are intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. We do not, and will not, effect or attempt to effect transactions in securities, or render personalized advice for compensation, through this email. We make no representation or warranty with respect to the accuracy or completeness of this material, nor are we obligated to update any information contained herein. Certain information has been obtained from various third party sources believed to be reliable but we cannot guarantee its accuracy or completeness. Our investment products involve risk and no assurance can be given that your investment objectives will be achieved. Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Email transmissions are not secure, and we accept no liability for errors in transmission, delayed transmission, or other transmission-related issues. This message may contain confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. Neither confidentiality nor any privilege is intended to be waived or lost by any error in transmission.

[Frank Nickell]

Chris, lighten the fuck up

Sent from my iPhone

[Frank Nickell]

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 17, 2015, at 9:30 PM, Jeff Aker <ja...@gargoylegroup.com> wrote:

[Alan Frank]

Europeans also tend to have more vacation than Americans.

[Marty Harris]

Alan,

You can't possibly simulate this, because people aren't computers. The main benefit of 120 boards vs. 60 boards is it allows the better team to survive an "off day": a day when they lose IMPs not because of bad luck, but because one or two of their pairs play significantly worse than their usual level. If you assume an "x" IMPs per board difference between the two teams, it won't change from day 1 to day 2, so the simulation won't reflect it.

Marty

-----Original Message-----
From: usbf...@googlegroups.com [mailto:usbf...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Alan Frank
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 1:46 PM
To: Jan Martel
Cc: ITTC Mailing List
Subject: Re: 2017 Match Lengths

[Marty Fleisher]

Marty, I think Alan is right here. I think the possibility of pairs being off is already captured in the variance.  As we all know, even if a team is superior, there is a probability they will lose any particular match. The more boards the lower the chance of an upset happening.

--

Martin Fleisher

7 Times Square

27th floor

New York, NY 10036-6516

(p) 212-767-7307
(c) 347-766-7696

[Jonathan Weinstein]

Marty F and H,

 

In slightly more mathematical language, Marty H is saying that there is a component of variance which is common to all boards on a given day. If so, this would indeed be missed by a model that assumes boards are i.i.d. conditional on skill and uses per-board variance as fundamental (much as you get the wrong answer for the probability that 40 or more of 100 mortgages in a CDO will default if you assume each default is independent.) This doesn’t mean modeling is impossible, though it does make it harder—it just means you would need a separate estimate of this good day/bad day variance, which might be very different for different pairs. My guess, though, is that ignoring correlation is not nearly as big a mistake here as in the housing market; the estimates from the naïve (i.i.d.) model are probably pretty useful. There is a definite psychological tendency to overstate the extent to which a pair is “having a bad day” in some systematic way vs. a series of independent bad events. Variance which is independent across boards includes not only the obvious such as good slams that go down, but also: hands that don’t suit an otherwise good system, hands that test slam bidding when a pair’s strength is technical card play or vice versa, etc. It’s particularly easy to think a pair had a bad day when the set of hands just randomly didn’t suit their talents.

 

Best,

Jonathan

[Marty Fleisher]

sounds right to me. Chip Martel made the point to me years ago that a
component of luck is which hands come up with you understand and which
ones you don't-very similar to JW's point about hands not suiting a
pair's talents.

[Peter Boyd]

Just to clarify one point, though it might be obvious....

 

Our discussion now, about match lengths (90 vs 120 boards) and event lengths (11, 12, 13, or 14 days)  applies only to the one year out of four where we qualify two teams in one Trials.  For the other three years, we’ll be using the standard (and more convenient) one-winner format, which typically takes 10 days, with 120-board matches throughout.

 

From: Jan Martel

Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 11:47 AM

To: ITTC Mailing List

Subject: 2017 Match Lengths

 

Thank you for voting on the format for 2017. We will be using Format 2 (USA1 losing finalist drops into USA2 Semi Finals – the format we have used for the last two Senior USBCs) in 2017. Now I’d like to move on to the question of match length, which will determine event length.

To try to simplify our discussion, I’d like to propose three possible alternatives and ask you to discuss them and then in about a week I will make a ballot on which you can vote. In all three of these alternatives, I am assuming a 2 day Round Robin, but have some possible ways to deal with an entry that makes us feel strongly we need 2.5 days for the Round Robin.

<!--[if !supportLists]--> 1.    <!--[endif]-->Longest matches, longest event:

All USA1 matches are 120 boards (2 days) long. USA2 SF and Final are either 90 boards (1.5 days) or 120 boards (2 days). This would mean that the entire event would be either 13 or 14 days long. Advantages are longer matches and all matches start at the beginning of a day. Disadvantage is longer event. If the entry is such that we prefer 2.5 days for the Round Robin, the Round of 16 would be 90 boards (1.5 days).

<!--[if !supportLists]--> 2.    <!--[endif]--> In between

USA1 Rounds of 16 and 8 are 90 boards (1.5 days) long. USA1 SF and Final are 120 boards. USA 2 SF and Final are either 90 or 120 boards. This would take 12 or 13 days, depending on the length of the USA2 SF and Final. If we feel we need a 2.5 day Round Robin, we could either start the Round Robin half a day earlier, or reduce the Round of 16 to 60 boards (I really don’t like this), or extend the event by making the Round of 8 2 days long – it would then be 13 or 14 days long depending on USA2 SF and Final lengths.

<!--[if !supportLists]--> 3.    <!--[endif]-->Shortest