2005 Australian Team Playoff Regulations - Comments
David Thompson
Sartaj Hans
John
Probst
Ron Johnson
Richard Hills
Laurie Kelso
Nick Hughes
David Thompson
The comments that I have are from the perspective of spectators that
seem to be largely ignored in the 2005 play-off arrangements. I preface
my comments by pointing out that the online broadcast of major bridge
events is both an outstanding means of promoting the game, but also a
potential source of revenue for NCBOs and convenors of majors events
when the advertising and/or pay-per-view value of the thousands of
online bridge spectators is eventually harvested. Bridge today is a
spectator sport with spectators outnumbering participants by several
orders of magnitude. Like other spectator sports, and I will use AFL
football as an example, scheduling of events needs to take proper
account of TV ratings and ground attendance maximisation. If spectator
needs were not taken into account, we would still have 6 games played
simulataneously on a Saturday afternoon and none of them on live TV.
Player comfort and convenience needs to be considered, but should not be
the overriding factor in this day and age.
1. Experience from previous online broadcasts of Australian bridge
events shows us that audiences are at their peak in the evenings when
they capture both lunchtime Europeans and evening Australians.
Accordingly, spectator-friendly scheduling would suggest that whereever
possible, evening matches should be scheduled. It may be that some
bridge players prefer to have the evenings off, but all bridge players
routinely play evening sessions so I can't see why that can't be case
during major national events also. From my own perspective as a player,
I quite dislike condensed formats where I barely have time to scratch
myself in between matches and would vastly prefer a slightly later start
and longer breaks.
2. Irrespective of whether or not online vugraph is being undertaken,
hundreds, if not thousands, of spectators rely on the timeliness of the
posting of results on the internet. There can be no valid reason why
results can't be posted on the internet at or about the same time they
are printed-out at playing venues and posted on physical notice boards.
I am of the strong belief that unambiguous scoring specifications need
to be drawn up for major national events requiring that results be on
the internet no more than 5 minutes after being made publicly available
at the playing venue (provisional or otherwise). In the case of teams
events down to the semi-final and final stages, real-time scoring of at
least contract, lead and result from all tables should be available
online. This is done routinely in some European events and I believe was
undertaken (with mixed success) at the ANOT in Adelaide earlier this
year.
Top
Sartaj
Hans
My general feeling is that it is a much improved format than last
teams playoff.
Why do we keep using written bidding instead of bidding boxes ? The
latter is the WBF standard, less accident prone and more efficient (at the 2004 pairs
playoff, one player was carrying around bidding slips showing the different size
of the double of one particular pair ; I advised him to formally reporrt to the
ABF but I doubt if he did). The argument that written bidding helps keep the
record is baseless as I noticed the slips being discarded after the match was
over.
The systems which should be allowed
in the playoff are the ones which will be allowed in the round robin of
the designated world championship.
6.5 and 6.6 To contest the playoff for the Australian team is an
opportunity which should be valued by all contestants. Teams not performing up
to the mark should not get any rebate if eliminated early. The entry fee for all
teams can thus be brought down.
In stage one, teams should have the option of starting the second stanza as
soon as it suits them to do so; say they finish the first set in an hour and a
half, they can take a short break and resume play instead for waiting for the
other tables to catch up;
In all playoff formats in recent years, there seems to be a conscious drive
to give all the contestants a fair share of playing time. Stage one, this year,
is practically an exercise in seeding all the teams. The real matches start with
stage 3. The length of these real matches suffers because of the excessive
amount of time "wasted" in the early stages;
A shorter stage one and two, coupled
with 96 board matches, if not 128, will lead to the strongest team
becoming the Australian representative. Isn't that what the objective of
the playoff is ?
Top
John Probst (Bridge Laws Mailing List)
In the UK we have various things like screen regulations as part of the CoC. Do you have these
separately?
Have fun working out whether it pays to come 2nd
or 3rd :)
Bonkers idea to have a match *just* to see who chooses. The winner of the RR should just
get that. full stop.
Top
Ron Johnson
(Bridge Laws Mailing List)
Regarding section 5.9
Who (if anybody) is reviewing the suggested
defences? (the Martels do this for the US trials -- a good choice
IMO)
I mean I can submit a defence which suggests
(say)
1 over transfers:
7NT = 6 spades, 0-10 HCP
7S = 6 hearts, 0-10 HCP
etc.
I'm pretty sure I could make it both complete
and utterly unplayable (even with notes available). I assume a
yellow method without an acceptable defence would be deemed an
incomplete (per section 5.10), but I think it would be best to have a
procedure in place for reviewing the suggested defences (and to spell it
out).
On a completely separate note, I think it's an
error to play a qualifying tournament with different conditions of contest from the event you're qualifying
for.
Top
Richard Hills
I reiterate a comment originally made by
Jeff Rubens in a Bridge World editorial.
The ABF Open/Women's playoffs are organised as a
knockout event in their final stages. A knockout event is a good format
for selecting a *single* winning team to represent Australia. But in
2005 the ABF will be sending *two* Open and *two* Women teams to
international events. In a knockout event, the losing finalist is *not
necessarily* the second-best team in the event.
I suggest that the playoff be restructured as a
double-knockout, with a repechage final.
-
While the primary final is proceeding, the two
losing semi-finalists play a repechage qualifying knockout match.
-
After the primary final, a repechage final occurs
between the loser of the primary final, and the winner of the
repechage qualifying.
-
The winner of the repechage final is the 2nd
Australian international team
-
Alternatively, the ABF could put in place a more
complicated repechage method which gives a second chance to the 5th
and 6th placed teams in the initial round robin phase of the playoff.
Top
Laurie Kelso
The following highlight some Drafting and Technical conflicts.
2.3 Says
Sub-Committees are constituted with at least three members, while 13.2 says the
AC will consist of not less than five members.
4. Systems. Australia
traditionally has a very liberal approach in regard to system restriction, which
I believe is a good thing. However it seems unwise that a situation can arise
whereby a pair or pairs may qualify for the BB/VC using a Yellow (ie forcing
pass) system and then be forced to use (and practice) totally different methods
in Estoril. Surely the system conditions in this qualifying event should be the
same as those permitted in the Round Robin Stages of the Bermuda Bowl and Venice
Cup?
14. The correction periods specified in 14.1and 14.2 are not in
agreement with those listed in Table 12.1
15.4 Requires a new board to be
substituted for the fouled one. This is normal procedure for multi-stanza
matches (one plays the extra board during the following stanza), however there
is no provision for the situation when a fouled board occurs during the
last stanza of the match. You don't want a situation where someone
argues that they are entitled to an extra-board after the conclusion of a close
contest.
Top
Nick Hughes
Sartaj Hans suggested: "The systems
which should be allowed in the playoff are the ones which will be
allowed in the round robin of the designated world championship."
Well if this were an Olympiad Year, that would mean no brown sticker conventions (such as RCO Twos) in the playoffs because they are not allowed in Olympiad round robins. One could even extend this: The various national championships are qualifying events for the Playoffs. Perhaps it should be no RCO Twos in the (2007) GNOT since they would not be allowed in the subsequent playoffs.
Hmmm.
Top
