[mrdct]

I'd like to talk about the way in which the Victorian open team is selected which, imho, is a really good method. Victoria is one of eight states and territories in Australia which contests the annual Australian National Championships which is one of the oldest bridge events in the world which has been played every year since 1933 except for a break during World War II. Victoria has about 7,000 registered bridge players of which 95% of the potential representative players reside in the capital city, Melbourne.

Generally, there are two streams that lead to an eventual head-to-head play-off between the Butler Team and the Pennant Team.

The Pennant Team comes from the State Teams Championship ("the Pennant") which has swiss qualifying played over seven Wednesday nights (7 x 28-board matches with field of about 30 teams) from which the top six play a further round-robin on Saturday and then the top two contest a 64-board final on Sunday.

A couple of months later the Butler Trials are held, with Stage 1 being open to all-comers (although in a practical sense it is limited to residents of Melbourne) and played in a swiss-pairs format over four Wednesday nights (8 x 14-board matches) to reduce the initial field of about 60 pairs to 14 pairs to which 2 pairs from outside of Melbourne are added to form a field of 16 pairs to contest Stage 2. Stage 2 is played over two weekends as a complete round-robin after which the top 3 pairs become the Butler Team. Members of the Pennant Team are not allowed to play in Stage 2.

There is a further complication in years in which Victoria won the preceding ANC which allows that team, if it remains intact, to participate in a three-way play-off with the Pennant Team and the Butler Team. There is also provision that if a winning team at the ANC plays intact in the Pennant and wins it, they get a right to force an extra 32 boards if they are trailing the Butler Team after 64 boards of the play-off.

The good feature of this selection method is that you have a good safety measure to deal with either a weak team fluking a win in the Pennant or the Butler Trials throwing up a weak team. It is also a good money-spinner for the Victoria Bridge Association filling up 11 nights of the calendar.

[glen]

One thing to keep in mind is the objective of the national team selection. Is it:

- to select the best team at beating good teams from the same nation
- to select the best team at beating the best teams from other nations

Most national selections naturally go for the first, but that is often not the actual objective.

[paulg]

glen, on Mar 4 2010, 12:46 PM, said:

One thing to keep in mind is the objective of the national team selection.  Is it:

- to select the best team at beating good teams from the same nation
- to select the best team at beating the best teams from other nations

Most national selections naturally go for the first, but that is often not the actual objective.

It is pretty difficult to have a selection process to find the best team to beat other international teams, unless (i) your players regularly play in tournaments outside their home country or (ii) you select rather than have trials.

So we (Scotland) settle for the former, even though it is not what is required.

England has gone for selection without trials for the European Team Championships. I don't expect that their selectors actually found this any easier, given the players and personalities involved.

[Vampyr]

cardsharp, on Mar 4 2010, 02:37 PM, said:

England has gone for selection without trials for the European Team Championships. I don't expect that their selectors actually found this any easier, given the players and personalities involved.

If the selectors didn't prefer it this way, they would hold a trials. Perhaps a topic for another thread could be English selection horror stories. There are dozens.

[Aberlour10]

cardsharp, on Mar 4 2010, 08:37 AM, said:

England has gone for selection without trials for the European Team Championships.

Same in Poland. ( after many years with trials ) The PBU will try to get the BB spot back in Ostend with B-Z and our ex-juniors.

..but there are trials for The Rosenblum Cup...

Robert

[paulg]

Aberlour10, on Mar 4 2010, 02:49 PM, said:

cardsharp, on Mar 4 2010, 08:37 AM, said:

England has gone for selection without trials for the European Team Championships.

Same in Poland. ( after many years with trials ) The PBU will try to get the BB spot back in Ostend with B-Z and our ex-juniors.

..but there are trials for The Rosenblum Cup...

Robert

As the Rosenblum is open, presumably the trials are more to get funding rather than the title of Poland I, Poland II, etc?

[Aberlour10]

cardsharp, on Mar 4 2010, 09:53 AM, said:

As the Rosenblum is open, presumably the trials are more to get funding rather than the title of Poland I, Poland II, etc?

Yes. All expenses will be paid by the PBU.

[jjbrr]

glen, on Mar 4 2010, 07:46 AM, said:

One thing to keep in mind is the objective of the national team selection. Is it:

- to select the best team at beating good teams from the same nation
- to select the best team at beating the best teams from other nations

Most national selections naturally go for the first, but that is often not the actual objective.

This seems like splitting hairs. Perhaps in a theoretical world this is a possible distinction that the selection process can account for, but in practice I think everyone is satisfied with sending a team that is most likely to achieve whatever expected success the country aims for.

[paulg]

jjbrr, on Mar 4 2010, 04:12 PM, said:

... Perhaps in a theoretical world this is a possible distinction that the selection process can account for, but in practice I think everyone is satisfied with sending a team that is most likely to achieve whatever expected success the country aims for.

In real life:

• Everyone is NEVER satisfied
  
• A team NEVER reaches the level of success that the country expects (you hope to reach a level that is tolerated)
  
• Sending a TEAM is sometimes the most you can hope for!

[jjbrr]

cardsharp, on Mar 4 2010, 11:49 AM, said:

jjbrr, on Mar 4 2010, 04:12 PM, said:

... Perhaps in a theoretical world this is a possible distinction that the selection process can account for, but in practice I think everyone is satisfied with sending a team that is most likely to achieve whatever expected success the country aims for.

In real life:

• Everyone is NEVER satisfied
  
• A team NEVER reaches the level of success that the country expects (you hope to reach a level that is tolerated)
  
• Sending a TEAM is sometimes the most you can hope for!

Well, if your list is true, then this entire discussion is completely irrelevant.

It should be noted, though, that I'm American. Point two in your list is a problem, do you see why?

[Hanoi5]

Quote

Everyone is NEVER satisfied

Truer words were never spoken.

But the discussion is not irrelevant. By reading what other people are doing and their complains we can try to get more people satisfied than at the moment.

[gnasher]

Hanoi5, on Mar 4 2010, 07:28 PM, said:

By reading what other people are doing and their complains we can try to get more people satisfied than at the moment.

Most bridge players are only truly happy if they have something to complain about. Hence any selection method will do.

[PhantomSac]

I'm quite happy with how the US open team is selected heh

[pooltuna]

PhantomSac, on Mar 4 2010, 06:35 PM, said:

I'm quite happy with how the US open team is selected heh

That's easy to say as long as your on it (But I realize you mean you are just happy with the process ) and don't have to pay attention to the GCC

[Aberlour10]

PhantomSac, on Mar 4 2010, 06:35 PM, said:

I'm quite happy with how the US open team is selected heh

It seems, there is no better way to select considering how the "sponsoring system" in the US bridge works.

[mike777]

Aberlour10, on Mar 4 2010, 06:45 PM, said:

PhantomSac, on Mar 4 2010, 06:35 PM, said:

I'm quite happy with how the US open team is selected heh

It seems, there is no better way to select considering how the "sponsoring system" in the US bridge works.

I have posted often as a huge advocate of an "open" style for usa bridge.


As I have often said the number one goal/priority is not to win it all at any cost.


The top priority is that we all, nonexperts, get a chance to compete. AGain I have no issue with seedings, etc....

If nonexperts or non superexperts have to play more boards, matches.....so be it.

[gnasher]

mike777, on Mar 5 2010, 07:55 AM, said:

I have posted often as a huge advocate of an "open" style for usa bridge.


As I have often said the number one goal/priority is not to win it all at any cost.


The top priority is that we all, nonexperts, get a chance to compete. AGain I have no issue with seedings, etc....

But they do, don't they? At the start of a cycle, don't you have exactly the same oportunity as Meckstroth?

[mike777]

gnasher, on Mar 5 2010, 05:01 AM, said:

mike777, on Mar 5 2010, 07:55 AM, said:

I have posted often as a huge advocate of an "open" style for usa bridge.


As I have often said the number one  goal/priority is not to win it all at any cost.


The top priority is that we all, nonexperts, get a chance to compete. AGain I have no issue with seedings, etc....

But they do, don't they? At the start of a cycle, don't you have exactly the same oportunity as Meckstroth?

I HOPE SO......


IN MANY ....NO......

[gwnn]

gnasher, I think not since they have #1 seed in all tournaments and so they have an easier route and then they get a very good seed for the trials. Not saying it's unfair but clearly the answer to your question is "no".

[gnasher]

Deleted - sorry, talking rubbish