[kfay]

JanM, on Jan 30 2009, 12:26 AM, said:

kfay, on Jan 29 2009, 11:53 PM, said:

JanM, on Jan 29 2009, 01:12 PM, said:

[*]The U26 teams will be selected by a team trials, probably immediately preceding the summer 2009 NABC.

REALLY!?!?!?!?!?!

Yes, really. As soon as we have confirmation of space, we'll be posting dates and Conditions of Contest on the usbf website. I think that the Trials will start on Wednesday, July 22nd and continue for 2, 3 or 4 days depending on the number of teams that enter. The format will be very much like last year's FISU Trials; the event will be open to teams of 4, 5 or 6 players who are eligible to compete in the U26 event in 2010.

Jan I really think this is a bad idea. Is no one going to play in the GNTs?

I already committed to play on a team and hopefully we'll be in D.C. come July. Now I just found out about plans for the trials today, an event which I'd rather play in and think I could have success at, so what am I supposed to do?

I realize that the trials were at the same time as the GNTs last year, too, but I also was aware that they were coming up.

I also realize it's too much to ask for to find a time when anyone who wants to go could go, but I notice that no one is proposing holding the trials for the US Open team at this time....

[JanM]

I would love to hold the Junior Trials at a time separate from an NABC. Every time I have suggested that, the Juniors have strongly rejected it. That problem does not arise for the Open, Women's or Seniors Trials. So long as the Juniors are adamant that they want their Trials to be with an NABC (preferably the Summer NABC), we have very limited possibilities.
We can't start any earlier than Wednesday because there isn't playing space (the reason I do not know for certain that we will start Wednesday is that there may not be space on Wednesday). We could start on Friday, which would avoid most of the GNTs (but not all) at the cost of making all of the participants miss the LMPs. I don't think there is any other time during the Summer NABC that would be better. If we put the Trials the final weekend (possibly starting Friday), we'd risk conflicting with late rounds of the Spingold and mini-Spingolds, as well as the final weekend Swiss, which many of you want to play in. During the week, we're sure to conflict with the Spingold and mini-Spingolds.
I'm sorry that you didn't know this was going to happen. That's one of the reasons we're trying to put together a USBF Junior mailing list and send out a regular newsletter. But in the meantime, I probably should have announced tentative plans here and on the usbf website a month ago when they were starting to gel. I apologize for not doing so.

[Mbodell]

hrothgar, on Jan 29 2009, 10:37 AM, said:

The first thing that I would do is move away from a format of selecting teams and towards a format where you selected pairs. I normally favor systems where the selection criteria mirror the conditions of contest as closely as possible. However, I think that the benefits to cherry picking the top pairs across a variety of teams is likely to outweight the these types of effects.

I agree. Especially when the conditions are such that you have to find players so young, it will be easier for people to merely need to find a partner than to need to find a complete team of 4 or 6 who are all decent players matching the age restrictions. I see more individual young people (not uncommonly playing with older family members) playing bridge than groups of 4 or 6 people this young.

If people really prefer the teams there may be room for a compromise where half the event is played as team matches (selecting 1 team) and half is played as pairs (selecting the best pairs not on the top team to form the second team). That may get some of the benefits of both forms.

I also agree the convention regulations should match those of the main event.

As to the randomness of IMP pairs, at least in a pair event all the boards count and the randomness is somewhat offset by the number of boards you play (4 sessions or whatever length you have). In a team match a win or a loss could come down to something like a single grand slam swing board on an unlucky 4-0 split, and with far fewer boards to recover that could swing a shorter match.

I also don't think it makes much sense to use BBO as part of the trials competition for reasons others have raised (unless there is an embarrassment of riches and there are way too many who want to play and you absolutely need some prequalifications). But it certainly makes a lot of sense to use BBO as a terrific resource to help with publicity and teaching and support and partner/team matching and what not.

[mtvesuvius]

Quote

The goals of building an U21 team for 2010 and builiding up interest in bridge among under 21s are not entirely compatible. I think the latter more important than the former, but good luck with both.

There are already several decent/good teams for an U21 event and I'm sure that more could be built... But why are the incompatable? To build intrest, winning a U21 gold or doing real well may really help that. In addition, ACBL needs to start promoting (Junior) Youth bridge alot more. The Youth NABC is nice, but maybe a Regional devoted to youth or whatever.

Quote

My first suggestion is: remember that bridge is supposed to be fun. Only players that have completely devoted themselves to the game for a long period will go back to the duplicate trough after a terribly stressful and unfun touirnie. Younger players can be terribly self-conscious about their weaknesses, even when very talented -- in team sports nobody jumps into the big leagues before going through the little leagues, which have a very different atmosphere.

Why do tournements have to be "unfun"? I have played in tournements since age 6, and I played the Youth NABC last year, however I played Knockouts for most of the week. I find regular tournements just as much fun, if not more fun than the Youth NABC. IMO, if you are miserable at bridge tournements, there is something wrong.

Quote

F2F tournies, bringing forward all the fun social aspects of the game -- as well as the excitement of visiting new places, which cannot be underestimated in that age group -- are a must I think.

Having a variety of locations would be nice, in addition to wherever the WJC is.

Quote

My second suggestion is: make use of your ACBL Tournie Directors to spot talented U21s playing in Sectionals & Regionals. "Buy" them entries to team events in local clubs.

To some extent this is already happpening. At all the NABCs, as a Youth, I get in free. I usually get a 1/2 off discount at regionals and sectionals, however I have been to a few places that didn't have the discount. I personally don't mind, however I know a lot of youths who are strapped for cash or on an allowance... This is certainly something I'd like to see implemented everywhere.

Quote

And of course spread the word about BBO, the youth chat forum, etc. A few regular events online for the juniors who play regularly, perhaps with commentators, would be great fun. Have Junior-Master games online.

"Juniors BBO" Already does this, they have a Junior/Mentor Tournement on Tuesdays at 2PM, a Teaching Table with 2 national champions on Wednesdays at 11AM and on Thursday a coaching table at 11AM. (Times in EST). I'd like to see maybe 1 or 2 Tournements a week in addition to these. I'd be willing to direct 1 or both if necessary, the problem being that I'm often away at bridge tournements.

Quote

Trying to hasten their technical development too quickly would lead to burnout. On the other hand, once a community of a variety of levels is created, natural leaders with organizational and/or playing talent will emerge and push forward. They can start clubs at their high schools and universities, taking care of your recruitment issues for you a few years from now.

This will be a real challenge, but a "Youth" bridge camp might help jumpstart this... Please put forward any other ideas also.

[helene_t]

jdonn, on Jan 29 2009, 08:17 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Jan 29 2009, 01:37 PM, said:

The first thing that I would do is move away from a format of selecting teams and towards a format where you selected pairs[.....]

There was a time I agreed with this. Then when I played on the team, and we won despite being underdogs, I realized how wrong I was. Team unity is gigantic [....]

This surprises me. OK, I can think of many examples to support this theory. Last year we lost a match basically because two of our players (in different partnerships) hated each other and focused more on assigning the blame than on winning the match. But I would expect most players to able to avoid such things, and it should be possible to weed out the rare cases who have zip social skills.

Then again, people with much more knowledge than I have keep emphasizing team building so maybe I am missing something.

[brianshark]

I prefer teams trials to imp pairs trials, because I'd much rather compare against team mates than "the field". Imp pairs is theoretically superior in finding the best 3 pairs, but in reality, playing on a team where you know you can trust your team mates plays a big part. It shouldn't, but it does.

[kfay]

Jan-

Hypothetically, if I were to be on two 6-handed teams (one in the GNTs one in the trials) would it be possible to play in both events at the same time?

Since one event is USBF and the other is ACBL i don't see an immediate reason why this couldn't happen. Maybe my teammates from both events would be pretty upset or maybe the times wouldn't sync up enough for me to play half and half, but I'm just wondering about some possibilites at this point.

[jdonn]

helene_t, on Jan 30 2009, 08:31 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 29 2009, 08:17 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Jan 29 2009, 01:37 PM, said:

The first thing that I would do is move away from a format of selecting teams and towards a format where you selected pairs[.....]

There was a time I agreed with this. Then when I played on the team, and we won despite being underdogs, I realized how wrong I was. Team unity is gigantic [....]

This surprises me. OK, I can think of many examples to support this theory. Last year we lost a match basically because two of our players (in different partnerships) hated each other and focused more on assigning the blame than on winning the match. But I would expect most players to able to avoid such things, and it should be possible to weed out the rare cases who have zip social skills.

Then again, people with much more knowledge than I have keep emphasizing team building so maybe I am missing something.

I don't think it's something that is easy to logically explain or justify. It's simply something that results continuously prove. Probably based on some sort of flaw or weakness in human nature, but there you have it.

kfay, on Jan 30 2009, 12:01 PM, said:

Jan-

Hypothetically, if I were to be on two 6-handed teams (one in the GNTs one in the trials) would it be possible to play in both events at the same time? 

Since one event is USBF and the other is ACBL i don't see an immediate reason why this couldn't happen.  Maybe my teammates from both events would be pretty upset or maybe the times wouldn't sync up enough for me to play half and half, but I'm just wondering about some possibilites at this point.

Kevin for goodness sake, you will get to play in about 75 more GNTs before you die. Your teammates on that will have to get over it, they can find someone else. Just tell them you didn't know about this.

[kfay]

jdonn, on Jan 30 2009, 12:11 PM, said:

Kevin for goodness sake, you will get to play in about 75 more GNTs before you die. Your teammates on that will have to get over it, they can find someone else. Just tell them you didn't know about this.

Yeah this is basically what I figured I had to do last night when I found out about this. I just thought I'd take a day or two to mull my options.

[Phil]

Flay I can see going to DC to represent for the superflight, but if you are in GNT A, B or , ahem, C, then your teammates should be understanding.

[orlam]

helene_t, on Jan 30 2009, 08:31 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 29 2009, 08:17 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Jan 29 2009, 01:37 PM, said:

The first thing that I would do is move away from a format of selecting teams and towards a format where you selected pairs[.....]

There was a time I agreed with this. Then when I played on the team, and we won despite being underdogs, I realized how wrong I was. Team unity is gigantic [....]

This surprises me. OK, I can think of many examples to support this theory. Last year we lost a match basically because two of our players (in different partnerships) hated each other and focused more on assigning the blame than on winning the match. But I would expect most players to able to avoid such things, and it should be possible to weed out the rare cases who have zip social skills.

Then again, people with much more knowledge than I have keep emphasizing team building so maybe I am missing something.

My guess is that the difference between a top player playing at his best, or the same top player playing so-so is pretty big. Sometimes you see mistakes on vuegraph by BB semifinalist that they certainly wouldn't make on a good day.

[JLOL]

Re team spirit etc,

Helene I think the only thing wrong with your thought process is that you don't account for the fact that humans are emotional and never behave perfectly rationally. This is true even for the top players. I have gone on about this many times but I will just reiterate that I think it's very important.

As far as the trials always being during the summer nationals I have always had mixed feelings. I really think that overall it is the right decision logistically and practically and caters to the most possible people which is good.

With that said I really have trouble missing a national event for the trials given that I am a bridge pro. This might sound selfish, but nationals are where pros make both the most money and get the most name recognition by far. We have been lucky to be exempt the last few times, but now I guess it's just me who is in that particular boat heh. Anyways I know that the trials aren't supposed to cater to me and I think that the right decision is being made.

[Phil]

JLOL is an autopick for any junior team. I don't see why he shouldn't be allowed to make a living in a game during qualification.

I also this he's being magnanimous here saying he would forgo income in something like the GNTs, (or even club games if he stayed at home before the NABC schedule really starts).

Personally I would support the idea that someone that wins a title gets exempted to the team. Some judgment would be required when there are multiple teams, or how to deal with the U26 winners, etc..

I think the junior qualifying is a much different situation that any of the other USBF trials because you have a pool of maybe 20 eligible (much less qualified) players.

I can see a pairs qualifier to round out the six, if only two spots where open. If four spots were open, perhaps take JLOL + pard and augment them to a winning team. I dunno, there's a lot of combinations.

[awm]

I generally support the idea of having a trials.

Requiring a trials is like requiring a time commitment. For Justin, getting on the team should be pretty automatic if he takes the trials seriously and plays his best. If he's too busy with pro commitments to make time for the trials, maybe he will be too busy for the partnership and/or team-building activities necessary to build a winning team for the event.

The same argument that favors a team trials (i.e. team spirit is important, a team of random "good pairs" or "good individuals" won't do as well, etc) also indicates that automatically putting someone on the team just because he is the best available player is not necessarily the right approach...

And this assumes that we know who the best available players are, an idea which is fraught with judgment calls and brings a lot of "who you know" into the equation. This is especially true for the younger players where skill level can change pretty rapidly and some expert coach's opinion based on playing with or against the youngster a year or two ago may be woefully out of date.

[jdonn]

awm, on Jan 30 2009, 07:09 PM, said:

Requiring a trials is like requiring a time commitment. For Justin, getting on the team should be pretty automatic if he takes the trials seriously and plays his best. If he's too busy with pro commitments to make time for the trials, maybe he will be too busy for the partnership and/or team-building activities necessary to build a winning team for the event.

Maybe someone else is busy 51 weeks a year and free only during the trials, and Justin is free 51 weeks a year and busy during the trials. And maybe if I had become a professional bridge player I would make a lot of money by now. And maybe if I were a nicer person I would have married a pretty girl this year. And maybe if Khazakstan focused more of their agriculture on oranges they would have gotten in a war with Florida recently.

Playing the "maybe" game is completely useless. Look, the trials occur one time only, and it's (for logistical reasons) during other major bridge events. Teams can practice, over the course of the nearly FULL YEAR between the trials and the event, whenever they want! This concern of yours is nothing more than completely random unjustified speculation.

By the way, I believe the three recent times the US won the junior teams, 4/6, 5/6, and 6/6 of the players were bridge pros. And each of the three cases with a non bridge pro, that person partnered a bridge pro, yet ample time was still devoted to practicing and developing the partnership.

Quote

The same argument that favors a team trials (i.e. team spirit is important, a team of random "good pairs" or "good individuals" won't do as well, etc) also indicates that automatically putting someone on the team just because he is the best available player is not necessarily the right approach...

That I agree with. Other factors should be considered as well. I am also in favor of including input from players who qualified.

Quote

And this assumes that we know who the best available players are, an idea which is fraught with judgment calls and brings a lot of "who you know" into the equation. This is especially true for the younger players where skill level can change pretty rapidly and some expert coach's opinion based on playing with or against the youngster a year or two ago may be woefully out of date.

Yes it does assume we know who the best available player(s) is(are), but at least in the singular, we do, so who cares? Find me a single person with any basis to make a judgment who disagrees with that. Tell me with a straight face not even that you disagree with it, but merely that you think there is essentially any chance at all that it's wrong in this case.

[awm]

jdonn, on Jan 30 2009, 07:26 PM, said:

Yes it does assume we know who the best available player(s) is(are), but at least in the singular, we do, so who cares? Find me a single person with any basis to make a judgment who disagrees with that. Tell me with a straight face not even that you disagree with it, but merely that you think there is essentially any chance at all that it's wrong in this case.

Well I don't know exactly who's still eligible and who isn't. But among:

Justin Lall
Josh Donn
Gavin Wolpert
Jenny Wolpert

I think it is very far from obvious who the best player is, and suspect I could make an excellent case (with a straight face) for any of the four over the others.

Then again, it could easily be that Justin is the only one from that crowd who is still eligible.

To be honest, for the U21 team I have a lot of trouble even thinking of appropriate players. Besides the folks who were on the U21 team last year (several of whom are now too old) I'm having trouble thinking of more than one or two strong candidates.

[jdonn]

Actually I must confess I might have had the wrong idea about who is eligible myself. Anyway I am neither eligible nor would I be playing even if I could. As for Justin Gavin and Jenny I think it's moot since they would be happy to work it out among themselves, I bet.

[mtvesuvius]

awm, on Jan 30 2009, 07:34 PM, said:

To be honest, for the U21 team I have a lot of trouble even thinking of appropriate players. Besides the folks who were on the U21 team last year (several of whom are now too old) I'm having trouble thinking of more than one or two strong candidates.

Owen Lien
Zach Brescoll
Adam Kaplan (Me)
Adam Grossack
Jesse Stern
Jourdain Patchett

and a few others...

Plus many others can be trained, and can improve .

[JLOL]

FWIW Gavin is not eligible (and Jdonn). John Kranyak also is not eligible. Jenny is eligible but is currently pregnant and is unlikely to be able to play.

[kfay]

JLOL, on Jan 30 2009, 08:37 PM, said:

FWIW Gavin is not eligible (and Jdonn). John Kranyak also is not eligible. Jenny is eligible but is currently pregnant and is unlikely to be able to play.

Wow! That's big news! Congratulations to her and Gavin