[orlam]

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

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
[...]

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.

Really?

[maggieb]

Let's not go there. In my opinion this place will become less pleasant if we start publically discussing the relative strengths of the different forum members. I am sure both of these guys can beat me with their eyes closed and that's enough for me.

[ggwhiz]

Patty Tucker was able to provide the following demographic details to me almost immediately.

Age Number of Members
8 2
9 3
10 27
11 31
12 54
13 60
14 70
15 49
16 43
17 51
18 67
19 49

These are only the ACBL members that admitted to their ages but I bet their e-mails etc. and the numbers up to 26 are available just as quickly. Not much of a pool to work with though.

[Apollo81]

ggwhiz, on Feb 2 2009, 04:12 PM, said:

Patty Tucker was able to provide the following demographic details to me almost immediately.

Age Number of Members
8 2
9 3
10 27
11 31
12 54
13 60
14 70
15 49
16 43
17 51
18 67
19 49

These are only the ACBL members that admitted to their ages but I bet their e-mails etc. and the numbers up to 26 are available just as quickly. Not much of a pool to work with though.

wow, i had no idea that many ACBL members under 20 existed

[awm]

My observation has been that a lot of bridge teachers like to work with really young kids (i.e. elementary or middle school) and that signing up kids in that age range for ACBL is really cheap. So the result might be that sometimes bridge is offered as an activity at a school (or summer class or whatever) and those kids get signed up for memberships. On the other hand, I rarely see anyone under 16 or so at any local tournament (and even the 16-30 age range is extremely sparse).

I'd be curious how many of these under-20 ACBL members have at least some very modest number of masterpoints (like say 5). Obviously a few do (heck a few of them probably have thousands) but I bet the vast majority do not, and likely some have never even played in a duplicate game.

[JLOL]

Also some of those are caddies who join so they can play the midnight games lol

[TimG]

I'm pretty sure there was once a program where youth could get $5 memberships for their first year of membership. Since ACBL allocates regionals based upon District membership, some districts could add a regional to their calendar by signing up 1000 grandchildren.

[mycroft]

As far as team chemistry is concerned, if you qualify 6 pairs to make 2 teams (wow, what a luxury. Okay, stop it Michael, Jan said not to go there), AND you then have concerted training sessions between then and the event, teams will form, and unless things are really unlucky (i.e. there's one pair of idiots nobody wants to be with), the chemistry will develop. That is a unique advantage over anybody else's trial procedure, and I see nothing wrong with going with it.

In open/women/seniors (and likely U26 - as Josh said, every pair on recent U.S. U26 teams had at least one full-time, pro player) this is different, as they all know each other already from frequent meetings at the table and around it. But for the U21s - many of whom rarely see anyone their age at the table (I'm guessing here, by the way) - the idea of training sessions/trials to pick pairs (which need not be pairs trials - "random teammates team" CoC could be set up)/training-teambuilding afterwards has distinct merit.

But I'm not U.S.ian. So YMMV.

[mtvesuvius]

Any news on when the U21 trials will be? or even hints/ideas?

[JanM]

Several possibilities have been discussed but nothing has been decided. How the 2010 U21 teams will be selected will probably be decided in Houston.

[Grypho]

I think the way we pick teams depends on the goals of the USBF.
If the goal is only a fair trial, then pairs qualifying is perfect because a pair can compete without knowing anyone else in the trials.
If the goal is to compete and to win then pairs trials is horrible. 3 pairs do not come close to making a team because as part of a team you must attend meetings, communicate, listen to criticism, travel, practice, eat, and often room together. Unless you have lots of time to figure out if you can tolerate everyone's quirks, there is no way of knowing if you like and enjoy each others company. If people don't like each other, and I mean really well, the team will suffer at the first sign of adversity. And there WILL be adversity. Its hard to prepare for the food, the time change, the dislike of Americans, the excitement of a World Championship, the lack of family/friends, and etc.
If the only goal is to have the best team, then probably a committee selecting pairs and teams is best. Unfortunately, its nothing close to fair because then it can become a game of who you know or in what part of the country you live. I do believe that a large committee of experts who had about 6 hours a week for a couple of months could select the best players and partnerships and maybe even teams if they spent time getting to know each of the players. This scenario is IMO not possible at this time.
I am completely opposed to an internet competition! When the tournament is being played its not being played on the internet and everyone seems to agree that the conventions allowed/conditions of contest should be much closer to what the participants will face in the finals. Not playing face to face is a huge blow to someone with card sense and the ability to read people. I can't believe that this is even being discussed.
It all goes back to what the goals of the USBF are. Part of the goal is to introduce players to international competition. Part of the goal seems to be that everyone has to play even if its to the detriment of the team (an idea that i disagree with). Part of the goal is to make it easy for eveyone who wants to compete to be able to compete. Part of the goal is to be fair so that everyone who competes has a chence to earn a position on a team. Because I feel that its only part of the goal to win, I think the most likely path to a winning team is through a team competition. Why not make it a complete round robin (like the finals) of 2 days and then a semi-final (1/2 day) and a final with carryover (also 1/2 day)? There should be a focus on a long round robin because thats the way of the finals. 3 days seems to me like a reasonable commitment given the reward of winning.

I have some experience when it comes to practice. I coached teams that say they will practice but then can't or won't when the time comes. There is no effective way to deal with this fact either, other then having a long qualifying period with many sessions and a large committee watching. I agree with the comment that alot can be learned but what about selecting people based on their passion and their desire to improve? I think the participants should be made to understand the practice expectations in writing and then the captain or coach should have ability to remove if a major problem exists. this practice plan would allow the USBF to name an alternate pair and have an 8 person 4 pair practice squad which could play against each other. It would be motivation for pairs 1-3 to focus and to practice. IMO opinion the practice planning and scheduling is equally or more important to winning then selecting the participants. I know thats a bold statement but I really believe it!

Kevin Wilson
former Junior Trials Participant 1990, 1992, 1994 and Non Playing Captain of the 2006 World Schools Championship (under 21)

[crazy4hoop]

I was lucky enough to play for USA2 in Mangaratiba, Brazil, in 2001. That year we had a teams format for the trials and we lost in the finals to USA1. We then played off the next day in a repechage to be USA2. We qualified as a 5-person team and wanted to remain as such (at least I did) but we had to augment a sixth person. If the rules indeed require a team to have 6 players, then I love Kevin Wilson's suggestion to have a fourth "developmental" pair available for the practices he proposes. This way, you have 4 highly motivated pairs working hard on their games, one of which will be all the more better off in subsequent years when it comes times to select a team or teams again. I find what Kevin Wilson has to say to be extremely insightful and hope it could work. I guess you would have to announce your "starting 6" by a certain time as you obviously cannot field an eight-person team but I think having a team where the practice sessions are competitive and grueling can only serve the final team members good when it comes time to play in international competition.

[kfay]

I heard that the 2010 in St. Petersberg is now probably coming to the U.S. and maybe Detroit specifically.

All I can say is.... @#$!