[jdonn]

jtfanclub, on Aug 12 2008, 12:58 PM, said:

jdonn, on Aug 12 2008, 11:24 AM, said:

I think what happened is people realized they weren't 9 year olds playing little league baseball...

You're right, there's no trophy for the World Series, for the NFL Championship, for bowling leagues, for golf tournaments, for NASCAR...even chess has a plaque.

If there was no trophy given to the winner of the world series, do you think that would be the biggest pet peeve for them?

Also you said they should be "commonplace". It's like you think the winner of each game should get one.

[jtfanclub]

jdonn, on Aug 12 2008, 01:45 PM, said:

Also you said they should be "commonplace". It's like you think the winner of each game should get one.

No, I said they used to be commonplace.

I'd say one 1st & 2nd trophy set per tournament would be sufficient, either for one big event or for most masterpoints over the course of the tournament. And as others have pointed out, a 'trophy' doesn't have to literally be a trophy. If you don't like 'em, don't keep 'em. Not a big deal.

[Mbodell]

Outside the US I know people do have prize money associated with bridge events. In some Australian bridge events you can get a decent ROI on your entry fees in prize money.

In the US I know some were experimenting with money bridge tournaments but I think the lack of luck in bridge, as opposed to say poker, makes it not as popular.

[Gerben42]

You gotta have prizes for bridge tournaments. Otherwise, people wouldn't participate around here, anyway.

They don't have to be cash prizes, other prizes are fine if they are nice (i.e. not just wine).

Things I've won at tournaments other than cash include but are not limited too:

* Wine (some bad, some good)
* Perfume
* Chocolate
* Cheese (tournament in one of the Dutch cheese capitals, Alkmaar)
* Suitcase
* Pyjamas (yes, really!)
* Hotel coupon
* Dinner coupon
* Bridge books
* Knife set
* Free entry to same tournament in the following year

[easy]

Frankly if a team included a player that was not elegible to play in an event i would be forced to disqualify the entire team. Even if the team did not know that the player was inelegible the fact is : he participated in (and won) matches in which he was ineligible to play . Thus the team benefited from the play of an inelegible player.
Was the player really inelegible? Did the conditions of contest indicate that a person that has represented their country should petition the acbl to determine how many points their level of expertise dictated? Is it a given that the above mentioned petition should be made regardless of the conditions of contest ?I dont know the answer but i guess since the acbl subsequently disqualified him (after having won the event) they feel that he was inelegible.

let's say the team was disqualified. How would the results be adjusted. What would happen to all of the teams that the disqualified team had defeated. How deeply should one go to adjust the event results. What a nightmare! Im sure the acbl said "lets avoid that hassle and just disqualify the player and let the team keep its victory".

As an aside i too played in the event and was beaten by the team in question in the quarter finals. They outplayed us and deserved to win the match and would have won with or without the internationalist.

[Mbodell]

easy, on Aug 12 2008, 04:41 PM, said:

let's say the team was disqualified. How would the results be adjusted. What would happen to all of the teams that the disqualified team had defeated. How deeply should one go to adjust the event results. What a nightmare! Im sure the acbl said "lets avoid that hassle and just disqualify the player and let the team keep its victory".

The easiest adjustment, which would clearly not oversell anything, is to give each team that this team beat credit for winning the match and then going out. So if you lost to them in the final you now come 1st. If you lost to them in the quarterfinals now you move up to 3/4 from 5/8. If you lost to them in the round of 64, you get the match award. That seems the easiest fair adjustment. It isn't the fairest adjustment since the team that lost in the round of 64 might well be the best team of all the non-ineligible teams and that this is the team that ought to be 1st, but that seems more problematic to adjust.

[MFA]

Gerben42, on Aug 12 2008, 05:31 PM, said:

You gotta have prizes for bridge tournaments. Otherwise, people wouldn't participate around here, anyway.

They don't have to be cash prizes, other prizes are fine if they are nice (i.e. not just wine).

Things I've won at tournaments other than cash include but are not limited too:

* Wine (some bad, some good)
* Perfume
* Chocolate
* Cheese (tournament in one of the Dutch cheese capitals, Alkmaar)
* Suitcase
* Pyjamas (yes, really!)
* Hotel coupon
* Dinner coupon
* Bridge books
* Knife set
* Free entry to same tournament in the following year

I agree with having prizes. Getting some prize, any prize, is part of winning IMO.

Btw, I think the 3 most curious prizes I have won in bridge are

- 1 giant, smoked salami.
- 10 pounds of wheat flour. (Won in Sweden...)
- 20 tea towels with cute smiling cows. (Won in Holland...)

[TimG]

jtfanclub, on Aug 12 2008, 11:22 AM, said:

Probably my biggest peeve with the ACBL (I kid you not): no trophies, no prize money.

Used to be that trophies were commonplace. I don't know what happened.

Used to be that there were just a few events at a tournament. About 15 years ago, I counted the winners at a five day New England regional and found that there were over 100 individuals that went home with a legitimate claim to having won a regional (gold point) event. District 25 (New England) used to give event winners a free play good for an identical event, but that became impractical with the huge number of winners.

[awm]

It may be worth mentioning that Don Krauss, who played in the Bermuda Bowl for the USA a number of years ago (with Bob Hamman) is still eligible for 0-5000 events in the ACBL. Like the person mentioned in this thread, he more or less stopped playing for some time, but has been playing more often recently. He almost ended up on a team for GNT A (0-5000) in District 23, but decided not to play at the last minute (perhaps because he didn't really want to play in a limited event) and was eventually added to the district's GNT Open team.

Looking at the ACBL policy, it seems that they made the mistake of using the terms "Flight A" rather than "Open" which suggests that foreign internationals would definitely be eligible to play in GNT A which is also 0-5000. This certainly places such a player in a "gray area" in the regulations (at minimum) so it may not be fair to totally disqualify him and his team.

[pclayton]

Stephen Tu, on Aug 5 2008, 11:04 AM, said:

Situation:

Former foreign international player (30+ yrs ago) of some repute back then (2nd, 3rd Euro teams, Rosenblum/BB participant) moves to U.S. 30 yrs ago, apparently doesn't play a ton during last few decades but playing more last few years. Didn't get points transferred over. Enters 0-5000 limited event on team of 5, but later disqualified.

Opinions on what should happen to rest of team?

About 10 years ago in D23 a team with an ineligible player won the GNT's (Flight B I believe).

The District deliberated between:

1. DQ'ing the entire team (and letting the 2nd place team win);

2. DQ'ing the person and allowing a sub.

They chose 2, which I think was the wrong move.

I don't think knowledge by their teammates has any bearing on the decision. It is hard to prove, and you can argue that they would not have won without the ineligible player.

[SoTired]

NCAA: when an ineligible player is found. Forfeit all victories and further punishment may be meted out if found that school knowingly used player.

ACBL rules are simple: If you have ever represented your country, you must automatically be at the highest or unlimited category. Everyone knows this.

[Stephen Tu]

The CoC didn't make him ineligible solely for being a former international player AFAIK. It was his point total that made him ineligible; after adding in the previously acquired foreign points that he was supposed to, that put him over the limit. Don Krauss is still technically eligible for 0-5K since he presumably doesn't have points acquired in another country.

The international player *was* disqualified, I don't think there's a grey area there. I think the main problem here was the enforcement of the foreign masterpoint rule isn't very strict/consistent and he was allowed to play under ACBL only points for years, and was quite likely unaware that this was improper. I have no idea who noticed, complained, and set this issue in motion.

The rest of team however was not disqualified, I was just wondering how others thought about this.

[SoTired]

Let me think: Kobe Bryant puts on a dress, joins a women's semi-pro BB league, and wins a championship with the ladies. The team receives trophies. Then Kobe's secret gets out. They quietly take away Kobe's trophy, but let his teammates keep theirs along with the championship. Later, the women on the championship team sign lucrative contracts with some WNBA teams ignorant of the Kobe Bryant thing, but impressed by the semi-pro championship.

How's that?

Or more realistically: An Olympic relay team wins the Gold. Later, one of the relay team members tests positive for steroids. The IOC forces that member to return the gold medal, but allows the rest of the team to keep theirs.

[brianshark]

Or how about a bobsleigh team that won a race but a routine inspection of the sled at the finish line revealed there were weights hidden in the nose giving it a significant advantage over the other teams, though the crew genuinely didn't know it was there. Do we still give them the gold because they didn't know?

We may not ban them for 4 years if they were genuinely oblivious but we sure as hell ain't giving them the gold.

This is not even a tough decision. If one member on your team is invalid, then your team is invalid. Because that's how the concept of validity works in a team composed of several people / items of equipment, each with validity requirements.

Failure to disqualify the entire team is nothing less than stupid.

[3for3]

Stephen Tu, on Aug 13 2008, 12:42 PM, said:

The CoC didn't make him ineligible solely for being a former international player AFAIK.  It was his point total that made him ineligible; after adding in the previously acquired foreign points that he was supposed to, that put him over the limit.  Don Krauss is still technically eligible for 0-5K since he presumably doesn't have points acquired in another country.

c.
In flighted events at any level, foreign players who have represented their country in International competition shall be permitted to play only in Flight A. They may however apply for relief for cause from this requir


Automatically ineligible, per ACBL General CoC.

Danny

[Stephen Tu]

As was pointed out earlier in the thread, 0-5000 is considered Flight A.

[3for3]

Stephen Tu, on Aug 14 2008, 11:15 AM, said:

As was pointed out earlier in the thread, 0-5000 is considered Flight A.

Reread my citing. It says "only in flight a"

Does that mean they can play 0-5000 because that is flight A, and not the open event?

Of course not.

What it means is they can only play unlimited events.

Is there a place where 0-5000 is considered Flight A in the CoC?

[TimG]

3for3, on Aug 14 2008, 12:45 PM, said:

Stephen Tu, on Aug 14 2008, 11:15 AM, said:

As was pointed out earlier in the thread, 0-5000 is considered Flight A.

Reread my citing. It says "only in flight a"

Does that mean they can play 0-5000 because that is flight A, and not the open event?

Of course not.

What it means is they can only play unlimited events.

Is there a place where 0-5000 is considered Flight A in the CoC?

Perhaps the regulation was written before the advent of "Flight A" and "Open" events as in the GNT and 0-5000 Spingold. Probably before rampant bracketing.

Although it would seem reasonable to expect that the original intent was for internationals to play only in the top flight of an event, that is certainly not ACBL practice. The last time there was an NABC in Boston, Garozzo played in a bracketed KO event and was not in the top bracket. Now, you might imagine that a member of the Polish national team in the early 70s might have slipped through the cracks, perhaps the directors in the event simply didn't recognize his name, but you'd be hard pressed to argue that they didn't recognize Garozzo.

[Stephen Tu]

3for3, on Aug 14 2008, 10:45 AM, said:

Does that mean they can play 0-5000 because that is flight A, and not the open event?

Of course not.

The open event is also considered "flight A" (flight A with no upper masterpoint restriction instead of flight A WITH an upper masterpoint restriction) so of course they can play, as can any other ACBL member. That open event happens to be not stratified so it doesn't matter, but in an "open stratified event", which they could still play in, they'd play as "flight A" and only be eligible for A awards.

They are only excluded from NLM/flight C & flight B events like the 0-1500/2000 GNT/mini-Spingold/NAP/mini-BRP/mini-LMP.

Quote

What it means is they can only play unlimited events.

That's not what the regulation actually says. It says "flight A", not "only Flight A with no masterpoint limit", or "always highest event available". Perhaps you would like to amend it to read that way, and perhaps that's how it should be, but that's not the reason the guy was disqualified. It was because of previously undisclosed foreign points.

[jonottawa]

TimG, on Aug 14 2008, 06:05 PM, said:

Although it would seem reasonable to expect that the original intent was for internationals to play only in the top flight of an event, that is certainly not ACBL practice. The last time there was an NABC in Boston, Garozzo played in a bracketed KO event and was not in the top bracket. Now, you might imagine that a member of the Polish national team in the early 70s might have slipped through the cracks, perhaps the directors in the event simply didn't recognize his name, but you'd be hard pressed to argue that they didn't recognize Garozzo.

I don't see what a bracketed KO has to do with anything since these are seeded based on an amalgamation of masterpoints unlike other events where the highest member of the pair/team's experience/points is the determining factor. I'm sure you could find even more extreme examples by looking at Gatlinburg where you need obscene amounts of masterpoints to get into the top bracket.