[mike777]

2013 Spring NABC
St Louis
3/13-24/2013

http://www.acbl.org/...013/01/VANDPRS/
Vanderbilt KO Teams

Names

1

Nick Nickell, New York NY; Ralph Katz, Burr Ridge IL; Robert Levin, Henderson NV; Steve Weinstein, Andes NY; Eric Rodwell - Jeff Meckstroth, Clearwater Bch FL

2

James Cayne, New York NY; Michael Seamon, Dania FL; Alfredo Versace - Lorenzo Lauria, Rome Italy; Giorgio Duboin, Torino Italy; Antonio Sementa, Parma PR 43100 Italy

3

John Diamond, Boca Raton FL; Brian Platnick, Evanston IL; Eric Greco, Wynnewood PA; Geoff Hampson, Las Vegas NV

4

Pierre Zimmermann - Franck Multon - Tor Helness - Geir Helgemo - Fulvio Fantoni - Claudio Nunes, Monaco Monaco

5

Les Amoils, Toronto ON; Joe Grue - Fred Gitelman, Las Vegas NV; Brad Moss, Denver CO; Thomas Bessis, Paris 75015 France; Peter Bertheau, Taby Sweden

[billw55]

I see Justin and Josh are also there, and Hamman too.

I wonder how many of the teams entered are comparative chumps, mostly just entering for the experience. I would do it if I had the time, that would be so cool.

[ArtK78]

 billw55, on 2013-March-19, 14:10, said:

I see Justin and Josh are also there, and Hamman too.

I wonder how many of the teams entered are comparative chumps, mostly just entering for the experience. I would do it if I had the time, that would be so cool.

Justin's team is playing against Josh and Roger today.

[JLOGIC]

 billw55, on 2013-March-19, 14:10, said:

I wonder how many of the teams entered are comparative chumps, mostly just entering for the experience. I would do it if I had the time, that would be so cool.

Very few, for instance we are playing the 47 seed which is Josh-roger david grainger-greg hinze, all national champions and play at least some pro bridge. They are the 47 seed out of 69.

[GreenMan]

duplicate, sorry.

[GreenMan]

 billw55, on 2013-March-19, 14:10, said:

I wonder how many of the teams entered are comparative chumps, mostly just entering for the experience. I would do it if I had the time, that would be so cool.

Some do. I've played in three Vanderbilts and two Spingolds, generally been seeded last or next-to. I'm definitely a "comparative chump" in that company. But it's fun. Once we drew the Pavliceks - Kantar/Kay - Granovetter and a guy I can't remember; another time we drew the Shugart team. Got pummeled. Some friends of mine played the Nickell team close to even for three quarters. The experience is worth the shellacking IMHO.

[Mbodell]

It is worth noting that the bottom ~20 teams had to play yesterday to win in to the top 64, while the top ~49 got the bye. That means that the total "chumps" probably aren't even playing today. Out of the 3 times I've played in one of Spin/Vand, twice I've failed to make the top 64 and the other time we won and got smashed by Diamond in the round of 64. Still fun and good experience.

[mike777]

I was surprised to see Fred's team names


I wonder about Wooldridge partnership......he played with Kent M...a very famous very young player in the 1990's in LA and won.

Bob Hamman, Dallas TX; Bob Blanchard - Shane Blanchard - John Hurd, New York NY; Justin Lall, Las Vegas NV; Joel Wooldridge, Astoria NY

[Aberlour10]

 ArtK78, on 2013-March-19, 14:12, said:

Justin's team is playing against Josh and Roger today.

155-105 for J & R. Congratulations.

[glen]

 Aberlour10, on 2013-March-20, 04:28, said:

155-105 for J & R. Congratulations.

will lalldonn become donnlall?

[Phil]

A lot of close matches yesterday. Is there more parity between the ~15 seeds and ~50 seeds (and obviously the matches in-between?) than there has been?

Does everyone feel the committee is doing a good job?

[hrothgar]

 Phil, on 2013-March-20, 06:52, said:

A lot of close matches yesterday. Is there more parity between the ~15 seeds and ~50 seeds (and obviously the matches in-between?) than there has been?

Does everyone feel the committee is doing a good job?

I looked at the results at Bridgewinners.
It looks as if the number of upsets is negatively correlated with the difference in the seed.

There are relatively few upsets when top seeds play bottom seeds
There are significantly more upsets when close seeds play

More specifically, there were no upsets involving the top 12 seeds
One involving 13-16
One involving 17-20
Zero involving 21-24
Two involving 25-28
Three involving 29-32

To me, this suggests that the seeding committee is doing a pretty good job.

1. I don't think its reasonable to expect perfect seeding. Its much easier to say that Nickell is much much better that Ryan than it is to say that Hadzhiev is better than Lall (or, for that matter, to say that Nickell is much better than Cayne)

2. There is a lot of noise involved in bridge. Even if Hadzhiev is better than Lall, the card gods might be smiling on Lall today and produce an upset. This happens a lot more when relatively close seeds are playing.

[ArtK78]

 Phil, on 2013-March-20, 06:52, said:

A lot of close matches yesterday. Is there more parity between the ~15 seeds and ~50 seeds (and obviously the matches in-between?) than there has been?

Does everyone feel the committee is doing a good job?

What committee? It is my understanding that seeding is accomplished entirely by a formula which assigns seeding points for various factors, such as high placings in prior Vanderbilts, Spingolds, Reisingers, GNTs, etc., and a certain number of seeding points for masterpoints.

Last year's champions are seeded #1, the team with the highest seeding point average per player is #2, the next two are assigned #3 and #4 randomly, then the next 4 are grouped and given 5 through 8 randomly, 9 through 16 the same, then in groups of 32.

Is this not the seeding method in use?

[ArtK78]

From the Vanderbilt and Spingold Teams Conditions of Contest for 2013:

THE BRACKET

1. Bracket seeding will be based on the average seeding points of all members of the team. A maximum of 50 seeding points will be credited to any one player. When necessary to break a tie, the players on the tied teams will be credited with their full seeding point totals. Continuing ties will be broken by lot. Seeding points are awarded per Knockout Appendix B.

2. The teams will be ordered by their average seeding points. In cases where a tie broken by lot involves teams in two groups, the loser(s) of the tie-break will be given the high seed(s) in the next group.

• The defending champion will be seeded number one provided that at least four original members are playing together. Otherwise the team with the highest average seeding points will be seeded number one.

• The next ordered team will be seeded number two.

• The next two teams will be assigned seed numbers three and four by lot. Then, the next four teams will be assigned seed numbers five through eight by lot. Similarly, seed numbers will be assigned by lot for positions 9-12, 13-16, 17-20, 21-24, 25-28, 29-32, 33-40, 41-48, 49-56, 57-
64, 65-80, 81-96, and so on in groups of 16.

• See Appendix C.

3. Any corrections to the bracket must be requested at least two hours before the announced starting time of the event. After that time the bracket will stand as posted.

4. First round pairings, and, when necessary, first round three-way and/or four-way matches are per Appendix C.

I found Appendix B. In that appendix, after going through all of the seeding points awarded for high finishes in prior Vanderbilts, Spingolds and Resingers, and seeding points awarded for masterpoints (with adjustments for ABA masterpoints and for foreign players ("Virtual Masterpoints"), there is the following text:

VII. Subjective Seeding: In the Vanderbilt/Spingold, the event will be seeded objectively, and then re-seeded subjectively by a “Subjective Seeding Committee.” The subjective seeding process is summarized below:

After the Director-in-Charge determines a team’s average Seeding Points (SPs) in accordance with the seeding rules (Sections I-VI), and before shuffling in groups, the Subjective Seeding Committee will review the team’s placement in the bracket. The Committee may ask the opinions of other
players, especially when evaluating unfamiliar foreign entrants.

The Committee cannot change the seeding group of teams seeded in the top 16. Teams 17-20 may be moved down one “shuffling group.” Teams 21 and up can be moved up or down one “shuffling group.” Teams in the bottom shuffling group can only be moved up one group. The shuffling groups are 17-20, 21-24, 25-28, 29-32, then in groups of 8 through team 64, then in groups of 16. For example, a team in the 29-32 group could become seeded 33-40, or become seeded 25-28. For every team changed, another team must be moved reciprocally to replace it.

Any seeding change would be made before shuffling, and require a majority vote of the Subjective Seeding Committee.

So there is a committee which can change some of the seeding. But the committee can only alter a team's seeding by moving it up or down one "shuffling group."

By the way, Appendix C gives the method used for reducing the number of teams in the initial Day 1 field down to a power of 2 number of entries, typically 64.

[mycroft]

This is new from the last couple of years (2? 3?). There were always the "outliers" problems, usually the "great juniors" and the " 'new' foreign players" where the people awarding virtual masterpoints don't know enough to get it right, but some of the experts, or the experts' expert friends from "over there", will know better.

It meant that in some years, the 42nd seed, say, was brutal. And they'd walk through the 23rd seed, and either put the 10 seed to the test, (and now the 10-7 match was more like a 14-7 match) or beat them straight up. Even with the parity these past few years, there was still always that one team or that two teams that everybody looked at to see if they were going to catch them in the 64 or the 32, or whether they got lucky.

The Subjective Seeding Committee is trying to smooth that out a bit, and it seems that they do. Now it's just that there are 48 teams in there with a measurable chance of making the top 4, instead of 10 or 12 15 years ago.

[cherdano]

I don't claim to be a genius. But when I was looking through the pairings, the two teams that stood out to me as being underseeded were no. 47 and no. 51.

Meanwhile, GO TEAM GRAINGER!

[jallerton]

 ArtK78, on 2013-March-20, 08:21, said:

What committee? It is my understanding that seeding is accomplished entirely by a formula which assigns seeding points for various factors, such as high placings in prior Vanderbilts, Spingolds, Reisingers, GNTs, etc., and a certain number of seeding points for masterpoints.

Presumably the formula was determined by a committee.

[ArtK78]

 jallerton, on 2013-March-20, 17:29, said:

Presumably the formula was determined by a committee.

The formula, in one form or another, has existed for many years (in excess of 40).

The Subjective Seeding Committee is something new to me. I don't know how long it has existed.

[Phil]

 hrothgar, on 2013-March-20, 07:28, said:

I looked at the results at Bridgewinners.
It looks as if the number of upsets is negatively correlated with the difference in the seed.

There are relatively few upsets when top seeds play bottom seeds
There are significantly more upsets when close seeds play

More specifically, there were no upsets involving the top 12 seeds
One involving 13-16
One involving 17-20
Zero involving 21-24
Two involving 25-28
Three involving 29-32

To me, this suggests that the seeding committee is doing a pretty good job.

1. I don't think its reasonable to expect perfect seeding. Its much easier to say that Nickell is much much better that Ryan than it is to say that Hadzhiev is better than Lall (or, for that matter, to say that Nickell is much better than Cayne)

2. There is a lot of noise involved in bridge. Even if Hadzhiev is better than Lall, the card gods might be smiling on Lall today and produce an upset. This happens a lot more when relatively close seeds are playing.

Six of the eight matches featuring the 25-32 teams were 'upsets'. This isn't particularly noteworthy - its like a lot of 9 and 10 seeds winning the first round of the NCAA's. This plays to your 'noise' argument.

What was interesting to me was how many of these 32 matches were close going into the 4Q, especially among the 11-24 seeds (playing the 41 to 54's). Of these 14 matches, 5 were less than a slam swing apart. All of the favorites in this group except two won however.

Here's something significant however:

Coming into the R16, of the 11-16 seeds, only the #16th is still around.

In the meantime go Grainga. And Korbel.

[rogerclee]

one time