An Open Letter to
the World Bridge Federation
from Mike Becker
November 9, 2010
TO: Mr. Gianarrigo Rona, President, World Bridge Federation
The World Bridge Federation Executive Council
The World Bridge Federation Players Committee
For 15 years, I have been chairperson of the U.S. International Team Trials Committee (ITTC), a committee of the United States Bridge Federation (USBF). We have a great group of experts who contribute to writing the Conditions of Contest for our annual International Team Trials, which we call the United States Bridge Championships (USBC). For a list of the committee members and a copy of the 2010 USBC Conditions of Contest, see:
http://usbf.org/docs/2010usbc/2010CoCFinal.doc
Over these 15 years, there have been about 10,000 passionate emails, some conference calls, and regular face-to-face meetings dealing with all aspects of running the USBC. Since our USBC Conditions of Contest have much in common with WBF Conditions, I thought you might benefit from some comments and recommendations on the WBF Conditions and the Rosenblum. For reference, the WBF Supplemental Conditions are available online at:
http://www.ecatsbridge.com/Documents/files/2010philadelphia/Philadelphia_supplementalc-of-c.pdf
Appendix I details my comments and recommendations on the issues listed below:
1. Revising the WBF Round Robin Victory Point Scales
2. Making the Rosenblum Playing Requirements Stricter
3. Seeding the Rosenblum Round Robin Stage
4. Seeding the Rosenblum K/O Stage
INTRODUCTION
VANDERBILT-SPINGOLD SEEDING
USBC SEEDING
TOP 16 AND THE REST OF THE QUALIFIERS
SEEDING ERROR
5. Convention Card and System Disclosure Obligations
CONVENTION CARD
DIRECTOR'S ACCESS TO SYSTEMS
6. Publication of the Rules
INTRODUCTION
BOARDS PLAYED IN K/O STAGE
COMMUNICATING PLAYING REQUIREMENTS
MORE ON PLAYING REQUIREMENTS
DEFINING "AWARDS"
SEATING
PUTTING TEAM NUMBERS NEXT TO TEAM NAMES
POSTING A BRACKET SHEET
PUBLICIZING THE METHOD USED TO SEED THE ROUND ROBIN
PUBLICIZING THE METHOD USED TO SEED THE KNOCKOUT STAGE
REVISING DROP-IN RULES
WOMEN'S PAIRS AND IMP PAIRS
USING A BULLETIN BOARD
For everything I have written, if I am mistaken about what the rules are, I apologize, but maybe the rules are just too difficult to find or interpret. And I guessed about procedures used in Verona (I wasn't there), how the Rosenblum was seeded both in Philadelphia and Verona, if the Rosenblum was mis-seeded, and some other matters.
I am only one person making these observations. Imagine if knowledgeable people from many countries were invited to comment on the General and Supplemental Conditions. I wonder how many other constructive suggestions would come from them.
I can think of no other sport or bridge tournament in which I have competed with written rules that are so deficient, unclear, or just not followed. Something must be done.
Based on this letter, I hope the WBF will thoroughly and vigorously review the Supplemental Conditions of Contest for the Rosenblum and improve the ways in which the organizers communicate with the participants on-site. The problems I encountered at this event make me worry about the Conditions of Contest for all the other events on the WBF tournament calendar.
I would expect you to consider the WBF Conditions of Contest and WBF championships a model of organization and procedure for other NBOs to emulate. Good luck in making them so.
APPENDIX I
Details of Comments and Recommendations
1. Revising the WBF Round Robin Victory Point Scales
The USBC has a superb victory point formula that works for any number of boards. The formula was developed by Henry Bethe, a bridge player-mathematician. Although our scales are not 25-5 (4-3-2-1-0 when a large number is reached), the same principles can be applied to the WBF scale. The key difference between our scales and the WBF scales is that we take the view that every IMP won is worth some VPs, but fewer than the preceding IMP won, until a threshold is reached; the WBF takes the view that a range of IMPs is worth the same number of VPs. If the WBF wants to eliminate this obvious randomness in the WBF VP scales (why not?), this is one issue that is easy to correct. In fact, in 1998 I spoke to Ernesto D'Orsi in Lille and then wrote him about this matter; he seemed to agree that the WBF scales should be modified. What puzzles me is that nothing has been done.
The number of IMPs required for a blitz or before the winner stops winning VPs can be adjusted based on when a defined threshold should occur. Henry and others did significant research and incorporated Henry's views on blitz thresholds into the formula we use. Our scales are described in Appendix C of the following website:
http://usbf.org/docs/COC/General%20CoC.pdf
If you are interested in the formula, email Henry at HBethe (at) aol.com
2. Making the Rosenblum Playing Requirements Stricter
The Rosenblum consisted of about 484 boards. To receive credit for winning the event, two players on each team of six could play a mere 112 hands each and to play more of those hands in early K/O rounds, when the competition tends to be weaker. The USBF's ITTC strongly believes the playing requirements in the Rosenblum are not strict enough. ACBL and USBF events have a 50% playing requirement, so you can see why I think the Rosenblum requirement is too lenient. Even when compared to other WBF events, the Rosenblum playing requirements still appear too lenient.
3. Seeding the Rosenblum Round Robin Stage
What other bridge championship seeds a field based on only some of a team's members?
For the Rosenblum, the WBF seeded a team using the WBF MP totals of the three top players on each team. Since the Rosenblum Round Robin (RR) had no playing requirement, the two weakest players on a 6-handed team did not have to play even one board. So why not seed the RR based on the top four players on each team? Those four players would have to play every board for other players to sit out. Simply put, the RR field would be seeded more fairly.
4. Seeding the Rosenblum K/O Stage
INTRODUCTION
In the K/O stage, all team members have a playing requirement: each player must play 1/3 of the sessions and a 1/4 of each match (more about that later). As with RR seeding, the K/O stage could be seeded based on the playing requirements of team members. Appendix II (page 14) suggests a method.
There are many ways to seed objectively, but counting all players on the team in some manner (whether equally or not) would be a better seeding method than seeding based on only three players. Here is a brief explanation of how the ACBL and USBF seed their teams:
VANDERBILT-SPINGOLD SEEDING
The ACBL uses two components to determine Seeding Points (SPs) in the Spingold and Vanderbilt:
A. Decaying performance in major team events over the past ten years (think WBF MPs).
B. Lifetime MPs. The ACBL puts a cap on the number of SPs attributable to MPs, taking the view that when you reach the MP stratosphere, players' skill levels are not much different.
Capping WBF MPs at some number might slightly improve seeding the Rosenblum.
USBC SEEDING
The USBC uses the following five factors:
A. A MP logarithm method (Henry Bethe again) to mute the power given to players with a lot of MPs, while giving credit to those with a modest number of MPs (see Appendix B of the 2010 USBC Conditions). For example, in WBF terms, when comparing players with 3,000 WBF MPs and players with 4,000 WBF MPs, the skill difference is minimal, but when comparing players with 100 WBF MPs and players with 1,100 WBF MPs, the skill difference is huge. The log method may fix this problem. The log works like the VP scale in point 1 above, using declining values as MPs increase. In late November, the ACBL will discuss using a log formula instead of its flat MP formula for seeding the Vanderbilt and Spingold.
B. Performance by players in the previous year's three major events (Vanderbilt, Spingold, and Reisinger).
C. Performance by players in those three events in the past 10 years.
D. Performance by players in the previous year's USBC.
E. Performance in the current USBC RR. This factor accounts for less than 5% [!] of the USBC seeding formula. The value given the USBC RR reflects that competition in the other major events is far tougher than competition in the USBC RR. [See section IV.E., in the 2010 USBC Conditions of Contest to view the ITTC's seeding method.] The skill level of participants in the Rosenblum RR and the USBC RR have similarities, suggesting that WBF RR performance be significantly devalued as a seeding criterion.
I recommend the WBF use a MP formula that does not flatly count every WBF MP equally (i.e., one that would resemble the USBC's VP scale or MP log). See Appendix III for some suggestions and examples.
I also recommend using a team's WBF MPs as the major component in seeding and using a team's RR performance as small component in seeding. I am certain the players would prefer this approach to what is done now.
TOP 16 AND THE REST OF THE QUALIFIERS
Being seeded in the top 16 affords those teams a huge advantage—if they qualify, they cannot lose their seed number. As I understand, teams originally seeded 17 thru 64 are re-seeded using two factors: first, their placing in their group (excluding the top-seeded team in their group), and second, their VP total. In theory, the original team 17 could become team 64. In the actual round of 64, Lavazza, the 4 seed, played Bramley, the [original] 28 seed. Fleisher, the 6 seed, played DeBotton, the 19 seed. Berg, the 9 seed, played Schwartz, the 22 seed. Zambonini, the 15 seed, played Martens, the 33 seed. None of these teams was happy to see the opponents they drew for their first K/O match.
If WBF the seeding formula applied the criteria recommended, this problem would disappear. Or, protect the top 16 from the [original] 2nd 16 teams. (Zambonini would still play Martens.)
SEEDING ERROR
In this Rosenblum RR, three teams were [I believe] erroneously seeded into the top 16. In the K/O stage, they were re-seeded. With well-designed procedures, seeding errors should never occur.
5. Convention Card and System Disclosure Obligations
CONVENTION CARD
Although filling out the WBF Convention Card is a necessary ordeal, the WBF CCE program is particularly poor in too many ways to mention here. I began using it to fill out my convention card and got too far into it before realizing that Word's .doc version would have been be easier to fill out and would have made for a more readable card. Something should be done to improve the program, or just abandon WBF CCE and use Word's .doc version.
DIRECTOR'S ACCESS TO SYSTEMS
A hand was played in which a ruling depended on whether a bid was as north described to east or as south described to west. In a major ACBL tournament or the USBC, the directors would ask the N-S pair to present its system notes to ascertain their understanding of the bid. In this event, the directors accepted the explanation given by the N-S pair even though their convention card and supplementary sheets did not cover the bid in question. E-W won the match, negating the need for N-S to appeal. After reading the General and Supplemental Conditions, I am still not sure what the WBF policy is, but I recommend the WBF require all participants to make their full system notes available at a director's request, even if the notes are in a foreign language. Just having such a requirement will encourage players to give accurate responses to directors.
Error in Section 7.1 of the Supplemental Conditions—System Disclosure Requirements: Reference made to Sections 12 to 15 in the General Conditions of Contest should be made to Sections 13 to 16.
6. Publication of the Rules
INTRODUCTION
Publishing complete and correct rules before play begins is not too much to ask of any sports organization. It is never too late to review the General and Supplemental Conditions to confirm the written rules are accurate. Any changes in the Supplemental Conditions should be published as soon as they are known.
BOARDS PLAYED IN K/O STAGE
No doubt the number of boards to be played in EVERY K/O match was already determined, sometime before the event started, or, at worst, before the K/O stage started. The WBF should publish such information when known.
COMMUNICATING PLAYING REQUIREMENTS
The RR and K/O playing requirements should be described better in the Supplemental Conditions and changes more clearly stated in the Daily Bulletin. Even after reading the Supplemental Conditions, some teams did not know what the playing requirements were for the RR. The Supplemental Conditions said: 46. Eligibility for Awards and Master Points. In order to be eligible to receive awards and Master Points for the rounds of 64, 32, and 16, the quarter-finals, semi-finals and final/play off a player must have played at least one third of the boards played in each of these individual stages of the competition.
Modified playing requirements were published on the back page of ONE Daily Bulletin, not where ALL other "Important Notices" were published in all other Daily Bulletins. The back page of the Daily Bulletin said: Master Points for the Rosenblum and McConnell. For the Round Robin, teams will win 15 Master Points for each match won. In the knockout phase, a total of one-third of the boards played by a team must be played in order to qualify for Master Points. It is, however, acceptable for a player to play 25% of the boards in any one match, provided he or she attains the one-third played over all matches.
Would it surprise you if some teams did not see this notice? Would it surprise you if some teams thought the RR had a 1/3-of-the-boards playing requirement? Since the RR has no playing requirements, the Supplemental Conditions should simply say so. I hope I am wrong, but I suspect what was published in the Daily Bulletin is the actual rule, and the one used in Verona. If this is true, why weren't the Supplemental Conditions amended to reflect the real rule?
MORE ON PLAYING REQUIREMENTS
I asked three directors what the playing requirements were in the K/O stage and received three different answers. Richard Schwartz, who did not read the last page of the Daily Bulletin, thought he had to play 3/8ths of the boards. Jeff Wolfson was convinced that if he played 1/3 of the total boards and 25% of the boards in each match, he would be complying with the conditions (as stated in the Daily Bulletin). How could he have known the last three K/O matches would be longer than the first three matches, requiring him to play an extra session to meet the 1/3-of-the-boards requirement? When he found out about more boards being played deeper into the event, he was preparing to play an extra session in the quarterfinals until I asked Mr. Greenside, and discovered the rules in the Supplemental Conditions and on the back page of the Daily Bulletin were both wrong. The real requirement (not published anywhere) was determined by the directors to be 1/3 of the sessions played, not 1/3 of the boards played (+25% of every match). So in the end, Jeff was not required to play an extra session.
Unfortunately, I was not as well informed as Jeff! In the round of 64, my partner and I played an extra session (in a fairly close match) thinking that we had to play 1/3 of the boards, not 1/3 of the sessions.
Also, boards played in a playoff could be specified to not count toward playing requirements for "awards" or master points.
Finally, Section 46.1, dealing with concessions, does not address whether a winning team can designate which players played a conceded session in a match. That should be made more specific.
DEFINING "AWARDS" Supplemental Conditions, (Section 46 or see previous page), contains references to eligibility for earning "awards" and "master points." Does the reference to "awards" mean medals and/or placing points? The WBF should make "awards" a defined term in its Conditions or otherwise specify what "awards" means. I know that one player and one website thought a player did not have to play any boards to stand on the podium and receive a medal. After reading the Supplemental Conditions, I can't tell whether this is true or not.
SEATING
The Daily Bulletin published a change to the Supplemental Conditions on the day of the Round of 32 (a day late!): Change in Conditions of Contest. The following change has been made to the supplementary [sic] Conditions of Contest in reference to items 14.2 and 15.2.
1. In the first segment, the lower numbered team will sit N/S in the Open Room and E/W in the Closed Room. The teams will remain in those positions throughout the match.
2. The lower-numbered team has the seating rights in the 2nd and 4th segments from the round of 64 up to and including the round of 16.
You might conclude that the "Change in Conditions of Contest" published in the Daily Bulletin for K/O matches through the Round of 16 or the rules published in the Supplemental Conditions for K/O matches (after the round of 16) would apply to seating in the event. You would be wrong! Mr. Greenside told me that for the quarterfinal match, he was "instructed" to seed the matches according to what the Daily Bulletin said. I agree with the director. What was published in the Daily Bulletin should have included the quarterfinal match, but did not. In any case, the actual rules should have been written somewhere. More important, the seating rules in the Supplemental Conditions for the first four K/O rounds are wrong and should be as described in the Daily Bulletin.
PUTTING TEAM NUMBERS NEXT TO TEAM NAMES
The brackets should have team numbers beside the team names. This simple, narrow, additional column would eliminate much paranoia (mine included) that teams were seeded without following whatever the (never-fully-published) rules were.
POSTING A BRACKET SHEET
Using TV monitors to post the matches, table assignments, and scores is great. However, an old-fashioned bracket sheet for the K/O stage would provide a history and continuity as to how each team reached its position, and make it easier to see where they must go. Every player enjoys looking at a bracket sheet, whether manual or just posted on another TV monitor. A bracket sheet should also be posted on the: http://www.ecatsbridge.com website.
PUBLICIZING THE METHOD USED TO SEED THE ROUND ROBIN
I know of no other bridge championship that does not publish the specifics of its seeding rules.
I thought I knew how the RR was seeded because I asked a director. (See 3., above.) But the Supplemental Conditions say, in 12.1 Round Robin Phase-iii) Teams will be divided among the groups according to the following seeding rules:
a) The NBOs, when sending the entries to the WBF, will rank their teams by strength (1 - 4), number one being the strongest (based on the criteria of the NBO). This information, together with information obtained from the WBF Master Points will assist the WBF Seeding Committee to seed the competing teams. Seeding decisions of this Committee will be final.
b) The teams will be distributed among the groups in order to balance the average strength of each group. The WBF is aware that it is impossible to reach a perfect balance but will do its best to obtain at least a reasonable one.
The USBF was not asked, and so did not provide, ranking information for its participants. Since it was the "home country with the most players," I'm not going out on a limb by saying that this section was not followed—and another change in the Supplemental Conditions that was not published. Again, I suspect the method used in Philadelphia was used in Verona, so I must wonder why the Supplemental Conditions were not amended to reflect the actual rules.
PUBLICIZING THE METHOD USED TO SEED THE KNOCKOUT STAGE
The Supplemental Conditions say, in 12.2 Knockout Phase: For the Knockout phase the teams will be re-seeded. The criteria for this new seeding will be published on site.
Here is what was published in the Daily Bulletin prior to the K/O stage: Rosenblum and McConnell KO phase: At the end of the round robin in the Rosenblum and McConnell, the knockout phase will begin. The brackets will be formed taking into account both the WBF Master Points and the ranking in the round robin.
Although that is accurate, it is incomplete. The Daily Bulletin could have said it more clearly and completely: At the end of the round robin in the Rosenblum and McConnell, the knockout phase will begin. In the Rosenblum, the top 16 teams are seeded by WBF Master Points. Then, teams seeded 17 thru 64 are seeded first, by their placing in their group (excluding the top team in their group), and second, by their VPs scored when compared with other teams that placed the same in other groups. In the McConnell, . . . Since I could not find the actual rules anywhere, I am not sure whether my interpretation is correct.
Neither the Supplemental Conditions nor the Daily Bulletin mentions what happens if a top 16 team fails to qualify. (They all qualified.) Does the original team 17 become 16, and other top teams move up? Does the team that scored the most VPs (not originally seeded in the top 16) replace it? Does the number two team in the group where the number one team lost, move up? Whatever the rule is, again, it should be included in Supplemental Conditions.
REVISING DROP-IN RULES
Section 31 of the Supplemental Conditions (page 35) contains a typo: d) and e) should be a) and b).
Page 14 of the Supplemental Conditions, Section 5, which contains the "Schedule of Play" for the events, mentions dropping in to the Open Pair finals from the Rosenblum F/SF/F only:
Thursday October 14
MIXED SWISS TEAMS - Qualifying 1 & 2
WORLD YOUTH BRIDGE INDIVIDUAL CHAMPIONSHIP
Generali Open & Women's Pairs / IMP Pairs - Final 1 & 2
(pairs from the F/SF & F of the Rosenblum Teams and SF/F of the McConnell Teams may drop into the finals)
There is a typo. It should say QF/SF & F.
Page 35, Section 31 says about playing in the Open Pair final: e) Pre-qualified to the Finals: A World Master playing with a player involved in the quarter-finals or the semi-finals of the Rosenblum Teams or in the semi-final or final of the McConnell Teams, provided that such player has played at least half of the boards played by his/her team in the knockout phase and pairs consisting of both players similarly involved.
From the above rule, it would seem that Aubrey Strul and I, who lost in the QF, but played only 7 of 16 sessions (less than 50%) in the K/O stage of the Rosenblum, would not be qualified to drop in to the Open Pairs final. This also applies to Zimmerman and Multon, who played 9 of 20 sessions, Nickell* and Katz, who played 9 of 24 sessions, and Diamond and Platnick**, who played 10 of 24 sessions. The last three pairs did play in the finals of the Open Pairs, displacing other pairs who played in the semi-final, but just missed the cut. There may have been other pairs from the Rosenblum and almost certainly were other pairs from the McConnell (in the case of the Women's Pairs), who were allowed to drop in, contravening the above section. I would not be surprised if the same rules violation occurred in Verona. If this was done in Verona, why weren't the Supplemental Conditions amended to reflect the actual rule? Alternatively, why weren't the written rules followed? All that said, I favor changing the rule to enable such pairs to play.
*Deep into the Rosenblum, Nickell asked the staff about the requirements to play in the Open Pairs final and was subsequently told, "It is not required to play 50% of the boards in the Rosenblum to play in the Open Pairs."
**Months in advance, Platnick registered online for the pair game, paid on arrival, and played, no questions asked. During the event, a participant told him he should not have been allowed to play.
Still referring to Section 31, Shane Blanchard, who is not a WM, played in the Open Pairs final with Brad Moss (who just became a WGM by winning the Rosenblum). This entry came about when, thirty minutes before game time, Shane went to Matt Smith, a director, and explained that he could play with Brad, that he was replacing Fred Gitelman, that he was not a WM, and that he had already played in the event and did not qualify. Smith sought advice from a higher-ranking director and obtained permission to allow them to play "for the convenience of the movement." (It was now nearing game time and the movement required 72 pairs.) Even so, if any semifinalist pair who missed qualifying was available, that pair was certainly more entitled to play.
Again, regarding drop-ins, Page 14, Section 5 says: All schedule of play & drop-in regulations etc are subject to revision under the Conditions of Contest.
However, Section 5 does not specify who can change the drop-in rules, so I have no way to determine whether the person(s) who made the change was authorized to do so.
Page 27, Section 38 says: Authority of the WBF Executive Council: The WBF Executive Council reserves the authority to modify or supplement these Conditions of Contest and the Supplemental Conditions of Contest, at any time.
Did the "WBF Executive Council" have a meeting to change the drop-in rules? If not, does Section 5 refer to someone other than the WBF Executive Council?
From Sections 5 and 38, it seems rules may be changed any time and for any reason! Wow! So the pairs who dropped in from the Rosenblum (contravening the written rules and excluding other pairs who had every right to believe they qualified), might have been permitted to do so after all, provided the person who gave them permission to drop in was authorized. (Also, I could not find a section that authorizes directors to make this type of decision.) In this case, (and others), there appears to be no requirement to notify participants of a change in the Supplemental Conditions before or during the event. That's ridiculous! How do you think the pairs eliminated by the change in the drop-in rules would react if they knew why they were eliminated? Would their appeal be frivolous?
The USBF and ACBL do not give directors discretion to change written rules. Their responsibility is to interpret the rules. Also, during an event, a governing council, such as the USBF or ACBL Board, is not authorized to change the Conditions of Contest. I am certain WBF event participants prefer the USBF and ACBL policy. If the WBF's written seeding rules, seating rules, drop-in rules, playing requirements, etc., are incorrect, change them. But unless you identify an egregious error in the rules during the event, the written rules must be followed. Then, you would not have to deal with determining who is authorized to change the rules or notifying participants of changes.
Again on page 35, Section 31 point e) does not mention the Rosenblum finals, an obvious oversight.
WOMEN'S PAIRS AND IMP PAIRS
The Women's Pairs had so few entrants that too high a percentage qualified for the semi-final and final. Excluding many drop-ins, the field was reduced after 10 sessions from 57 pairs to 36 pairs. The rules should provide for steeper cuts and a smaller final when there is a small entry.
Any non-qualifier from the Women's Pairs semi-final could drop in to the IMP Pairs final, while many non-qualifiers from the Open Pairs semi-final with far higher percentage scores than the women were denied admission. I'm not sure how to rectify this, but it seems unfair.
The start time of the Women's Pairs final was 11:00 a.m. and for the Mixed Teams was 10:30 a.m. The different start times created a problem for the first alternate Women's pair, Gwodzdinsky-Strauch. They began playing in the Mixed Teams with a director's (Maurizio Di Sacco) assurance that if an opening came up in the Women's Pairs, they would be allowed to switch into that event. Two openings came up, but through some confusion and oversight, they were not notified to switch to the pair game. If the events had started at the same time, (or the directing staff had been more diligent), the problem would have been avoided. But I would not be surprised if many alternate pairs face this situation as some qualifying events end while other events are beginning. (Also, see Moss-Blanchard, top of page 11). More should be done to make it easier for the most eligible alternate pairs to move ahead when a qualifying pair drops out.
Bottom line: The drop-in rules in the Supplemental Conditions could be consolidated, combining what is described on Page 14 - Schedule of Play, and page 34 - Movements and Scoring, and placed into its own section, called, "Drop-In Rules." The drop-in rules should be thoroughly reviewed to confirm they are accurate, easy to read, and specific enough to avoid confusion. When that is done, they should be followed.
USING A BULLETIN BOARD
Near the playing area, the WBF should have an "Important Notices" Bulletin Board that includes hard-to-find minutia and all changes or additions to the Supplemental Conditions. Examples follow:
* List the names and countries of all team members. I did not see team member names posted anywhere (on a wall, in the Daily Bulletin, or online), for any team event. Did I miss something?
* Next to each team member's name, show the player's WBF MPs, and for each team, show the team's "WBF MP average" (if that average is used in seeding).
* Describe the method of seeding the Rosenblum RR (with information showing how it was done).
* Describe the method of seeding the Rosenblum K/O (with information showing how it was done).
* Provide the drop-in rules and procedures for all events.
* Include any changes or additions to the Supplemental Conditions made on-site.
* List the number of boards to be played daily in all events, stages, and matches as soon as you know.
* Provide the starting time of every session and every event as soon as you know (in addition to publishing daily and next-day starting times in the Daily Bulletin).
* If minimum playing requirements vary from the Supplemental Conditions, (they should not vary), describe them.
* Provide banquets and Open Meetings information, such as dates, location, time, and cost.
* List registration, pre-registration, and payment information for events and occasions.
A Bulletin Board (for all this material you might need a big, well organized wall!), would help you communicate with players; dramatically reduce the number of questions asked of, and number of (correct or incorrect) answers given by the directors and other officials; and eliminate the grumbling and suspicions about how the event is being run. That said, even with a Bulletin Board, consider publishing all supplementary rule changes or additions in the Daily Bulletin.
APPENDIX II
One Suggestion on Seeding the Rosenblum K/O Stage
Like RR stage seeding, the K/O stage could be seeded based on the playing requirements of team members. Since the RR stage has different playing requirements, than the K/O stage, team seeding could change.
The Rosenblum K/O stage has six, four-session matches, played by a team for a total of 96 player-sessions (6 matches x 4 sessions per match x 4 players playing those sessions). Let's assume the players who have the fewest WBF MPs (one on a five-handed team and two on a six-handed team), will play only the minimum requirement of boards.
Equally weigh the four players with the most WBF MPs on a 4-, 5-, or 6-handed team, and for the one or two other players, count those WBF MPs in proportion to their minimum playing requirement: 1/3. This would work as follows:
* On a 4-handed team, the team's "average WBF MPs" is the total divided by four.
* On a 5-handed team, the player with the fewest WBF MPs is presumed to play 8 of 24 sessions. That leaves 88 sessions for the other four players to play. So the top four players by WBF MPs would be credited with 88/96ths (11/12ths) of their MP totals, and the fifth player would be credited with 1/3 of his or her MP total. Divide the result by four.
* On a 6-handed team, the two players with the fewest WBF MPs are both presumed to play 8 of the 24 sessions—16 sessions in all. So the top four players by WBF MPs would be credited with 80/96ths (5/6ths) of their WBF MPs, and the fifth and sixth players would each be credited with 1/3 of each of their WBF MP totals. Divide the result by four.
Here's an example:
Four players have 600 WBF MPs; 2 additional players have 150 WBF MPs.
* On a 4-handed team with the top four players, the team average would be 600.
* On a 5-handed team with the top four players and a fifth with 150 WBF MPs, the team total would be 550 for the top four, (11/12ths of 600) plus 50 for the fifth (1/3 of 150) = 2250 / 4 = 562.50 team average.
* On a 6-handed team with the top four players and two others with 150 WBF MPs, the team total would be 500 for the top four (5/6ths of 600) plus 100 for the fifth and sixth (1/3 of 150 for each) = 2000 + 100 / 4 = 525 team average.
This may seem complicated, but it can be easily programmed, and it would improve the WBF MP aspect of seeding the K/O stage.
APPENDIX III
Adjusting "WBF MPs" to "WBF Seeding Points"
Below are six example spreadsheets using a graded WBF MP formula rather than counting all MPs won by a player equally to infinity. I am not a mathematician, but I am sure that a formula like this can be programmed by a knowledgeable math-spreadsheet person. The spreadsheets below correspond more to the formula used in the USBC VP scales rather than the USBC's MP log. Henry Bethe has a formula for the USBC VP Scales that can probably be incorporated into my cruder spreadsheets below.
One example: say a person has 1,100 WBF MPs. The top spreadsheet, called "250," would calculate a player's WBF Seeding Points, as follows: First 250 full, then 95% of next 250 + 90% of next 250 + next 85% of next 250 + 80% of last 100 = 250 + 237.50 + 225 + 212.5 + 80 = 1,005 WBF Seeding Points.
| 250 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 100% | 0 | 250 |
| 95% | 250 | 500 |
| 90% | 500 | 750 |
| 85% | 750 | 1000 |
| 80% | 1000 | 1250 |
| 75% | 1250 | 1500 |
| 70% | 1500 | 1750 |
| 65% | 1750 | 2000 |
| 60% | 2000 | 2250 |
| 55% | 2250 | 2500 |
| 50% | 2500 | 2750 |
| 45% | 2750 | 3000 |
| 40% | 3000 | 3250 |
| 35% | 3250 | 3500 |
| 30% | 3500 | 3750 |
| 25% | 3750 | 4000 |
| 20% | 4000 | 4250 |
| 15% | 4250 | 4500 |
| 10% | 4500 | 4750 |
| 5% | 4750 | 5000 |
| 0% | > | 5000 |
| 300 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 100% | 0 | 300 |
| 95% | 300 | 600 |
| 90% | 600 | 900 |
| 85% | 900 | 1200 |
| 80% | 1200 | 1500 |
| 75% | 1500 | 1800 |
| 70% | 1800 | 2100 |
| 65% | 2100 | 2400 |
| 60% | 2400 | 2700 |
| 55% | 2700 | 3000 |
| 50% | 3000 | 3300 |
| 45% | 3300 | 3600 |
| 40% | 3600 | 3900 |
| 35% | 3900 | 4200 |
| 30% | 4200 | 4500 |
| 25% | 4500 | 4800 |
| 20% | 4800 | 5100 |
| 15% | 5100 | 5400 |
| 10% | 5400 | 5700 |
| 5% | 5700 | 6000 |
| 0% | > | 6000 |
| 350 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 100% | 0 | 350 |
| 95% | 350 | 700 |
| 90% | 700 | 1050 |
| 85% | 1050 | 1400 |
| 80% | 1400 | 1750 |
| 75% | 1750 | 2100 |
| 70% | 2100 | 2450 |
| 65% | 2450 | 2800 |
| 60% | 2800 | 3150 |
| 55% | 3150 | 3500 |
| 50% | 3500 | 3850 |
| 45% | 3850 | 4200 |
| 40% | 4200 | 4550 |
| 35% | 4550 | 4900 |
| 30% | 4900 | 5250 |
| 25% | 5250 | 5600 |
| 20% | 5600 | 5950 |
| 15% | 5950 | 6300 |
| 10% | 6300 | 6650 |
| 5% | 6650 | 7000 |
| 0% | > | 7000 |
| 500 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 100% | 0 | 500 |
| 95% | 500 | 750 |
| 90% | 750 | 1000 |
| 85% | 1000 | 1250 |
| 80% | 1250 | 1500 |
| 75% | 1500 | 1750 |
| 70% | 1750 | 2000 |
| 65% | 2000 | 2250 |
| 60% | 2250 | 2500 |
| 55% | 2500 | 2750 |
| 50% | 2750 | 3000 |
| 45% | 3000 | 3250 |
| 40% | 3250 | 3500 |
| 35% | 3500 | 3750 |
| 30% | 3750 | 4000 |
| 25% | 4000 | 4250 |
| 20% | 4250 | 4500 |
| 15% | 4500 | 4750 |
| 10% | 4750 | 5000 |
| 5% | 5000 | 5250 |
| 0% | > | 5250 |
| 750 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 100% | 0 | 750 |
| 95% | 750 | 1000 |
| 90% | 1000 | 1250 |
| 85% | 1250 | 1500 |
| 80% | 1500 | 1750 |
| 75% | 1750 | 2000 |
| 70% | 2000 | 2250 |
| 65% | 2250 | 2500 |
| 60% | 2500 | 2750 |
| 55% | 2750 | 3000 |
| 50% | 3000 | 3250 |
| 45% | 3250 | 3500 |
| 40% | 3500 | 3750 |
| 35% | 3750 | 4000 |
| 30% | 4000 | 4250 |
| 25% | 4250 | 4500 |
| 20% | 4500 | 4750 |
| 15% | 4750 | 5000 |
| 10% | 5000 | 5250 |
| 5% | 5250 | 5500 |
| 0% | > | 5500 |
| 1000 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 100% | 0 | 1000 |
| 95% | 1000 | 1250 |
| 90% | 1250 | 1500 |
| 85% | 1500 | 1750 |
| 80% | 1750 | 2000 |
| 75% | 2000 | 2250 |
| 70% | 2250 | 2500 |
| 65% | 2500 | 2750 |
| 60% | 2750 | 3000 |
| 55% | 3000 | 3250 |
| 50% | 3250 | 3500 |
| 45% | 3500 | 3750 |
| 40% | 3750 | 4000 |
| 35% | 4000 | 4250 |
| 30% | 4250 | 4500 |
| 25% | 4500 | 4750 |
| 20% | 4750 | 5000 |
| 15% | 5000 | 5250 |
| 10% | 5250 | 5500 |
| 5% | 5500 | 5750 |
| 0% | > | 5750 |
This section is devoted to weird, wild and wacky material. For bridge friends, lovers of arcana, pursuers of special interests, and anyone intrigued with a particular facet of the game of bridge.