Another question of ethics maybe?
#1
Posted 2010-May-24, 23:07
#2
Posted 2010-May-24, 23:35
#3
Posted 2010-May-24, 23:37
I was in that situation two years ago. The team who won flight B GNT trials had one of their best players going to Norway during the nationals; they knew that ahead of time, but still wanted to qualify with him since other players of equivalent skill in the district were already committed to other teams. I was lucky enough to be selected to replace him, and I didn't feel any ethical qualms at the time at how it was handled, nor do I now.
#4
Posted 2010-May-24, 23:50
CSGibson, on May 25 2010, 12:37 AM, said:
Yes but he is disadvantaging the whole field by playing in an event he's not planning to play in if he wins.
For starters he might elect to dump (hypothetical he obv, I don't know this guy). Sure you might say, no he won't, but imagine the ramifications of people playing in events where they do not have a personal interest in the outcome. It's an easy spot to just play in it to dump to your friends.
If you choose to play on a team with your friends to win because they aren't as good as you and will have a worse chance without you, you're hurting your district and imo it's very unfair to the field. Sure if you win you might be able to add someone equally good, but so might the guys who won, but so might the other guys who were going to win. Their team might have been better than yours.
I mean theoretically if person B is the best replacement, maybe person Bs team was better than your team without the ringer, and person B could add person C who is better than anyone on your team, but worse than person B. In that case you are sending a worse team with your team + person B than person Bs team plus person C would be.
But fundamentally I believe it's just wrong to be able to "help" your friends at the expense of the other teams.
FWIW my own personal experience with this was the junior trials last time, we were only told that it might conflict with Philadelphia like 2 weeks or so in advance (maybe it was available somewhere before then, but we didn't know). I contacted the appropriate people to make sure I could still play even though I would drop off if it did conflict, I was told that I should play since it wasn't a sure thing yet when the scheduling would be (and the dates were actually changed, but just to a different part of Philly).
IMO I was ethically obligated to not play if it was definite that I would drop off the team.
#5
Posted 2010-May-25, 01:00
Here (district 21) there are a lot of teams that try to qualify for GNT at all different levels and, despite the screwy format for this year's GNTB, I actually really like the way they let people play in multiple flights without conflict. So we typically have 12+ teams playing in GNT-OPEN, GNT-A, GNT-B, and GNT-C with some players playing in multiple flights.
Our winning GNT-C team, for instance, played in the GNT-B trials to get good practice in. And a lot of people play in the qualifying both to get the practice in, because long matches against good teams aren't super common. Another reason to play, even if you know you can't go this year, is to help earn yourself seeding rights. A number of districts, including ours, give you seeding rights based, in large part, on how you've done in past qualifications.
So I certainly wouldn't think badly of someone, in general, playing in a district GNT qualifier who wasn't planning on going to the nationals. It is a little weird when you describe it as someone who is head and shoulders above the other players. But if you really want to prevent that, have a pairs (or individual!) trial instead of a team trial.
#6
Posted 2010-May-25, 01:10
In the first case, there are a number of reasons a team might want to play, including practicing for other events (GNT trials often bring a good field relative to other local things) and the fact that a lot of masterpoints are handed out. Assuming the team is doing their best to win and not dumping, I don't see a huge issue with it. Usually these teams don't end up finishing first anyway, and if they do the second place team is probably reasonable and will get to compete.
The individual player thing is more dubious, because it can easily lead to the district getting a weaker representative. There are occasionally cases when one player really cannot make the trials and I could see it as reasonable for another comparable player to fill in for the guy who can't play in the hopes that he can be substituted later. But if it's really a case of adding a "ringer" who is much better than everyone else but has no intention of ever playing at the national level, I do think that's not ethical.
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
#7
Posted 2010-May-25, 05:39
Bill
#8
Posted 2010-May-25, 06:15
I doubt anyone would consider it unethical to qualify at the club for the NAP with a partner that you have no intention of playing with in later stages of the event. Even if you were paying your (much better) partner to play in the club event, I don't think anyone would object.
So, let's make up a scenario on the opposite extreme and see what people think.
Suppose that there is a very good pair in my district that is eligible for Flight B -- maybe it is a pair of juniors or a pair that is getting back into the game after a long layoff -- but let's just assume for this exercise that this pair is clearly superior to all the other Flight B pairs eligible for the event. Further, this pair will not play in the national finals of the Flight B event no matter what. I'd like to play in the national finals, so I get together my normal team of four and hire the clearly superior pair to play with us in the District event. The hired pair will anchor the team, playing every board of the event while the two "regular" pairs split playing time so that they both qualify per the CoC.
Do you see anything unethical about this? I don't really see anything wrong with it.
Some people have suggested that they would consider this unethical because it means the District may have a weaker representative. But, (weaker) clients are a generally accepted part of events like the US Team Trials. Some people would opine that such clients are bad for the event, but I don't think many would go so far as to say their entry is unethical.
#9
Posted 2010-May-25, 06:16
I certainly understand (and am sympathetic to) Justin's point, and I'd probably complain if we finished 2nd in such a case. But the R&R allow it, and the qualifier is, indeed, an event of its own.
This year in D12, a team won the open flight GNT, and arguably its best player is not playing (and knew he wouldn't be). But this team was a huge dog to win the qualifier, and it was great for them to beat, for instance, Chuck Burger's team in the qualifier. Is D12 going to send their best 4 or 6 to play in GNT-open? No, of course not. But should this individual not have been allowed to play? I don't think so. He and the rest of the team were ecstatic just to win at this level. Nationals is now like a freeroll for them, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that at all.
"...we live off being battle-scarred veterans who manage to hate our opponents slightly more than we hate each other. -- Hamman, re: Wolff
#10
Posted 2010-May-25, 08:42
In general, I don't see much wrong with bring in some hired guns to win an event. However, it does feel wrong to
1. Taking actions that would adversely affect the selection process
2. Accepting money that the District raised to support a team to represent their interested in a national competition
For what its worth, a few years back I did sit in on a GNT team that won the District event and subsequently blew off Nationals.
Then again, I wasn't the one taking the money from the District.
#11
Posted 2010-May-25, 09:08
If a top player helped you qualify, and you had to replace her, I would think you would find the best available player possible in the District that wants to go. Therefore, we are only discussing the difference between P1 and P2.
Perhaps a bigger issue is who the replacement should be. The District has a vested interest in fielding the best team and should have some discretion who gets added, instead of just putting someones 'friend' on the team.
Winner - BBO Challenge bracket #6 - February, 2017.
#12
Posted 2010-May-25, 09:30
1. Unlike my impression of the Superflight and Flight A, where there is a more limited field (typically 4-5 teams in the two districts I have lived in the last two years...4 and 14), Flights B and C typically have a large number of teams. Even if there is a favorite or two, this large field randomizes the event and makes it very unpredictable who is going to win. Insisting that any team that plays should feel obligated to go to Nationals would dramatically cut down the field size, and I suspect would detract from the event.
2. Most Superflight and A players are probably already committed to Nationals, regardless of whether they win GNT. Completely different perspective at B and C level, where winning the GNT is more likely the catalyst for a team to figure out if they can actually make it to Nationals.
3. Much more so than at the higher flights, the district GNTs are probably considered an event unto themselves, where people are competing to do well and win points, not necessarily with the idea of advancing in mind. This is valid and just, and if a team surprises themselves by winning but can't afford to spend close to a week away from family or work, there is nothing inappropriate about that.
Last weekend my team finished 2nd in Flight C GNT in our district. The 1st-place team is not sure yet whether they are able to go to New Orleans. I have absolutely no sense that they have cheated us or the event in any way. They deserve the right to go if they can make it -- or if most of their team can make it (I'd be happy to fill in even!).
#13
Posted 2010-May-25, 10:06
bd71, on May 25 2010, 06:30 PM, said:
Out of curiousity, did your qualifier use a single elimination KO at any point in time?
For example, did the organizers use a round robin to reduce the field to either four or eight teams and then switch over to a KO format?
Single elimination KOs are great formats to identify the best team.
They are MISERABLE at determining the second strongest team.
Using a single elimination KO when there is a high probability that the eventual winner wn't participate in the event is just asking for trouble...
#14
Posted 2010-May-25, 10:34
hrothgar, on May 25 2010, 11:06 AM, said:
12 teams entered. First day was two separate six-team round robins, each advancing two teams. Second day was straight KO with final four teams.
For what it's worth, my team finished 2nd officially but was the 3rd-best team over the weekend (I suspect we are 2nd-best team over long-run, however), as we lost the final by 50, and the winner won their semifinal by only 4.
#15
Posted 2010-May-25, 10:52
Four brackets of short matches to qualify 8 or 16. Or 3 brackets to qualify 6 or 12 (plus at-large) for the knockout phase which was held on subsequent weekends. Yes, there was a written condition that we all must intend to continue on if we qualify. Nobody paid any attention to it, and very few could resist playing in the knockout phase if they accidentally made it that far.
Substitutions for "sickness" were allowed from the pool of players who had NOT played in the brackets and were judged (by the organizers) equal to the level of that team, which eliminated the possibility for a player to dump in expectation of being selected to another team.
But D23 had enough players of all levels to make this workable.
#16
Posted 2010-May-25, 11:07
(1) Team plans on going to nationals, but some members of the team have a conflict which they were not aware of before playing in the trials and must cancel. I hope we all agree there is no problem here, life happens.
(2) Entire team plays in trials to get experience and/or masterpoints, and never intends to go to nationals. The opportunity to represent the district (and the cash subsidy) will go to the second place team. Presuming that the team in question is not dumping to help their friends do well I don't see a problem here.
(3) A team tries to form but one of their members has a conflict with the trials (but not the nationals). The team tries to qualify without the conflicted person (possibly adding an extra person or pair in order to have four) and then plans to add the conflicted person after the trials if they win. Again, I don't think there should be a problem here.
(4) A team which is not very good pays a third pair (or an individual) to join for the trials, with the full intention that this third pair will drop off the team and not play at nationals. This is purely an attempt to get an otherwise weak team to qualify, and the district's cash subsidy may well be sufficient to cover the cost of hiring the pro pair (if the team actually wins, of course). This seems somewhat shady to me, since it leads to the district getting screwed over (giving money to a bad team which is then used to pay off pros who will not be representing the district at the NABC, having bad representatives at nationals).
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
#18
Posted 2010-May-25, 12:51
hrothgar, on May 25 2010, 09:42 AM, said:
Really?
#19
Posted 2010-May-25, 14:34
olegru, on May 25 2010, 09:51 PM, said:
hrothgar, on May 25 2010, 09:42 AM, said:
Really?
I could be missing something, however, other than the GNTs / GNPs I can't think of any events in which ACBL districts give players money to represent the District in competition.
#20
Posted 2010-May-25, 21:29
awm, on May 25 2010, 09:07 AM, said:
Not a problem ethically, but it may be a problem with the District CoC's determining eligibility (it's usually only people who played in the trial, with exceptions for those who previously represented the district at the same level).