[Jlall]

I have a problem even with an entire team that is not going to play in the nationals playing in the event.

This is a problem if it is a KO from 4 teams. You might beat the 2nd best team in the semis, and beat/lose to the 3rd best team in the finals. In that case your participation has screwed the 2nd best team. These events are for determining the best team, not the 2nd best team.

Again I feel like if you aren't going to play in the event you qualify for, you should ethically not be playing.

[TimG]

hrothgar, on May 25 2010, 03:34 PM, said:

olegru, on May 25 2010, 09:51 PM, said:

hrothgar, on May 25 2010, 09:42 AM, said:

From my perspective, the GNTs are unique in that ACBL districts provide financial support to the winning team.

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.

GNT subsidies are up to individual Districts and vary greatly from District to District. I believe some Districts provide zero subsidy.

NAP subsidies are provided by ACBL.

[debrose]

Jlall, on May 25 2010, 12:35 AM, said:

No, I have often heard the phrase "you cannot play in a trials where you have no intention of playing if you win." I don't know if that is a rule or just something people say or what.

The USBF does make it a rule for Trials. It's stated in the general conditions of contest as follows:
B. Players
Each player in a USBF Championship must be eligible to compete and intend to
compete in the WBF championship for which the USBF Championship is a
selection trial.

Jan Martel told me of one instance where a player was not allowed to participate in the Trials, even though his team's chances were about zero to qualify, because he was known not to fly. And it's also come up that players who have already qualified in one trials, can't play in another (women's trials is usually held before open).

I don't know if the ACBL has any similar rules for GNT.

[gnasher]

debrose, on May 26 2010, 02:18 PM, said:

The USBF does make it a rule for Trials.

I think that's much more sensible than treating it as a matter of personal ethics.

Quote

And it's also come up that players who have already qualified in one trials, can't play in another (women's trials is usually held before open).

That, on the other hand, seems pretty unreasonable. A player with chances in both would have to guess whether she was going to qualify in the open before deciding whether to enter the women's. Couldn't they hold the open trials first?

[Jlall]

TimG, on May 26 2010, 07:15 AM, said:

hrothgar, on May 25 2010, 03:34 PM, said:

olegru, on May 25 2010, 09:51 PM, said:

hrothgar, on May 25 2010, 09:42 AM, said:

From my perspective, the GNTs are unique in that ACBL districts provide financial support to the winning team.

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.

GNT subsidies are up to individual Districts and vary greatly from District to District. I believe some Districts provide zero subsidy.

NAP subsidies are provided by ACBL.

D16 gives no money for superflight, but gives money to the other flights, FWIW. I think the reason is because for a long time a team with a client and Hamman and Wolff won every year so they decided it's dumb for them to give money in that case.

[Jlall]

debrose, on May 26 2010, 08:18 AM, said:

Jlall, on May 25 2010, 12:35 AM, said:

No, I have often heard the phrase "you cannot play in a trials where you have no intention of playing if you win." I don't know if that is a rule or just something people say or what.

The USBF does make it a rule for Trials. It's stated in the general conditions of contest as follows:
B. Players
Each player in a USBF Championship must be eligible to compete and intend to
compete in the WBF championship for which the USBF Championship is a
selection trial.

Thanks Debbie

[billw55]

Phil, on May 25 2010, 10:08 AM, said:

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.

Perhaps but in practice I think the district isn't doing this. In fact I was asked to go as a replacement myself, and I didn't get the impression that anyone was consulted except the team members.

[JanM]

gnasher, on May 26 2010, 08:13 AM, said:

debrose, on May 26 2010, 02:18 PM, said:

The USBF does make it a rule for Trials.

I think that's much more sensible than treating it as a matter of personal ethics.

Quote

And it's also come up that players who have already qualified in one trials, can't play in another (women's trials is usually held before open).

That, on the other hand, seems pretty unreasonable. A player with chances in both would have to guess whether she was going to qualify in the open before deciding whether to enter the women's. Couldn't they hold the open trials first?

There aren't any women who play in the Women's Trials who have a realistic chance to win the Open Trials. There aren't many women who play in the Women's Trials who want to play in the Open. The problem that arises is for a very few women who would like to play in the Open Trials because it's a great event and fun to play in, but can't because they've already qualified for the Venice Cup. That is very similar to the problem of the player who doesn't fly and therefore couldn't play in the Trials to select a team for China. Even though we all know that there are only about 8-10 teams who have any chance to win the Open Trials, we can't say "well, you're a hopeless team, so it doesn't matter whether you are eligible and able to play in the World Championships." Sometimes that seems unfair to someone who wants to play for the enjoyment of it, but so far no one has suggested a way to prevent the problem of a team winning with a player who isn't planning to play in the World Championship, without preventing the "unfairness" of not letting a player play on a "hopeless" team because she has already qualified for the Venice Cup or he doesn't fly.

Next year we are holding the Women's after the Open, but in prior years there wasn't time to do that (next year's Open Trials are earlier than they have usually been). We have always held the Senior Trials after the Open, because in that case there are often several teams with realistic chances in the Open that want to play in the Seniors if they don't win the Open.

[debrose]

JanM, on May 26 2010, 07:30 PM, said:

There aren't any women who play in the Women's Trials who have a realistic chance to win the Open Trials. There aren't many women who play in the Women's Trials who want to play in the Open. The problem that arises is for a very few women who would like to play in the Open Trials because it's a great event and fun to play in, but can't because they've already qualified for the Venice Cup.

For the most part I agree with what Jan says on this subject, and I don't see any perfect solutions. I do think it's preferable to hold the open before both the womens and the seniors, so teams that have good chances in those events have an opportunity to play in the open, whether or not they have a realistic chance there.

The couple of points of Jan's I don't entirely agree with are in the quoted portion of her post.

First, while it may rarely, or even never, have occurred so far that a woman who plays regularly in the Women's Trials has been on a good enough team to have a realistic chance to win the Open Trials, there are certainly plenty of women who play in Women's Trials who could win the Open Trials on a good enough team.

Second, the problem is not only that a woman who has already qualified for the Venice Cup (or Women's Olympiad) can't play in the Open. Since plans for the Open need to be made before the Women's trials is completed (besides other arrangements, the Women's trials is normally held after the entry deadline for the Open), a woman who is going to play in the Women's Trials, and has a realistic chance to qualify in that event, cannot commit to play on a team for the Open. Perhaps in some cases, especially if it's just one person, she could register on an Open team, and they would be willing if necessary to play without that player, or get a substitute. Apparently the rules allow for this, as I believe it occurred in 2009. However, I was in a situation a couple of years ago where I could not play in the Women's Trials because I had a professional commitment for the Open (at least I was committed - in fact it ended up getting canceled, but that's another story......)
Even if Jan is wrong, and there are women who play in the women's trials who could qualify in the open, the fact is that even the very best players' chances of qualifying in the Open are far below the best players' chances of qualifying in the Womens. Therefore, it's less onerous for a top woman player to ask her women's team to acquiesce to her playing in Open Trials, with the understanding that should she qualify they would have to do without her in the Women's Trials.

[TimG]

Perhaps being overlooked in this discussion is that the experience gained in the Trials is beneficial to the players and thus to the organization in the long run. Some players who enter the Trials may not have a realistic chance of winning this year, but the experience they get may increase their chances in future years.

The current practice of holding the Women's Trials before the Open Trials discourages women from taking part in the Open Trials and in this way deprives them of an opportunity to improve their chances in the future.

[gnasher]

JanM, on May 27 2010, 01:30 AM, said:

There aren't any women who play in the Women's Trials who have a realistic chance to win the Open Trials.

From an outsider's perspective (being a male non-American), it seems to me that that's a situation one should try to correct rather than accept. As Tim says, it's counterproductive to place obstacles in the way of those women who do want to gain experience in the open trials.

[JanM]

gnasher, on May 28 2010, 01:33 AM, said:

JanM, on May 27 2010, 01:30 AM, said:

There aren't any women who play in the Women's Trials who have a realistic chance to win the Open Trials.

From an outsider's perspective (being a male non-American), it seems to me that that's a situation one should try to correct rather than accept. As Tim says, it's counterproductive to place obstacles in the way of those women who do want to gain experience in the open trials.

I completely agree with you, but I have learned to stop butting my head against a brick wall.

[awm]

It may be worth mentioning that districts need to raise money in order to subsidize the winning GNT squad. A lot of this money comes from entry fees of teams participating in the GNT events. They are also supposed to be "grassroots" events (especially in the lower flights) that encourage people who might not otherwise attend bridge nationals to give it a try.

With these things in mind, while it's obviously undesirable to have a winning team where some or all do not choose to play at nationals, there are benefits to encouraging people who are uncertain about their availability at the NABC to participate. There are also a lot of masterpoints handed out, which some players (esp. those in the lower flights) care about.

The various constraints/interests involved here may be somewhat different from US team trials.

[MFA]

awm, on May 28 2010, 10:40 PM, said:

The various constraints/interests involved here may be somewhat different from US team trials.

My thoughts exactly.

But I'm not ACBL so I'll leave this issue to those who are.

[awm]

I guess my point is, it seems that it would be obviously bad if a hundred teams (most of which had no realistic chance of winning) showed up for the US team trials. It would either tend to randomize the eventual result (what if a bad team gets lucky? what if which good team qualifies for the next stage is determined by their beating up on bad teams?) or force the trials to go to a much longer format (and it's already a long format).

But for GNT (especially in lower flights) it would probably be good if a hundred teams showed up. That would mean more money for the district (and an expenses-paid trip for the winning team instead of some piddling amount that doesn't even cover airfare). It would mean more masterpoints handed out (which makes a lot of people happy). It would mean a good chance that the eventual winner (even if not actually the best team in the competition) is a decent team and perhaps a team that wouldn't go to nationals normally.

This suggests that if a team shows up that can't go to nationals (or that isn't sure it can go to nationals, or has some members that can't go to nationals) this is not necessarily a bad thing. Obviously the extreme cases (where a team has "hired guns" who are obviously anchoring the squad but are sure to drop off the team for the nationals) are ethically shady, but I disagree with Justin about the "whole team can't go" case and probably a bunch of other borderline cases, even though I'd agree with him if he made the same points about US team trials (or women's trials, or junior trials, etc).

Anyway, having the winning team choose not to go is the only way that Elianna (who is amazingly consistent about finishing second in GNT trials virtually every time regardless of which flight or which district she plays in) can actually play in the event at nationals.

[aguahombre]

Adam is suicidal.

[JoAnneM]

I am firmly of the belief that if you are not intending to attend the National event, GNT or NAP, you should not play in the District Finals. Several years ago in the Flight A finals of the NAP one of the players in the first three placing pairs announced as soon as the results went up on the wall that he didn't intend to go and had never intended to go. His partner was completely stunned as they had gone before. This pair has never played together again.

And I think substitutes are fine on teams, but it should be for unavoidable circumstances and should be approved by the GNT Coordinator, District Director, or whatever has been written into the District COC.

[MarkDean]

For the past two years I have played in the NAP district finals knowing I could not go to nationals if we qualified. Of course I told my partner beforehand. While I can see the argument in teams because of KOs, I do not really see why it would hurt the process in pairs. It sucks that the player in your story did not tell his partner, but I do not see how that relates to if it is ethical to play in the finals in general or not.

[ArtK78]

awm, on May 28 2010, 05:36 PM, said:

But for GNT (especially in lower flights) it would probably be good if a hundred teams showed up. That would mean more money for the district (and an expenses-paid trip for the winning team instead of some piddling amount that doesn't even cover airfare). It would mean more masterpoints handed out (which makes a lot of people happy). It would mean a good chance that the eventual winner (even if not actually the best team in the competition) is a decent team and perhaps a team that wouldn't go to nationals normally.

I believe that the masterpoint award at the District Level and at the National Level is fixed, regardless of how many teams actually show up. So masterpoints is not a consideration relating to the size of the field.

[jh51]

hrothgar, on May 25 2010, 09:42 AM, said:

From my perspective, the GNTs are unique in that ACBL districts provide financial support to the winning team.

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

It is my understanding that the way these subsidies usually work is that the money is receieved once the players show up for the event, so I don't see that there would be an issue about accepting the money raised to support the team. If you don't show (for whatever reason) you don't get the subsidy.

Of course, if my understanding us wrong, I would say that accepting the money if you are not going to play is not only unethical, it might constitute fraud, theft, or breach of contract. (If I were the district and were to pay the subsidy in advance, I would require that the players sign an agreement that would require them to repay the susidy if they do not in fact play in the event.)