All News

                        As promised, a look each month at one aspect of our game. This time, we have an interesting idea on the format for two day Teams events.

 

Bridge players are quite recognizable in a crowd. They are the ones with strong views about any particular subject…and one particular subject about which they have strong views is the way bridge tournaments should be run, like the catering, the prize money, the cost and, of course, the format. We have in the past employed fairly standard methods for running our events. They just about work, produce a rightful winner while giving those who really have no chance of a top prize enough value for their day or week-end outing.

However, we are looking a little outside the square now. Certainly, that is the case with our main Teams events both in and outside Congress. We will be tinkering once again with the final stages of The New Zealand Teams where the format tried in 2015 had one rather poor aspect, a 24 board quarter-final sandwiched between 48 board Round of 16 and semi-final stages. “Stage 2” will follow the Round Of 16 (“Stage 1”) and will be identical to it (except slightly longer matches)with three matches against three qualifiers from Stage 1. There will be no quarter or semi- final as such but the top team from each of the two “Stage 2” pools contests the final. 

We have also seen a positive change in the format of our “Island Teams” events, now doubling as National Trials, with a lengthy Swiss format being used which sees all teams in contention for the whole event. The vagaries of a short Swiss have been lessened as by the end of 8 or 9 rounds, teams in contention will have played most of their rivals. Also, longer matches seem to please most players. The result has been excellent turn-outs in these events for the last few years.

What, though, our shorter teams events where there is a maximum of two days allowed and which do not have to conform to the wishes of international selectors? For one day Teams events, there seems little choice but to run a Swiss with the best team and perhaps luckiest with the draw winning through. The luck aspect is even more noticeable if any attempt at having a semi-final and final is included, as at the Thames Congress. The “luck of the draw” has a big say in the final result. Ask those who just missed out!

With two days, our regional events have usually qualified 4 or 6 teams to a final on the second day. If there have only been 4, then sometimes four more contest a Plate event. Many players have strongly negative views about Plate events.

So, it was interesting to see the format used at Auckland’s recent Easter 10A Teams where 10 out of an original 32 teams entered qualified for stage 2 the following day. The format on both days was Swiss, 6 x 12 board matches to be followed on day 2 by 4 x 13 board matches.

In Rounds 7, 8, 9 and 10 which were on the second day the Swiss Draw was modified to allow teams to play each other for a second time as long as they hadn't met in the previous 3 rounds. This meant that it was possible to play another team once on the first day and once on the second. For most teams this meant that in their 10 matches, they played 8 or 9 different opponents and had revenge matches against only one or two teams.

At first sight, this seemed an odd format, making day 1 of qualifying a fairly easy exercise for the top teams. Yet, with an 80% carry-forward, the significance of the day was greater for everyone.

It also reduced the usual moan that a team could have a soft draw and sneak into the qualifying positions on the back of a couple of huge victories in the last couple of qualifying rounds. While that could still happen, maybe even more likely considering the larger list of qualifiers, the argument that if you cannot make the top 10, you do not deserve to advance further becomes a strong one. I am much more sympathetic to the complaints of an unlucky 5^th placed team who had a tough draw throughout the day than that of an unlucky 11^th! 

Yet, for me, the most compelling argument in favour of such a format is that a lot of our players enter the event to play, if they can, two days of teams. For some, usually at the bottom end of the field, one day is enough. They are happy either to have the next day off or play in the consolation Pairs/Swiss Pairs event. However, there is a large group who would prefer two days of Teams, of meaningful Teams…and that means a shot at finishing high up. In one event last year with such a generous number of qualifying teams, the last qualifier (who should not have been the “last qualifier” based on ability) did actually win the event.

Keeping a third of the field in an event until the end does seem a positive move. The format may not be appropriate for one of the major Teams events but neither is their format appropriate for a local level, where some teams have had enough after one day. At the Auckland Easter Congress, there was still a roomful of players for the Consolation Pairs event. There were also more teams in contention for the top positions. I think that is a good concept. Certainly, a cut is necessary but “include rather than exclude” should be the motto where possible in deciding where that cut should be.

Richard Solomon

 

Go Back View All News Items