[bluecalm]

Quote

Certainly in head to head matches I see no reason for the same boards to be played. In a Swiss event, there is a far stronger case for playing the same hands.

The reason are spectators who love comparisons, butlers, analysis how different players solve same problems etc.

[aguahombre]

For specs (here on BBO), the flip side is getting more hands to spec.

Later on, say the semi's, security is easier to handle.

[MickyB]

I was about to look for the butlers earlier, then I remembered this thread.

[han]

paulg, on 2011-May-11, 09:05, said:

Certainly in head to head matches I see no reason for the same boards to be played.

I see a reason: it is interesting to see what different pairs do holding the same hands.

[han]

And more importantly, Go get them Forumers!

[hrothgar]

paulg, on 2011-May-11, 09:05, said:

Certainly in head to head matches I see no reason for the same boards to be played.

There have been a number of cheating scandals here in the US that involved accusations that decks were fixed.

The case with John Blubaugh is probably the best known examples in recent memory.
The speculative 6♦ bid last year didn't directly involve an accusation that a deck was fixed, but ...

[cherdano]

hrothgar, on 2011-May-11, 10:25, said:

There have been a number of cheating scandals here in the US that involved accusations that decks were fixed.

The case with John Blubaugh is probably the best known examples in recent memory.
The speculative 6♦ bid last year didn't directly involve an accusation that a deck was fixed, but ...

I assume the boards are computer dealt. (My assumption is based on the fact that the USBF website has computer-generated hand records.)

I kind of like comparing what several great players did on the same hand, but I also think that accidentally overhearing remarks from a neighboring table is the biggest practical security risk. Since the USBF knows whether this could happen in the actual location and I don't, I would trust them to weigh this trade-off.

Meanwhile, forumers (counting Fred) are
- up 32
- up 49
- down 2
- have a bye
Pretty good record so far! Goooo!

[JLOGIC]

The hands are computer dealt obv.

Lol @ people calling it quaint and bad for the spectators... Do you realize how close in proximity tables are to each other and how much talking goes on? Yes you can just strictly penalize any talking, but there is still a huge risk that someone overhears something about a hand and just has a wire. Yes, I know, you guys would put us all in our own seperate rooms with state of the art computers and time monitors, but unfortunately there is no money for that. The USBF has put us in a nice venue and enabled the players to be able to talk about hands/needle each other/whatever freely without worrying about other people overhearing us, which is a big part of bridge. Sorry if you guys cannot see what experts do with the same hands, personally I'd find it more interesting to see 3x as many hands since most hands are boring, but whatever, it's not about you. If you donated a few million then I'm sure you'd be catered to. It is amazing how entitled you all feel to 10 tables of vugraph, duplicated hands, whatever you want, for nothing, at whatever cost to the integrity of the event for the players.

The butler is a more valid concern, chalk that up to the fact that almost all teams in this event are professional, and professionals are on the committees that decide these things, and somehow professionals don't want a butler (you can guess why!). Personally I'd love a butler but w/e.

[hrothgar]

JLOGIC, on 2011-May-11, 10:57, said:

Personally I'd love a butler but w/e.

I just invested in a maid service.
Seems to have improve my quality of life.
A butler seems a bit extreme though...

Thanks for clarifying that the deals are computer dealt.
Was not aware that this was the case.

[paulg]

JLOGIC, on 2011-May-11, 10:57, said:

The butler is a more valid concern, chalk that up to the fact that almost all teams in this event are professional, and professionals are on the committees that decide these things, and somehow professionals don't want a butler (you can guess why!). Personally I'd love a butler but w/e.

Butlers are more relevant in a round-robin event where the state of the match is less important and playing consistently well is going to be (hopefully) rewarded. With head-to-head knock-out matches it is likely that the final sets will contain bridge that is less suited to butler comparisons.

(At least I'm sure this is the argument that I would use if I didn't want a butler)

[gnasher]

Butlers are also divisive and potentially counterproductive. If a player's future income depends on how good a player he is perceived to be, that gives him an incentive to burnish his Butler by avoiding the stronger opponents.

Putting it another way, it's a team event, not a pairs event.

[jh51]

Please excuse me if these seem to be stupid questions, but I was once told that the only stupid question is the one you don't ask.

• What is a Butler?
  
• The scores from the first session of the Nickel-Ivatury match are hyperlinks, but the other scores are not. Is there any reason for this?

[paulg]

jh51, on 2011-May-11, 14:29, said:

Please excuse me if these seem to be stupid questions, but I was once told that the only stupid question is the one you don't ask.

• What is a Butler?
• The scores from the first session of the Nickel-Ivatury match are hyperlinks, but the other scores are not. Is there any reason for this?

If all the matches played the same boards, then you could compare the score a pair obtained on a board not only with the other score in their match, but also with every other table in play. With seven matches, or fourteen tables, in this first round of the trials this means you could compare a score with 13 others. By doing this on every board, and then averaging appropriately, you get what is known as a Butler.

This is how the Cavendish event run last weekend worked. But, as gnasher would say, the Cavendish is a pairs event.

At major international team tournaments it is common for the same boards to be played and butler results to be produced. Pairs who finish near the top of the butler believe that they provide an accurate assessment of performance. Pairs who finish near the bottom of the butler feel that there is a lot of luck involved and being on the wrong side of the cards makes a huge difference.

I often generate the butler results for the Home Internationals in the UK (Open and Women's) and I can say that many of the players take them very seriously. I don't really understand why because they are so random with only six tables in play, but they do. I'm sure a lot of this is to establish blame, or lack thereof, for the team's overall performance. As gnasher says, they can be very divisive. In coaching some of our international pairs I do use the per-board butler information to provide quick feedback on performance, but it is a small part of what is done.

In terms of the hyperlinks, I bet it is down to time and effort of getting all the results in.

[paulg]

jh51, on 2011-May-11, 14:29, said:

Please excuse me if these seem to be stupid questions, but I was once told that the only stupid question is the one you don't ask.

Have you seen despair.com?

[rogerclee]

obv I was only one on the forums who lost

[gnasher]

paulg, on 2011-May-11, 16:07, said:

I often generate the butler results for the Home Internationals in the UK (Open and Women's) and I can say that many of the players take them very seriously. I don't really understand why because they are so random with only six tables in play, but they do. I'm sure a lot of this is to establish blame, or lack thereof, for the team's overall performance. As gnasher says, they can be very divisive. In coaching some of our international pairs I do use the per-board butler information to provide quick feedback on performance, but it is a small part of what is done.

Haven't Scotland sometimes used the Butlers from the first weekend to select the team for the second weekend?

[gnasher]

JLOGIC, on 2011-May-11, 10:57, said:

The hands are computer dealt obv.

Lol @ people calling it quaint and bad for the spectators... Do you realize how close in proximity tables are to each other and how much talking goes on? Yes you can just strictly penalize any talking, but there is still a huge risk that someone overhears something about a hand and just has a wire. Yes, I know, you guys would put us all in our own seperate rooms with state of the art computers and time monitors, but unfortunately there is no money for that. The USBF has put us in a nice venue and enabled the players to be able to talk about hands/needle each other/whatever freely without worrying about other people overhearing us, which is a big part of bridge. Sorry if you guys cannot see what experts do with the same hands, personally I'd find it more interesting to see 3x as many hands since most hands are boring, but whatever, it's not about you. If you donated a few million then I'm sure you'd be catered to. It is amazing how entitled you all feel to 10 tables of vugraph, duplicated hands, whatever you want, for nothing, at whatever cost to the integrity of the event for the players.

That would be a sufficient argument if the event were funded entirely by the participants. Is it?

[paulg]

paulg, on 2011-May-11, 16:07, said:

I often generate the butler results for the Home Internationals in the UK (Open and Women's) and I can say that many of the players take them very seriously. I don't really understand why because they are so random with only six tables in play, but they do. I'm sure a lot of this is to establish blame, or lack thereof, for the team's overall performance. As gnasher says, they can be very divisive. In coaching some of our international pairs I do use the per-board butler information to provide quick feedback on performance, but it is a small part of what is done.

gnasher, on 2011-May-12, 00:57, said:

Haven't Scotland sometimes used the Butlers from the first weekend to select the team for the second weekend?

I don't know what happened before I was involved, but since then it is fair to say that some of the players were under the illusion that the butlers were a key component of selection for the second weekend. This was not the case although the NPC would include the butler, and an 'adjusted' butler, in his report. As a selector I did a far more detailed analysis of the team's performance and this provided the 'performance' input into the selection of the team for the second weekend.

There has been huge pressure from certain elements in Scotland to have a purely objective method of selection. Why they believe a meaningless indicator of performance is better than a subjective assessment is perhaps one of the reasons I am no longer a selector. But stability and sense seems to be returning with the past being hopefully consigned to history at this month's AGM.

[helene_t]

gnasher, on 2011-May-12, 01:29, said:

That would be a sufficient argument if the event were funded entirely by the participants. Is it?

It is not only the players who have interest in security issues. Rumours about matches being determined by leaks would damage the reputation of USBF and of bridge in general.

[whereagles]

About butler scoring: I like it and it's a pity these trials don't have one, though I obviously understand it's pushing your luck when tables are bundled closely.

Still, a butler can be negative for team morale. I remember once in an international event, the three pairs were more worried about their butler scores than in the actual team scores. Naturally, the coach was not pleased...