[bidule5]

starts tomorrow:

http://www.worldbrid...2/Beijing12.htm

Any idea how the teams were selected ?


yvan

[Vampyr]

bidule5, on 2012-December-11, 16:35, said:

starts tomorrow:

http://www.worldbrid...2/Beijing12.htm

Any idea how the teams were selected ?


yvan

This will likely have varied from country to country.

[JLOGIC]

In USA you could put your name in to be voted on then there was a vote. I think to be eligible to vote you had to be a grand life master or a national champ or something like that.

They did not publicize it very well though, I had no idea about it until after the deadline to submit your name, and a couple of other people said the same thing.

[Mbodell]

JLOGIC, on 2012-December-11, 23:27, said:

In USA you could put your name in to be voted on then there was a vote. I think to be eligible to vote you had to be a grand life master or a national champ or something like that.

They did not publicize it very well though, I had no idea about it until after the deadline to submit your name, and a couple of other people said the same thing.

I think they announced it on the USBF mailing list and on the USBF web site. I think you had to have played in a USBF trials in the last 3 or 5 years to be eligible to vote.

[JanM]

Mbodell, on 2012-December-12, 00:38, said:

I think they announced it on the USBF mailing list and on the USBF web site. I think you had to have played in a USBF trials in the last 3 or 5 years to be eligible to vote.

SportAccord invited the federations of the four countries it had chosen for this year's event (China, the latest Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup winners, the Lille winners, and the other country that had done best in last year's SportAccord event I believe) to send teams. The invitation was issued in the middle of August and federations were told to send the list of players by the middle of September, so there was not much time to select teams.

The USBF selected teams by asking pairs to express interest in playing and then having a select group vote (using a complicated "instant run-off" procedure) for the team.

The event and the fact that pairs should nominate themselves was announced on the USBF website and the ITTC mailing list and USBF sent emails to everyone who had played in the USBC (Open Trials) and USWBC (Women's Trials) in 2011 or 2012. Unfortunately sometimes people change their email addresses and don't correct them on the USBF website, so we don't send to the correct email address, and since the emails go from the USBF website to a large group of people, some email programs consider them spam (sorry, Justin).

The Open voters were those players who had made the finals in a USBC in the last five years - a very much more select group than either National champions or Grand Life Masters . The Women's voters were those who had made the finals in a USWBC in the last 5 years. You can see the list of Open voters, the list of Women voters and the FAQs.

[JLOGIC]

No prob Jan I'm sure its my fault I'm notoriously bad at emails I probably just missed it. Kevin also didn't see it so that made me more confident lol.

Is there a usbf Facebook group? Maybe that would be useful but I guess in the bridge world there are not many people who see fob messages more reliably than email lol

[lalldonn]

I didn't see it either until Joe told me later, I'm sure emails like that just look like spam to most people. But I'm not sure the best way to announce something like that. Add in the bridge bulletin and mention in the daily bulletin of the NABC prior?

[JanM]

lalldonn, on 2012-December-13, 15:56, said:

I didn't see it either until Joe told me later, I'm sure emails like that just look like spam to most people. But I'm not sure the best way to announce something like that. Add in the bridge bulletin and mention in the daily bulletin of the NABC prior?

I also don't know how best to communicate something like this. It's likely to arise every year, though, so any suggestions are welcome. The 2013 event hadn't been announced before the Summer NABC, and there was not enough lead time to get something in the ACBL Bulletin. Perhaps they'll do better next year. I'm not a big fan of Facebook (I trash Facebook messages faster than any other), and my gut feeling is that if we had a USBF Facebook page it would get even less traffic than the USBF website - perhaps I'm wrong. I think we announced it on BridgeWinners, with a link to the notice on the USBF website, but I'm not certain. There was so little time that I got somewhat overloaded trying to put information on our website and send out emails.

I happen to know that Justin's email address had changed from the one on the USBF website, because when I sent emails to the voters I did it from my personal account and the email to Justin bounced - I then found his new email, but of course that was too late for the initial email. I don't know about your email address, because the mail service from the USBF site does not report bounces (and of course there's no way to find out if the recipient's email client considered the email spam). I try very hard not to send out a bunch of emails from the USBF website (and no one else has the ability to do so), so if you get an email from USBF, please don't assume it's spam . Especially the one that everyone will get soon asking you to pay dues!

[gnasher]

If you're going to post messages elsewhere, I think there are three obvious places: BridgeWinners, NewInBridge (previously BridgeTopics), and here. Personally, though, I wouldn't have done any more than you did - if someone gives me their email address, it's reasonable to assume that they're going to read any emails I send to it.

[mycroft]

If you're going to post messages elsewhere, I think the obvious place would be the USBF website :-) (which I know was done). Anyone interested in things the USBF is going to do should be checking that website regularly (or have it on RSS feed); the only reason they don't is that the information either isn't important to them or emails are being sent pointing to the web page (so a manual "feed"). If the former, that's because these things aren't posted. If the latter, maybe a change in "where should we send information" is in order.

Email lists that aren't listservs (I'd use majordomo, because that's what I know, but you know) where the subscribers can maintain their account through changes in email are so prone to address rot that this is Just Going To Happen.

I realize that the ACBL/USBF relationship is incestuous, but given that they are supposed to be separate entities (with the USBF reporting to ACBL the ZA, but being effectively parallel and not connected to ACBL the SO) having things in the NABC bulletin is problematic. Having something in the ACBL bulletin, unless it's a regular "NBO page", is a waste of space for 15% of the audience (and again, the "incestuous" problem rears its head).

For the facebook addicted, I'm sure there's an RSS aggregator that ties into *book. Since I am so anti-"social networking" that I am actually an "anti-social networking" person (I had an account on Arsebook before it died off, and used EvilUrl before *it* died off), I wouldn't know what they were.

[Zelandakh]

If you know that the WMG will happen, even if not exactly where or when, it seems like it would be possible to publicise that you are looking for possible teams well before you actually receive the official communication to that effect. It would then be a simple matter to contact the players that applied (or rather the Captain for each team) and check that they are available on the announced dates before having the vote. This would seem to be better than trying to get everything done inside a month or so. What did England do Andy - presumably they had the same timeframe to organise in? (admittedly with far fewer candidates)

[gnasher]

Zelandakh, on 2012-December-17, 05:34, said:

What did England do Andy - presumably they had the same timeframe to organise in? (admittedly with far fewer candidates)

I wasn't involved in the decision, but I imagine that the selection was a formality. The England women's team were invited because England had won the Venice Cup, so it would be natural to pick the Venice Cup team.

[Zelandakh]

On a related matter, I heard there was some controversy regarding the England Open team selections for the Bermuda Bowl, aggravated by close connections between the players concerned and the Committee. Any idea what went on there? I have not managed to hear a full account yet.

[WellSpyder]

Zelandakh, on 2012-December-18, 04:37, said:

On a related matter, I heard there was some controversy regarding the England Open team selections for the Bermuda Bowl, aggravated by close connections between the players concerned and the Committee. Any idea what went on there? I have not managed to hear a full account yet.

The England selectors have quite a strict requirement for those with a direct or family interest in the selection of a particular team to be excluded from the decision. So any aggravation from close connections between the players concerned and the Committee is likely to take the form of unduly limiting the number of selectors available to make a decision rather than anything else.

[gnasher]

Zelandakh, on 2012-December-18, 04:37, said:

On a related matter, I heard there was some controversy regarding the England Open team selections for the Bermuda Bowl, aggravated by close connections between the players concerned and the Committee. Any idea what went on there? I have not managed to hear a full account yet.

I don't know who told you that, but he's talking nonsense. The Bermuda Bowl selections were made by Heather Dhondy, Nick Smith, Simon Cocheme and me. I know of no close connection between any of those and any of the players selected.

Paul Hackett and Tom Townsend were at the meeting, but left the room before the discussion started, and didn't participate in either the discussion or the voting. David Burn wasn't present, as he was playing in the European Champion's Cup. The committee also has some non-voting members; they were present during the discussion but didn't vote.

The Bermuda Bowl selections were controversial in the way that they always are: people have differing opinions about who should have been selected.

[Zelandakh]

I did not say I heard it from a "he" (in fact it was not) but did say that I had not heard a full account. I certainly did not know that you were involved! Indeed, I was not even sure if there were Trials held or not. I did notice that the 3 pairs were drawn from what seem to be 2 different teams and thought that might have had something to do with things. I can well imagine that selecting without a trial was incredibly difficult this year since several English pairs seem to have been in good form (not that I have followed results as closely as you will have!) in addition to the pairs that have already had considerable success at International level. Hopefully that means England can be competitive again!

[mgoetze]

mycroft, on 2012-December-14, 11:27, said:

(I'd use majordomo, because that's what I know, but you know)

Showing your age there. All the hip kids use GNU Mailman nowadays.

[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2012-December-17, 10:26, said:

I wasn't involved in the decision, but I imagine that the selection was a formality. The England women's team were invited because England had won the Venice Cup, so it would be natural to pick the Venice Cup team.

It's not the same team as the one that won the Venice Cup (most recently in 1985).

[gnasher]

Vampyr, on 2012-December-25, 01:33, said:

It's not the same team as the one that won the Venice Cup (most recently in 1985).

Sorry, I meant the world championships in Lille in 2012, which apparently goes under the ungainly name of the "Women Series" of the "World Bridge Games". I can't help thinking that "Olympiad" was a better name.

[barmar]

gnasher, on 2012-December-25, 06:13, said:

I can't help thinking that "Olympiad" was a better name.

So do the owners of the trademark, presumably, which is why they restrict it to their events -- it gives them more prestige.