Australian Team Selection - The Way Forward - Responses

As promised, I have attached all of the responses that I received in answer to my open questionnaire about Australian Team Selection – The Way Forward.
I would like to thank all of you who took the time to get a response to me. Your suggestions, questions and general information have been forwarded to the Tournament Committee with a recommendation that the detail contained therein is reviewed and considered prior to them putting the tournament regulations together for future years.

Thanks once again,
Di Marler
Player Liaison Committee .

Response No. 1

All formats seem to attempt giving a minimum "playing time" to all contestants. The playoffs should be geared to select the best team, that should be the only objective. In the US team trials, most teams go home after a day and a half. Longer the matches the better (again US team trials 128 board matches).
The simpler the format, the better it is.
Say 4 teams, 2 128 board matches. End of format.
Say 6 teams, seed 2 on PQP to Semifinal, Then 64 board match, 96 board semi, 128 board final.

Representing Australia: I believe in winner takes it all. Give the team that wins the playoff a proper taste of international competition. The world out there is meaner than home waters and having a go at the Far East would see a team in better shape for the Olympiad or the Bowl. We would have a better chance of a showing at the World Championships if we gave our team a chance in an important tournament before.

Years of pairs playoffs should have a pairs last train. And a teams playoff have a teams last train.

At the end, I would like to commend the ABF that one thing they have done really well is change the playing schedule so that there aren't terribly long breaks that used to be the norm a few years ago. Also, recent trend of doing away with complicated formats is the way to go !

Response No. 2

My comment relates to scheduling of playoffs.

Given the significant spectator interest in the open team playoffs, the qualifying rounds should be held during the week and the semi-final and final on the weekend to give maximum spectator exposure to the event.

Response No. 3

Generally, I thought everything was run very well - the venue was fine, the subsidy a pleasant surprise, and the administration very smooth. However, I do have a few comments regarding timing.

My main criticism relates to the decision that the winners would have to play almost immediately in Christchurch. First, I was unaware of this requirement at the time we were arranging our team, and was quite embarrassed to have to tell them that I would be on a plane to England when the Christchurch event started. Secondly, if our team had by chance qualified, at least one of our members would have had insufficient time to get a passport, and any opportunities for cheap advance airfare bookings were likely to have gone. Bookings for accommodation usually need to be made further in advance also. One of two things has to happen - either the trials are held earlier (about 2 months before the overseas competition), or the team to represent Australia is the carryover team from the preceding year. I can't see any reason why the selected team can't be ratified for, say, 12 months July to June. That might, as a side effect, encourage partnerships to stay together longer!

Overall, well done to (the Convener) and his team.

Response No. 4

General issues

The online results service provided in the Senior Playoff is world class. You should provide the same in the Open/Women’s Playoffs.

It would be a good idea to take ABF staff off the hook and get an independent accountant or lawyer to handle entries.

Vital to put arbitration mechanism in place for future events, as (President of the ABF) has foreshadowed.

Even the online system used for the Seniors was flawed, since it was possible to tell who had already entered.

The PQP system

The requirement that pairs have PQP together is dysfunctional and should be eliminated. It forces players into inferior partnerships and in some cases excludes players altogether – for instance, ( a player) some years ago had more PQP than anyone else and was barred by this rule. The rule halving PQP not earned as a unit is more than adequate incentive for people to stay together.

Entry restrictions (closing date/information to accompany entry)

In Bermuda Bowl years, you need to put up in flashing lights the requirement to go to Zone 7 Playoff so soon after playoff. In both 2005 and 2007, some players have been unaware of it.

The Playoffs – where they are held

Don’t care, within bounds of sanity.

Team 6 from the Last Train Event at the Summer Festival of Bridge

Don’t care. May be worthwhile to help develop talent, although I haven’t seen evidence of that yet.

Training of individual teams

No comment.

The events in which teams play representing Australia

No comment.

Response No. 5

More comments …

1) The rule requiring players to get 15 Senior PQP before Open points are transferred has been a well-kept secret. It needs to be publicised more prominently.

2) Both this year and last, Senior Entries had to be reopened. It would be much fairer to set the original entry criteria wide enough so that you get enough entries first time. I suggest: (a) abolishing the rule mentioned above requiring Seniors with open PQP to get 15 Senior PQP; (b) abolishing the requirement for pairs to have earned PQP as a unit.

Response No. 6

NOMINATIONS

Team (or pair) nominations and declarations of availability should be submitted together in a sealed envelope. These should NOT be opened until after the closing date/time. In this way, all is deemed above reproach.

It would also obviate the situation that arose in 2007.

So, I am strongly of the opinion that the current situation where individuals submit their forms is inappropriate. All 6 (or 2 in the case of Pairs years) sets of paperwork should be submitted together. The ABF delegate only opens all paperwork after closure of nominations and then we have a fair and equitable 'tender' situation.

LOCATION OF PLAYOFFS

Initially I thought that Sydney is the most logical option, esp. in terms of transportation. Given that Sydney means the Playoffs are held at Hakoah, rather than in the city, I have changed my mind. I believe that Canberra (the alternative offered to players in 2007 questionnaire) would be far more suitable as a location and venue. Everything is far more central. Several of us stayed in Bondi overnight in order to be able to arrive at the Monday morning FINAL on time.

NUMBER OF TEAMS / PAIRS

Please, please, please, no more stuff ups. In 2004 we had 2 extra pairs added. In 2007 we had an extra team added which totally stuffed up the RR - a bye, night sessions and the randomness of the extra team. Fix the number of teams / pairs - AND STICK TO IT.

Response No. 7

I refer to the invitation on the ABF website and thank you for providing the opportunity to comment on aspects of the ABF playoff system.

PQP system

In my view the PQP system for Seniors is unfairly biased towards retired people and/or professional bridge players. The majority of PQP events is held on weekdays, unlike Open events which are held largely on weekends (the upcoming events in Melbourne and Adelaide are cases in point). I don’t think the ABF recognises that the workforce participation rate of people 60 and over is at an all-time high (I’d be happy to track down the ABS evidence if you want it). Why doesn’t the ABF give this section of the community the chance to earn PQP points—or at least a better chance than it has now? There is a number of precedents for holding Seniors and Open events simultaneously (for example the forthcoming Butler in Fremantle). The number of people who can realistically aspire to both Open and Seniors selection is relatively small—certainly less than the number of people more likely to be excluded from Seniors events by their being held on weekdays

Last train event

There is an argument that increasing professionalism should mean that people who aspire to represent Australia should make a sufficient commitment to play in a number of PQP events—and that part-timers should not expect to be able to qualify for or influence qualification for Australian team selection. I do not think we have reached that level of professionalism.

Hence it is my view that there should be a Last Train event to give a chance to qualify to people who don’t have the time to play in a lot of qualifying events and people who don’t have the connections to be able to form themselves into a qualifying team (in years where the selection is team-base).

Entry restrictions

If the ABF is serious about promoting bridge as a ‘sport’ or indeed as an activity encouraging public interest and/or public subsidy, it must impose more strict entry restrictions. The fact that a Canadian tourist was accepted as an entrant to the Open playoffs brings the whole game into disrepute. Serious sports/activities have quite stringent rules about qualification. For example in football you can only ever play for one country at senior level. In other sports Australian citizenship is a requirement. To my mind Australian citizenship, or at the very least permanent residency, must be a precondition for entry to the playoffs. Surely it is the ABF’s job to ensure that bridge is taken seriously and that the people it chooses to play for Australia are genuinely Australian representatives.

Response No. 8

Qualification for Entry to Play-off

Firstly, under no circumstances should we adopt a selection system, with team selectors as some countries have. That is a complete no-no, and would exacerbate any abuses we have been subject to over the years.

Secondly, I believe that regardless of the play-off tournament structure itself, entry should be open to all and sundry players who meet the eligibility criteria for playing for Australia. That should be the only criterion for entry, and that should be rigidly enforced [not the tournament for outsiders to play in].

Within that general framework, there could be a seeding system based on the PQP's earned in the preceding 12 months. Thus some players (partnerships/teams, whatever the entry unit might be) with few or no PQP would start in early stages and those with a great number of PQP would start quite late maybe as late as a semi-final or even in unusual circumstances of previous year success, straight into the final.) A generally agreed formula for entry point shouldn't be too hard to develop.

This method of qualification (which incidentally is, or is close to the ACBL method), has a number of quite distinct advantages, notably

1. All this incessant wrangling that goes on and has gone on year in and year out for some years, about whether these people should or should not have been allowed to enter; and who's trying to outmanoeuvre whom in the leadup to entry, will simply evaporate.

This must be of great benefit to the ABF if for no other reason than its officials will be free of temptation, won't have to make any Solomnic type judgments, and will leave entry to the marketplace of players.

2. This approach gets rids of all those specious arguments about players from the smaller states (player base, not geography) not getting an opportunity. Just enter with or without your bag of PQPs. If you're good enough you'll win. (Although I live in Sydney, I hail from Brisbane so I know the argument from both sides of the fence.)

Play-off Tournament Structure

If the play-off is to select one team, then any teams-based method that leads to a single winner of the play-off tournament will suffice, though some are better than others.

If the play-off is to select two teams (and here I'm assuming we don't need to consider three plus, although an analogous argument would apply), then the structure of the tournament must be geared to distinguish first from second and second from third. An old-fashioned football style semi-final series of 1v2 (winner to grand final, loser to play winner of 3v4) and 3v4 (loser eliminated, winner plays loser of 1v2 and winner of that encounter to grand final). The 1v4 and 2v3 semi-final approach with both losers dropping out and the winners playing a final for both berths is totally inadequate. It simply does not find the second best team and leaves players foaming at the mouth at the perceived injustice. [Example. A few years ago, I played on a team, that defeated another team 24-6 and 23-7 in the preliminary stages. We did not play them in semi-final and unfortunately lost our semi-final by 10imp (not much in a long match) to the eventual tournament winner. In the other semi-final, the team we had beaten twice, defeated by a small margin, the tournament leaders (the only match that team won in the entire tournament). The tournament leaders and we were eliminated. The team that had just won its first match was annihilated (100+imp) in the final and went to the Asia-Pacific tournament that year. Two teams (both losing semi-finalists), for different reasons felt very aggrieved by the outcome]

While I strongly support the need to know who is best and who is second best, vis a vis the above, I don't believe the ABF should be having two teams. Let the players compete for a spot and one team go to all international opportunities in a year. That is the way to improve our international standing. If players from one or more partnerships from the first team not be able to meet one or more of the secondary commitments, then replacements should come from the second placed team, not some shonky arrangements that have occurred in the past where a player announced their unavailability at short notice and (magically) a player (a mate who might not have even played in the play-off) was accepted as replacement.

If there is to be a pairs based play-off (I strongly disagree with this approach. Much better to have coherent voluntarily formed teams), let it be the Polish method adopted. Butler pairs initially with winning pair to be "on the team". Second through fifth to play a long teams match for the other two spots, with first placed pair being consulted by second placed pair in nominating their team-mates from 3rd, 4th and 5th for the elimination match, with a proviso that 3rd placed pair may decline the invitation. This gives first an immediate spot, second the opportunity to choose their team-mates and third placed pair some opportunity to influence their fate.) If a large field enters, the butler might need to be pared down in stages. that can't be too bad.

The Last Train might well be a nice money spinner and good luck to the ABF for that, but its format must mirror the Play-off in that if the Play-off is teams based, so should the last train. If the Play-off is pairs based, then let the Last Train be pairs based. (but if my approach of open slather entry to Play-off is adopted, the Last Train becomes substantially superfluous.)

Response No. 9

Response No. 10

The final stages of the Aussie Open Team playoff selection are knockout semi-finals followed by a knockout grand final. The winning team gets to go to the Bermuda Bowl, which is fair enough. But the loser of the grand final gets to go to the PABF Championship, which is more doubtful. It is possible that the second-best team is not the team which lost to the eventual winner in the grand final, but rather the team which lost to the eventual winner in the semi-final.

A solution would be to organise the Aussie Open Team playoff selection as a double-knockout, with the only undefeated team to go to the Bermuda Bowl, and the only once-defeated team to go to the PABF. If the number of teams participating in the Aussie Open Team playoff selection was expanded from this year's seven to eight in 2008, that would allow a perfect double-knockout movement, with no need for an initial round robin.

Response No. 11

The details of the selection system do not matter much. What does matter is that the published rules are adhered to by all parties, including the ABF. The rules must not be changed after they are first published. The ABF should not reserve discretionary powers to itself. Once a discretion is exercised there will be winners and losers, or at least the appearance of such, and this will lead to discontent among the players. The process for making nominations should be 'blind' for all parties, including the ABF.

The ABF should not know what nominations have been received until entires have closed - perhaps an escrow agent could be used to accept the nominations. In the event that the number of entries is less than the 'preferred' number (say 5), entries should not be re-opened, especially not with new rules. This disadvantges those parties who have already nominated. A particular concern is the OzOne Bridge team(s) that may nominate. Because the ABF does not have an arms length relationship with OzOne Bridge, it MUST take particular care not to favour, or appear to favour, the OzOne Bridge team(s).

Response No. 12

Less boards to reduce field from six teams to four teams and more boards for the semi-finals and final. In the Polish trials on at the moment they have eight teams in the event and eliminate four teams on Day 1 after a round robin of seven eight-board matches.

I think that in Australia, six teams is sufficient depth for the play-offs (perhaps less for restricted events such as ladies and seniors) so I would suggest a six-team field that plays a round robin of 12 board matches (three on Thursday afternoon and two on Friday morning) sending the bottom two teams home on Friday afternoon. The semi-finals would be 64 board matches played 2x16 on Friday arvo and 2x16 on Saturday morning. Then a 96-board final played over Saturday arvo and all-day Sunday.

I think having the final run into Monday is hopeless for interstate players as cheap airfares are never flexible.

Response No. 13

The final should be scheduled for a Sunday or public holiday, not a Monday. Many people have Monday to Friday jobs and don't get to watch the final due to it being on a Monday.

Response No. 14

In my opinion the current PQP arrangement disadvantages the players who cannot enter all the events required to gain enough PQP's to qualify for the playoffs due to work commitments, financial ability to travel mostly to the Eastern States, etc. I suggest the Playoffs are staged alowing any person with any number of playoff points to enter upon paying their own expenses. The ABF will fully fund the Playoffs (no entry fee to participants) With this format how can there ever be any suggestion that the ABF has disadvantaged any one player. All who wish to enter may do so. The prize is the opportunity to represent Australia and then receive a meaningful subsidy to do so.

Response No. 15

In reply to your request for comments:

1. While Australia has its problems, we are not that bad compared to most other countries. For example, Indonesia has the ridiculous rule that once a player becomes eligible for Seniors bridge, the player cannot play in the Open Team. As a result, their top three players Lasut, Manoppo and Sacul are not allowed to play in their Open Team.

2. Along with most non-biased observers, I am 100% convinced that Australia should not be sending two different Open (and two Women's) teams overseas in the same year. The Playoff should be winner-take-all. Reasons:

Response No. 16