Putting My Cards on the Table #2: Seeding in the Scottish Cup

Hurrah! It's another PMCOTT post, and a chance for me to divide my almost non-existent readership still further. More uninformed opinions from one of Scotland's bog-standard competitive players, because goodness knows we don't have enough of that.

I'm a Scottish Bridge News Subscriber. (Honest!) It's good value for what it is, and in today's society is probably the only institution I know of that both has the word "News" in it and hasn't been labelled "fake" by somebody. In the latest issue, they introduced a new feature: The Opinions Page. (Popcorn at the ready...) Personally, I hope that this is a mini misnomer and we will see a full-blown Opinions Section from here on out. The more constructive dialogue, the better. I don't think you can fit everything that needs talked about onto just one page.

The inaugural Opinions Page was devoted to a response from one Dougie Munroe to an invitation to enter the Scottish Cup, which is still officially Scotland's Premier Event. I'm naming him because:
(a) He deserves credit for his piece, and
(b) I can hardly hide his identity; anyone who reads SBN will know who I'm talking about, and
(c) I have a MUCH lower readership than Scottish Bridge News!
He opens:

"Why would I want to enter a competition where the Conditions of Contest are set to reduce my chances of Progressing in it?"

He follows with an article outlining a strong opinion that the Scottish Cup should be a completely open draw; that there should be no Seeded teams at all. It is a compelling, and not unjustified point of view, and it led me to question my own view on the subject. As a result of that miniature soul-search, here is my tuppence' worth.

I am not offering this piece as a rebuttal, per se. Munroe's argument was reasonable, and food for thought. But on balance I find myself inclined to disagree, albeit in pretty loose terms. As my starting point I shall consider the following statement:

Why should whether a competition is Seeded or not affect whether or not I enter it?

I am trying to establish myself as a regular attendee at the bigger events on the Scottish Bridge Calendar. It is not possible for me to attend everything, but if I have my way I will consistently be playing in the Scottish Cup, National League, Winter Fours etc from here on out. Each of these events I cited are currently (by some definition) Seeded, and I would still play in them if they weren't. I've seen minor tweaks, and not-so-minor tweaks to each, a number of which I disagree with, and I still play in them. Any one of them would have to undergo massive rule/format changes for the worse before I would consider discontinuing my participation. Maybe this is just me, but I personally feel that whether the Scottish Cup is Seeded or not is not in itself a big enough issue to affect whether I play or not.

Then again, I am an ambitious player. I want to learn. The prospect of a long match against quality opposition does not deter me. I like playing in events where I will be punished for my mistakes, because that is how I learn. You have to beat the best if you want to be the best.

I would perhaps support the removal of Seeding from the Scottish Cup - if it could be satisfactorily proven to me that this would induce a big upsurge in entries. But honestly, I don't think this is the issue. Poll everyone that doesn't play in the Scottish Cup and ask them why not, and you will get a variety of different answers, many of which will translate as: "Can't be bothered" or "I'm not a competitive player".

Okay, so let's look at what the Seeding system actually is.

The Conditions of Contest state that the amount of seeds will be limited to 4. A more recent (and possibly unwritten) stipulation is that those four seeds should be the four Semi-Finalist teams from the previous season (which presumably carries some sort of team continuity requirement). This is as good a way of doing it as you can possibly get. I would be sceptical of Scottish Cup Seeding if there were more than four. The more I think about this system, the more I think it is the fairest.

Why do we want the stronger teams to have an easier route?

A just question. As Dougie Munroe points out in his article:

"They might all meet in the early rounds while a weaker team, or the only strong team, progresses from the other half of the draw. True, but eventually the best team wins the Cup. If there's an upset, especially in the longer matches in the later stages or final, hurray for the underdog! That's what cup competitions are all about."

He also argues:

"Seeding has a place in big-money, multi-national spectator sports like tennis or football where maximising viewing figures for the later stages maximises revenue; none of these adjectives apply to the Scottish Cup. Some notable knock-out competitions do not seed and this adds to their romance, interest and participation: e.g. the Scottish and English FA Cups."

There is a difference, however, between the Scottish Cups in football and Bridge. In football, whether the match is the first round or Final, the match is 90 minutes long. Not so with Bridge. As a team draws nearer to the Final, the matches get longer. It is preferable that when the Seeds meet, the match is longer. Of course you want the romance of the cup where big teams can be knocked out early. Everyone loves an underdog. But for the integrity of the competition, clashes between Seeds should be in matches where the element of luck is reduced. Believe it or not, you are increasing the chances of everyone progressing - not just the Seeds. I shall explore this theme a bit more later.

There are some superficial, but worthy, answers to the question.

Firstly, as previously stated, everyone loves an Underdog. But there is a flip side. The underdog may be completely swept aside. It is intended that the Scottish Cup Final is broadcast on BBO VuGraph. Does anyone really want to make it to the final of a competition untested, and then have their mistakes exposed for the world to see? It is probably to the benefit of the so-called "weaker" teams that they earn their place in the final by knocking out a couple of Seeds, or at least by knocking out the teams that knocked the Seeds out.

Secondly, Knock-on effect. The National League is "seeded". By which I mean, the teams that earned a right to play in Division 1 last season have first refusal on taking up their place this season. But if not all teams take up their place, the SBU have to figure out how to rate team players, and one of the things they look at is the Scottish Cup. It's a remote chance, but surely we do not want the composition of the National League to be affected by "luck of the draw" in the Scottish Cup, which in turn may affect which players we send to represent Scotland?

Equality of Opportunity

It is easy to fall into the trap of assuming that an open draw gives everyone an equal chance. In a sense it does - in terms of equal chance of getting a favourable draw. But let's have a look at the issue in more detail.

Taking this year's Cup as a case study, there were 30 entries (not including the Highland District, as the earlier rounds are regionalised to save on travel). For those that have to play a First Round match, they would not have to play a Seed in their first match, For those unseeded teams progressing to, or entering in, the Second Round, there was only a 25% chance of them meeting a Seed at this stage. Progressing to the Last 16 incurs a 50% chance, which means you have a 50% chance of having the opportunity to progress to the Quarter Final before you meet a Seed. That seems reasonable to me.

Assume, for sake of argument, that you are a strong Unseeded team, and you would be strong favourites against any other Unseeded team. Only the Seeds stand in your way. Either:

(a) You meet a Seed in the Quarter Final, and you are effectively playing for that Seeding. Should you win, you will progress to the Semi Final, and become a Seed for the next season.

Or

(b) You play a Seed in a 32 board match, which you technically have more chance of winning. If you win, you will not meet another Seed until the Semi Finals.

You see? The shorter the match, the greater the chance of the underdog winning. For example, my team had a disappointing run in the District Teams of 4 last year, where some underdogs beat us in a 14 board match. That can happen - but if those were only the first 14 boards of a match, and we had 34 boards still to play, I'd be reasonably confident of turning that around. I've played in more than one Scottish Cup match where we were trailing at half time only to turn it round in the second half - on one occasion overturning a deficit of about 30 IMPs to win the second half by about 68 IMPs (memory does not give me the exact figures now). So, if you are an Underdog, it is to your tactical advantage to meet a Seed before the Quarter Final, because there's an arithmetical case that your chances of winning are increased by 33% compared to playing the Seed in the Quarter Final. Meanwhile, the Seeds meet in longer matches, where the element of luck is reduced, and may the best Seed win.

Beat a Seed to become a Seed

Not to harp on about the points I made above, but this is the implication. Munroe argues:

"There are various inconsequential arguments in defence of seeding... The main arguments of substance appear to have two, contradictory themes: Firstly, seeding is fairer to the weaker teams. If a weaker team beats a seed, the weaker team won't meet a seed in the next round. This rather depends on the number of seeds. However, at some point, if seeding serves its purpose, the weaker team (or its next opponent) will inevitably meet another Seed. So, at best, meeting another seed is only delayed by a round or two."

Or three.

"Without seeding, it is argued that a weaker team, on beating a strong team, might well meet another strong team in the next round. They might or might not but surely if one enters a cup competition and beats a good team, one savours the victory and prepares to meet stiff(er) opposition in the next round?"

Yes, one always savours the victory. But one might also argue that knocking out a seed should bring some kind of reward, other than getting knocked out one round later than expected. The opportunity to progress at least as far as the Semi Final brings that. Which brings me to...

The Standard of Competition in the Scottish Cup

Pretty much every match in the Scottish Cup is guaranteed to be a tough test. There are no weak players (unless you count me). So Seeding is kind-of a moot point anyway. You might prefer to play against a Seed compared to some of the Unseeded opposition. Yes, some teams are weaker than others, but there are no outright weak teams. Gone are the days of all and sundry entering, and big teams racking up wins in excess of a couple of hundred IMPs. In fact, I would reckon it's a good bet that when my team of youngsters entered in 2010, and were soundly beaten in our opening match by Brian Short's team, that was the last time a Scottish Cup match was lost by over a hundred IMPs - anyone care to correct me on this? (Cue the messages of: "We also beat you by over a hundred IMPs"). But just to reiterate the point about shorter matches - had Board 1 of that match been the only one to count, we'd have won. Seeded or not, anyone can get an unfavourable draw. Which brings me to...

The Scottish Cup Plate

This is a free-entry competition for teams that are knocked out of the Scottish Cup in the first round that they play. So, if you get a really unfavourable first round draw, you parachute here (sort of like getting Knocked Out of the Champion's League into the Europa League). This competition specifically exists to cater for those who are unlucky in their opening match. It's a selling point of the Scottish Cup that you are not limited to one match - every team is guaranteed a minimum of two matches. No Seeded teams here (assuming all Seeds won their opening match), so the competition is open.

A Note on the Highland District Regionalisation

I am not against regionalising the Highland District's part of the Scottish Cup. It's a big area, often difficult to travel through, and it prevents teams from having to travel obscene distances in the early rounds. However, there have been some suggestions in the past that some non-Highland teams have entered the Highland Draw in order to gain an easier route to the Last 16. While my evidence for this remains anecdotal only, it is a logical point that theoretically at least, with no Seeds from the Highland District, that is an advantage of entering that route. It is interesting that Dougie Munroe is registered in the Highland District. I can't really buy his claim that the Conditions of Contest are set to scupper HIS chances of progressing, since the Conditions of Contest if anything favour his chances of making it to the Last 16. I'm not saying that he didn't make valid points; I found his piece very interesting and I do not wish to demean his viewpoint. But taking this into consideration, it comes across as excuse-mongering.

Besides which, is it all about the winning? Can't people just enter for the love of the game any more?

Alisdair v The Rule of Seven

Ah, the rule of Seven. Such a useful little tool. Like any tool, it is only as useful as the one who wields it. For the uninitiated, the Rule of Seven is a rule-of-thumb for Declarer to use for handling a side suit with limited stoppers. Consider the following combinations:

(a) Axx opposite xxx
(b) Axxx opposite xxx
(c) Axx opposite xx

In each of the above scenarios, these are side suits, and as Declarer, they are immediately led at you.
The rule is thus:

Subtract the number of cards in your fit from 7. This gives you the number of times you need to duck.

Simple, right? For (a), the fit is 6, so 7-6 = 1. Duck ONCE and then win the Ace on the second round.
Using the same logic, you don't duck at all with (b), and you duck twice with (c).

Great. A rule that is as easy to remember as it is to use. So far, so good. But why does it work?
The mathematical logic is sound. Employing this rule helps you block the suit when the distribution is uneven. This means that when you win the trick, the only reason that both opponents can still hold a card in that suit is because the suit split as evenly as possible. This means that you can treat one hand as the "danger hand" and play to ensure that hand does not get in to cash tricks. (This is especially relevant Declaring NT contracts). It also means that you don't duck more than you need to.

Take, for example, option (a). The opponents's cards could be distributed 4-3, 5-2, 6-1 or 7-0. Obviously, when both opponents follow suit, they are at worst 6-1, and when you win the Ace on the second round and everyone follows, it is no worse than 5-2. You have now successfully cut the defence' communications in that suit. Unless the hand that started with 5 has another entry, they will never be able to cash their winners. If the split is 4-3, you have not cut communication, but they can only gather 2 further tricks from that suit.

Is this an Open and Shut case? This is Bridge; of course its not.
For example, consider the possibilities in (b). Not ducking still protects against a 5-1 split, but not against 4-2. This is the "exception" where you do not guarantee the suits splits as evenly as it possibly can. The reason the rule still applies is that 3-3 breaks are so unlikely anyway. It baffles me when I speak to players that still feel that a suit "SHOULD" split 3-3. No it shouldn't! You are entitled to that happening 35% of the time; no more. Alternatively, if you have 4 cards, you might promote a pip as as second trick so that's why the rule says not to duck.
HOWEVER, IF you took the view that: "I can afford to lose one trick that I don't need to lose, just to ensure that I don't lose three", you would reason that you need to duck once to protect against the 4-2 split.

The take away from this is two-fold:
1: Context matters
2: Sometimes the even split is the one you are worried about.

Consider this hand I played last night:

K84
1095
K1064
A32

AQJ
A72
Q82
KQ65

3NT by the bottom hand
Lead: 4 of hearts
Match Points
No opposition Bidding

Note the heart suit. The rule of Seven says I should duck once. I play the 5, the King appears, and I duck. The 6 is returned - I duck again. Why?

Well, I do not want to lose 3 heart tricks. I can see 3 spades, 1 heart, 3 clubs and 1 diamond trick. If the minors split 3-3 (which I have just pointed out I am NOT entitled to!), I can make 9, but I may need to lose the lead twice to set that up and that brings me down if they also get 3 hearts. I can afford TWO heart losers. I am giving the contract the best chance of making by ensuring that when I win the Ace of Hearts, the suit is blocked. Sure enough, when LHO returns a third heart, RHO pitches a spade. I have lost one more heart trick than necessary.
Some may be thinking that I am wrongly adopting a teams strategy here. The goal in Match Points is to make as many tricks as possible, so it is worth the risk just to ensure that I don't lose a trick un-necessarily. I disagree. Let's see why.

Now that I know I cannot afford LHO to gain the lead for any reason what so ever, I have to assume RHO has the Ace of diamonds. Otherwise, this contract has no play and it is irrelevant how many times I ducked. So, I cash King and Ace of Clubs, with both opponents following both times. I now play a small diamond from table, RHO follows, and I play the Queen. It wins! I'm now at 8 tricks; time to combine chances. I play a small diamond from hand - and the Jack appears from LHO. I cover with the King. RHO wins with the Ace, but this sets up my 10. I now know I am making this contract. In fact, as long as RHO does not have 5 spades, I am making an overtrick. Looks like I'm making the Match Points. RHO returns a spade - his best shot at defeating the contract. There's nothing he can do to stop me making 10 tricks, given his actual hand.

Why am I making ten instead of 9? The extra duck in hearts of course! Not only was it a prudent guard against the 4-3 break, it effectively rectified the Count for a minor suit squeeze. I win the spade with the Jack and cash my Queen of clubs. LHO discards, and now I know RHO started with 3=2=4=4 (4-4 in the minors). I play my Queen of Spades and overtake with the King, to ensure that on the last spade, I am winning in hand. Crucially, on the last spade, RHO has to discard. He squirms and pitches a diamond, and I now play my last diamond to the ten, and my 6 is now a winner. His alternative was to pitch his club, which would make my 6 a winner, on which I would pitch my 6 of diamonds before cashing the ten of diamonds.

Conclusion: The Rule of Seven is an OK rule, but using a tool properly involves knowing when to use it.