Team Matches

[Deanrover]

Hi,

 

I think it would be great if an option existed to swap rooms half way through a team match. A teammatch where you only play one opp pairs somehow just feels "wrong" + I like to play against as many people as possible.

[the hog]

Play 2 x 8 board matches - one against each opposing pair.

QED

[McBruce]

This has come up countless times in our local "IMP League" which is 28-board matches, round-robin over about five months followed by playoffs for those who survive:

 

--do seating rights (normally given to each team for half the match) include the right to play the same people again?

 

--if players just sit and play for the first half without consultation, who has "seating rights" for the second?

 

--when one team has more than four players (six max) do they need to let their opponents know who is going to play which half? Who is going to partner who? When do they need to give this information?

 

I write very strict CoCs and I still get calls on these questions.

 

I agree with Deanrover that an extended team match should be played against both pairs, but I think teams should have the option to play all against a familiar pair, so my rule is that any one player may veto if the same four players are playing against one another in the second half. And when one or both sides have more than four, they should agree who is in before the match for each half, then let seating rights decide who plays where.

 

It would be nice if BBO team matches had the option. Actually, I think a better way for BBO team matches would be to create a teamgame 'room' for the host to discuss who will play with who until the thing starts. Currently this has to be done by private message or in the lobby. It would be great to be able to go to the team game areas and see a list of rooms with conditions, go to the rooms, chat with the players, and click on a desired seat, instead of having the host enter all the names. (My limited experience is that the host usually stacks his team--or thinks he has done so.) :blink:

[mrdct]

I think being compulsorily required to play the other pair in the second half of a match is a stupid idea. The teams should toss a coin for seating rights and one team sits first in the first half and the other team sits first in the second half. If my opponent have chosen badly when they had choice - bad luck.

 

Years ago I was playing in a tournament in China and reached a knock-out stage where longer matches were played in two halves. We duly tossed for seating rights, lost the toss and sat first. We smashed up our opponents in the first half and wanted to play that pair again as we had the rights for the second half. I nearly fell of my chair when the director told me that we had to play the other pair in the second half. In my sheltered bridge career up to that point I had never seen that rule or custom.

[inquiry]

I don't think it makes much of a difference, but it will slow down the game a bit. The reason why, if the re=explaination of carding, etc. Also, the faster pair (believe it or not, that is usually me and my parnter), will have to wait for the first half of the boards to be finished rather than blasting through and then going to do something else. At the very least this should only be an OPTION.

 

All in all, I think the idea of a match, then a re-match with players rotated is fine. And the break in between is nice. There would also be a problem with the movie perhaps, unless it was a barometer game, because you will have just turned the first half into barometer (people can look back to see what happened) and second half into not one (I guess this would be half-barometer)....

 

Ben

[Gerardo]

Think the best way would be to link a match with a previous one, that way you pick the results, but have to copy the teams names verbatim.

Who is playing and seating rights are managed manually, and any player can object by refusing the invitation to play.