inquiry Posted August 29, 2010 Report Share Posted August 29, 2010 (edited) These scores are "final" pending scoring error. Round 3 will start Wed, Sep 1. You have until Tuesday to point scoring error, or show why one of the corrected boards (6, 11, 13) should be scored differently (all other boards, the scoring is final and too late to dispute). 117 tylere / bid_em_up109 hrothgar/Free107 bluecalm/redds98 elianna/awm97 gnasher/catch2295 Flycycle/Wackojack94 jlall/hanp93 ant590 - crayzeejim93 mbodell - javabean93 jdonn/gib90 Siegmund/MSchmahl89 rogerClee/cherdano89 East4Evil/sohcahtoa86 sallyally/joylson86 tlgoodwin/timg86 kfay/jchiu86 olegru - driver73384 lobowolf/bkjswan80 karlson/threenobob80 peachy/lg6277 kristen33/jillybean Pairs advancing top group arebluecalm/reddselianna/awmFlycycle/Wackojackjlall/hanp 2nd group includes the six lowest top group scorers from round 2rogerClee/cherdanombodell - javabeanlobowolf/bkjswanEast4Evil/sohcahtoatlgoodwin/timgkarlson/threenobobolegru - driver733peachy/lg62=== Plus the top scorers from the lower group in round 2 ====tylere / bid_em_upgnasher/catch22ant590 - crayzeejimjdonn/gib Edited August 29, 2010 by inquiry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted August 29, 2010 Report Share Posted August 29, 2010 Yes! YES!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted August 29, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 29, 2010 (edited) This are still nto final. Justin pointed out an error in calculatino on board 13. This reflects the new 7-7 scoring on that board (7 points each for two contracts) 117 tylere / bid_em_up110 bluecalm/redds109 hrothgar/Free101 elianna/awm97 gnasher/catch2297 jlall/hanp96 Flycycle/Wackojack <----- corrected as noted by jlogic below96 ant590 - crayzeejim93 mbodell - javabean93 jdonn/gib93 Siegmund/MSchmahl92 rogerClee/cherdano89 East4Evil/sohcahtoa86 sallyally/joylson86 tlgoodwin/timg86 kfay/jchiu86 olegru - driver73384 lobowolf/bkjswan83 peachy/lg6280 karlson/threenobob80 kristen33/jillybean I will recalculate who is in and who is out after all objections are heard. Edited August 30, 2010 by inquiry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLOGIC Posted August 29, 2010 Report Share Posted August 29, 2010 You just moved Wackojack up 3 points from the original scoring even though according to the scores on board 13 he was in 3N (and you changed the scores for 1N and 3D AFAIK from these 2 lists). I think they should be 95 still. BTW Ben thanks for doing this, seems like a huge PITA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted August 29, 2010 Report Share Posted August 29, 2010 BTW Ben thanks for doing this, seems like a huge PITA. Me too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted August 29, 2010 Report Share Posted August 29, 2010 BTW Ben thanks for doing this, seems like a huge PITA. Me too. You too are a huge PITA? :D Thanks Ben! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted August 30, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 30, 2010 You just moved Wackojack up 3 points from the original scoring even though according to the scores on board 13 he was in 3N (and you changed the scores for 1N and 3D AFAIK from these 2 lists). I think they should be 95 still. BTW Ben thanks for doing this, seems like a huge PITA. good catch, not sure why I gave him a seven instead of a 5, it has been corrected... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluecalm Posted August 30, 2010 Report Share Posted August 30, 2010 Pretty amazing GiB made it with some random BBO forum donk :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLOGIC Posted August 30, 2010 Report Share Posted August 30, 2010 Pretty amazing GiB made it with some random BBO forum donk :) We're comin for you next round :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted August 30, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 30, 2010 As we get ready for round 3, remember, what happens in round 4 and round 5. Upper bracket, for Round 4... the top scoring pair in round 3 gets a bye for round 4 Lower bracket, the other 3 pairs from upper bracket round 3, plus top 3 pairs from lower bracket round 3. Round 5 has the "winner" of the round 4 lower bracket bidding against the remaining undefeated pair. If the undefeated pair wins, they are the champs. If they lose, there will be a round 6 playoff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted August 30, 2010 Report Share Posted August 30, 2010 Pretty amazing GiB made it with some random BBO forum donk :) We're comin for you next round :) Won't be hard! Then again if I hadn't tanked 5 minutes then bid a grand off an ace on the very last decision of the round we would have done a lot better, so there is a shot! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hanp Posted August 30, 2010 Report Share Posted August 30, 2010 BTW Ben thanks for doing this, seems like a huge PITA. Me too. +1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TylerE Posted August 30, 2010 Report Share Posted August 30, 2010 When did the low bracket go from being a 50% survivor to a 30% survivor? I strongly feel that the cut factor for the bottom bracket should be the same as a top. With this setup it's possible for a pair to be eliminated while only being in the bottom part of the field once, which feels wrong for a double elimination contest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hanp Posted August 30, 2010 Report Share Posted August 30, 2010 What's a double elimination to you Tyler? How many times can you lose before you are out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLOGIC Posted August 30, 2010 Report Share Posted August 30, 2010 What's a double elimination to you Tyler? How many times can you lose before you are out? lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulg Posted August 30, 2010 Report Share Posted August 30, 2010 What's a double elimination to you Tyler? How many times can you lose before you are out? Luckily it is not being run by a particular Scottish organiser whose implementation of Scotland's premier weekend event, advertised as double elimination, enabled de Botton's team to win despite being beaten four times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TylerE Posted August 30, 2010 Report Share Posted August 30, 2010 What's a double elimination to you Tyler? How many times can you lose before you are out? Not a format where potentially coming 4th out of 14 is counted as a loss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hanp Posted August 30, 2010 Report Share Posted August 30, 2010 In the "upper bracket" the situation is not much better, only 1 out of 4 will make it this round, the rest drops. I think the idea is to get to one winner relatively fast and that seems like a good idea. Also, I think that there has been plenty of discussion about the format. Inquiry has decided on a format before we started and in my opinion he made a good choice. Now we are two rounds in and you start complaining again! :angry: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hanp Posted August 30, 2010 Report Share Posted August 30, 2010 What's a double elimination to you Tyler? How many times can you lose before you are out? Luckily it is not being run by a particular Scottish organiser whose implementation of Scotland's premier weekend event, advertised as double elimination, enabled de Botton's team to win despite being beaten four times. Now that on the other hand seems like an excellent format to me, assuming the particular Scot made some money out of it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TylerE Posted August 30, 2010 Report Share Posted August 30, 2010 Well, it just seems to keep changing. Initially it was matches...then not matches but a 50% duble elim, now something much tighter...I mean I know it needs to end sometimes, but these cuts just feel overly harsh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulg Posted August 30, 2010 Report Share Posted August 30, 2010 What's a double elimination to you Tyler? How many times can you lose before you are out? Luckily it is not being run by a particular Scottish organiser whose implementation of Scotland's premier weekend event, advertised as double elimination, enabled de Botton's team to win despite being beaten four times. Now that on the other hand seems like an excellent format to me, assuming the particular Scot made some money out of it! Doubtful - it was just a dreadful format. The organiser also managed to offend de Botton sufficiently that she has never come back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oof Arted Posted August 30, 2010 Report Share Posted August 30, 2010 What's a double elimination to you Tyler? How many times can you lose before you are out? Luckily it is not being run by a particular Scottish organiser whose implementation of Scotland's premier weekend event, advertised as double elimination, enabled de Botton's team to win despite being beaten four times. Now that on the other hand seems like an excellent format to me, assuming the particular Scot made some money out of it! Doubtful - it was just a dreadful format. The organiser also managed to offend de Botton sufficiently that she has never come back. :D cant be all that bad then :) :angry: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant590 Posted August 31, 2010 Report Share Posted August 31, 2010 So we have final scores now then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted September 1, 2010 Author Report Share Posted September 1, 2010 Well, it just seems to keep changing. Initially it was matches...then not matches but a 50% duble elim, now something much tighter...I mean I know it needs to end sometimes, but these cuts just feel overly harsh. Well, I will have to defend the conditions, because the above comment is grossly unfair and incorrect. I brought up the idea on July 9th, then we started discussing the format. I stated: As for format. I initially was thinking about all pairs bidding the same set of hands over about a week, and either declaring a winner or eliminating about half the field, and doing it all over again. But that is less hands in the long run to discuss in the forum. Now I am considering a double elimination event with pairs battling each other -- with sudden death hands in the case of tie -- one hand at a time until a winner is obtained. Double elimination gives someone a chance to come back via the loser bracket. Ideally 8 pairs would give us 14 unique contest. Most other reachable number of contest will involve giving at least one pair a bye. In this situation, we will establish a fair but random way to pick which pair(s) get a first round bye -- or maybe better we could have a three way contest with one winner (or two losers) whichever works out best for the double elimination bracket setup with a difficult to setup bracket. Later on July 9th, I posted a document with a title "DRAFT Condition of Contest:" in the same thread. NOTE that was clearly identified as a draft. As the number of contestants kept increasing, it became obvious the head-to-head thing was never going to work. Among people making suggestions on how to deal with this was Tim G, who made a lot of useful suggestions including the following, which we eventually went with.... I think it would be more interesting if there were more participants on each deal. So, instead of having KO type matches, have a pool of X pairs that all bid the same hands and the top couple qualify for head-to-head competition. I would think it would be less work for the organize because you would have to score fewer deals. Of course, it would also increase the security risk, but I don't think you are too worried about that. That certainly has a lot of merit as it only requires two batches of hands and is over very quickly. The format can be whatever the majority of partipants feel comfortable with. I am thinking the appeal of scores might be a nightmare, but might also lead to interesting discussions which is why I am suggesting it rather than a panel of three people who just make a final decision or a "decison of moderator on scores is final" kind of approach. This is suppose to be fun or lets not do it I sought and took advice on number of hands per round, bidding aides, kibitizers, etc. There is feedback on all this, including showing how the final format came about (see tim's comment above, or re-read the original threads. On July 11th, four days BEFORE the contest began, I posted the following. With 16 pairs signed up already, the number of teaching tables with someone recording the bidding is growing huge, especially in a double elimination thing. We have decided to take the advise of a forum member. The basic idea will be to run a winner bracket and a loser bracket (after the first round). The first round will be all the same set of boards. Each susequent round, all members of the winner bracket will bid one set of boards, and members of the loser bracket (one "lose" pairs) will bid a second set of boards. In each round where bidding is between pairs with no loses, the top 1/3 will advance to the next round in the winners bracket, the bottom 2/3 will move into the next round in the loser bracket. When deciding, fractions of a player move forward... So if there are 19, 20 or 21 pairs in round one, then 7 pairs move to the winner bracket for round 2. In each round of the losing bracket, the top 1/5th of the pairs will remain in the competition for the next round, the bottom 4/5th will be eliminated. Example If in round 2 loser bracker there are 11, 12, 13, 14 or 15 pairs, then 3 pairs move on to round 3. At the end of the third round, only one pair will emerge from the winner bracket: Regardless of how many pairs were in that round. All the other pairs move to the loser bracket. This pair will get a bye to round five. At the end of the fourth round, only the top pair from the loser bracket will emerge to play the "winner" from round 3. If the loser bracket pair wins the fifth round, there will be a sixth round tie breaker. The number of how this will work will be shown when the registration ends. It is hoped that some of the contestents (after they have bid their hands) and other forum members will step up and volunteer to help run some of these bidding matches. then in the "registration ends July 14th thead," and on July 15th -- BEFORE THE CONTEST ACTUALLY STARTED, and after taking several bits of advise, we ended up with the PUBLISHED conditions. I repeat, yet again this was BEFORE THE CONTEST started, I put numbers on the information from the JULY 11th explaination how the cuts were going to work. You can still read the conditions, which by the way is what we are following today.. July 15 rules When you read that, you will see that the CUTS for each round were stated there, and were followed. Richard, as usual, didn't love the conditions of contest, and started a whole thread on it, after the final conditions were published. I responded to his thread on July 17th, My reply in richards "bidding contest format" thread. In that thread I point out my goal of starting a regular challenge the champ kind of one pair on another bidding contest, where the numbers are managable. Trying to find host and time matching up with 28 pairs player time has been --- well --- not ideal. The establishment of the concept of the contest, the rules of the contest, and the scoring of the hands have all been an open process. I sought and accepted input in each area. Complaining about the scoring of the hands, doesn't bother me at all, since, I never expected to have the final say on the scores. I actually anticipated more discussion on scoring than we have had. I also anticipated more discussing of the auctions, but oh well. However, if you don't like the format? You could have spoken up during the establishment of the formatting, but to publically imply NOW that the format has changed since the beginning of the contest (on July 15th, when the conditions were described on July 11, and the numbers formally published on July 15th before the bidding started) is a total F***** lie, and quite frankly pisses me off a lot. Fortunately, there is a public record of how the contest came to look like it is for anyone who is interested to read. Anyone not happy but who is still in the contest, can always just not continue. But if someone does, do the others a favor and tell us, so another pair who would have been eliminated can continue in the contest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted September 1, 2010 Author Report Share Posted September 1, 2010 The upper bracket is:bluecalm/reddselianna/awmjlall/hanpFlycycle/Wackojack The lower bracket is:mbodell - javabeanrogerClee/cherdanoEast4Evil/sohcahtoatlgoodwin/timgolegru - driver733lobowolf/bkjswanpeachy/lg62karlson/threenobobtylere / bid_em_upgnasher/catch22ant590 - crayzeejimjdonn/gib Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.