aguahombre Posted May 7, 2012 Report Share Posted May 7, 2012 or research it on the internet...Yes, that is a good plan when the OP doesn't say where he/she is from; the level of the event; or anything else from which to research it. It is not clear that the team event described in question two is even related to the issue in question one where representing the annonymous country is an issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted May 7, 2012 Report Share Posted May 7, 2012 Yes, that is a good plan when the OP doesn't say where he/she is from; the level of the event; or anything else from which to research it. It is not clear that the team event described in question two is even related to the issue in question one where representing the annonymous country is an issue.lol....I made a very short effort to do so while eating lunch at my desk (yes, I know I have to get a life), and then realized that I had virtually no search parameters. I thought it might have been CNTC B or C flight, maybe in Toronto, but that wasn't enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted May 7, 2012 Report Share Posted May 7, 2012 Well, wherever it was, if I were on the alleged Board, I would have to recuse myself. I still hold a grudge from 59 years ago when as a 4th grader I beat all the 5th and 6th graders to represent grammar school in a spelling bee. This was so outlandish to the School administration that they changed qualification to a written exam which I boycotted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted May 7, 2012 Report Share Posted May 7, 2012 I once won a sectional swiss, drove the 75 miles home and got a call from partner who had just heard: after our team left (3 of us had to travel) the team we beat in the last match appealed a director's ruling....without ever saying so until we had left. They were a local team, we weren't. We were (3 of us anyway) the out of town guns. They were able to find a committee and reversed the ruling so we lost. I've never actually understood why....I mean, the director ruling was at the other table so to this day I don't know what it was about. All I could do was laugh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bbradley62 Posted May 8, 2012 Report Share Posted May 8, 2012 Yes, that is a good plan when the OP doesn't say where he/she is from; the level of the event; or anything else from which to research it. It is not clear that the team event described in question two is even related to the issue in question one where representing the annonymous country is an issue.Googling OP's name showed that he is a consultant (or some such role) to the Cyprus Bridge Federation, and yielded the website of that group, which had lots of info about a recent event that matched OP's vague description in Question 2, including their advertising poster, names of all participants, and a spreadsheet with results. It took almost no time at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted May 8, 2012 Report Share Posted May 8, 2012 Seems they went for a 100% carry-over too. They could have settled for a mere 20% and still got the "right" team to win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bbradley62 Posted May 8, 2012 Report Share Posted May 8, 2012 Seems they went for a 100% carry-over too. They could have settled for a mere 20% and still got the "right" team to win.Team A had an 18-VP lead after the qualifying session. Team B won the finals session by 2 VPs, so Team A wins is the carryover percentage is anything more than 11%. I haven't played many qualifying-and-finals events; wouldn't a carryover rate of anything other than 100%, 50% or 0% be unusual, and look like rigging the results? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted May 8, 2012 Report Share Posted May 8, 2012 Googling OP's name showed that he is a consultant (or some such role) to the Cyprus Bridge Federation, and yielded the website of that group, which had lots of info about a recent event that matched OP's vague description in Question 2, including their advertising poster, names of all participants, and a spreadsheet with results. It took almost no time at all.I conclude from that: you believe in order for us to intelligently discuss a post, we should each independently do such research on our own. Reasonable, and it does save the OP the bother of providing the requisite information. Bluejack and Blackshoe can now stop bullying us about our failure to provide jurisdiction when asking about laws and rulings. Posters can jolly-well look it up themselves. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted May 8, 2012 Report Share Posted May 8, 2012 Team A had an 18-VP lead after the qualifying session. Team B won the finals session by 2 VPs, so Team A wins is the carryover percentage is anything more than 11%. I haven't played many qualifying-and-finals events; wouldn't a carryover rate of anything other than 100%, 50% or 0% be unusual, and look like rigging the results?A recent thread in Laws and rulings gave a couple of formulae for carry-overs and another poster there suggested 1/3 might be a common amount for European competitions. I thought that usually carry-overs only apply to two-stage competitions where the entire field was ranked together in the first half though. Here both competing teams came from Section A but if one had been in Section B there would have been no way of comparing what the relative strengths of their opponents might have been. As an example, DEBBIE can feel particularly aggrieved by the change in CoCs since it is quite clear that Section A was much stronger than Section B and therefore the teams qualifying from Section B had an artificially high carry-forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bbradley62 Posted May 8, 2012 Report Share Posted May 8, 2012 I conclude from that: you believe in order for us to intelligently discuss a post, we should each independently do such research on our own. Reasonable, and it does save the OP the bother of providing the requisite information. Bluejack and Blackshoe can now stop bullying us about our failure to provide jurisdiction when asking about laws and rulings. Posters can jolly-well look it up themselves.Clearly, posters should include as much relevant and accurate detail as possible. Presumably OP thought that leaving out identifying details would protect possibly-innocent people from public ridicule when we don't really know the facts of the case. It's puzzling that he specifically said this was a Swiss event when it was not at all a Swiss event: both the qualifying session and the final session were played as full round-robins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cthulhu D Posted May 9, 2012 Report Share Posted May 9, 2012 Standard BBO MO when discussing cheating though is not to name names. Making it so obvious who the people being discussed are is practically naming names. In this context it makes sense not to provide identifying details. 1 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.