CALL TO ARMS 4/27 SATURDAY

[MickyB]

I agree with the sentiment that the strongest possible team should be fielded. Any word on time?

 

2pm Eastern

[MickyB]

I think that, in general, we should be aiming to field the strongest team possible.

 

 

A good goal BUT

 

We had a 0-33 record and most of the matches were not close we finally won one 6 weeks ago

and haven't been able to field a team since. So tell me what criteria do we use to pick our

champions???

 

[snip]

 

 

I didn't say it would always be obvious who the strongest team were, I simply said that we should aim to field the strongest team. Obviously it is somewhat subjective and other factors can be taken into account. This week, however, I think there can be no doubt what line-up would give us the best chance of victory, yet [against what seem to be the strongly held wishes of the majority] you have chosen a different team. A strange decision from someone who claims to consider selecting the strongest team to be "a good goal".

 

I am sure this will lead to a reduced interest in JEC matches from our strongest pairs; fewer wins vs JEC will probably equate to fewer new posters drawn to the forums; and, if we rarely submit strong teams, we may find that the invitation to play these matches is withdrawn. Admittedly, if this was going to happen, it may well have done so during our 33-game losing streak!

[keylime]

K I've emailed Larry because 2pm would be 7 over in the UK and Mars is tied up.

[Cameron_1]

I can't even work out reading all these threads what has been agreed !

[PhilKing]

I can't even work out reading all these threads what has been agreed !

 

Ring Larry.

[keylime]

Just got email from Larry; he is still traveling to Rochester, NY, so best to count us out for this match. However, he's interested in the next one.

[gszes]

PhilKing/Cameron_1 and TylerE/Nige1 are the 4 names i sent to JEC I also noted

the possibility that TylerE/Nige1 might give up their spot so Jallerton/Finch can take

their place.

 

WE HAVE INTEREST

 

We were 0-33 before the last session (6 weeks ago when we won) I do not think

anyone can make a case that the strongest pair from our forums should be

representing us any given week. The writers on these forums are trying to

show new and advancing players how to improve. We do not all agree with each

other but those reading will decide for themselves which ideas have the most merit.

 

I think these matches with JEC should be a form of reward for posters. Fomr that point

of view any poster that has not had a chance to play against JEC should have the highest

priority followed by those that ummm actually won (a tiny number i am afraid to say) then

we can argue over who is best. When i chose the team I did not see wher any of the chosen

four had ever played against JEC and that was how I decided on those 4. Why they never

had a chance before was unimportant.

 

There was a sudden surge in interest in the final 48 hours (out of 3 WEEKS notice) and

a lot has been written in those two days. We can continue this discussion and maybe

come up with a workable system. IT takes INTEREST and maybe we have some now

even if its mostly controversial:))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

[Finch]

Your stated objectives are inconsistent. You can't both say it's a form of reward for people who post, and include 'winning a match' in your order of priority. Also, the latter could in theory lead to people being picky about teammates.

 

There seem to be to be 3 approaches, any of which would be entirely sensible:

 

- play the best team possible that has some connection to the forums. This will often mean 2 posters plus their regular partners, as there are very very very few regular partnerships where both members have made more than, say, 50 posts. Also many people would prefer to play with their usual partner. TBH, it's very rare that you (or the forum posters between them) won't know who the obviously best team is from those available, if some of the players are much better than others.

 

- play the 'most BBO forum' team possible i.e. priority to regular posters, to those with the most posts or to those with the most helpful posts, priority to pairs made up of regular posters, priority to people who've stepped in to play at the last minute etc

 

- treat it as a 'perk' of bothering to read these threads/be a member of BBO: priority to people who haven't played a match before, priority to those who are keenest, to those who volunteer first but allow those keen people to play with a partner of their choice.

 

You only get "controversy" when the objectives are not agreed in advance & in particular when it's not clear if the objective is set by the organiser or by democracy.

 

[The only problem with approaches other than the first one is if the opponents say they would like to play against the strongest team available but as MickyB says that doesn't seem to have a been a problem so far]

 

I saw the team was close yesterday, only 13 down before the last board.

[GreenMan]

Frances makes some good points.

 

I would like to suggest that "best team possible" not be a priority. "Good team" ought to be, of course, but at some point you're splitting hairs or making subjective judgments. If the whole team is Adv+ or better then that ought to be enough.

 

If I were running things (good thing I'm not, for various reasons :rolleyes: ) I'd make established BBF partnerships first priority, then some combination of good players + first volunteers. There ought to be some value in stepping up early.

 

Oh, and, since putting a team together is a mostly thankless volunteer task, I'd be OK with a first principle that "The organizer's decisions are arbitrary, capricious, and final." :P