CALL TO ARMS 5/25 2pm eastern

[gszes]

We need volunteers to storm the walls of castle JEC sat 5/25.

Players with no fear of boiling oil getting slammed or even

worse drawn and doubled.

 

Since I have sort of volunteered to fill a vacancy I thought this might

be a great time to have a wide ranging discussion on how and why

we choose a team. Let me start with what I consider the most obvious

argument. We are 1-35 against some of the best of the best and it seems

to matter little which team we field and it is for that reason I am not

overly concerned about fielding the "best" team. I look at these sessions

more as a reward for those trying to help others understand this great game

of ours.

 

Is there a method to choosing?? IMO I will try and turn in a team 4 days in advance

up until that time the team that is chosen will go by the following "system"

 

1. Team or pair that won and sat out a session to play together

2. Posters that have never played

3. Posters that won the last time out (we have tons of those hehe) but still limited

to every other session unless playing with a different partner. A team or pair

that wins and wants to play together again have to sit out the next session but

then move to the top of the seniority list (switching partners to keep the same

team intact does not count as playing with a different partner).

4. Two posters playing together

5. Poster and non-poster partner

6. Poster and 3 non-poster team

7. Poster that lost less recently (a loss moves you to bottom priority)

 

If we do not have a team by wed before the match we no longer worry about the

above "system" and go to first come first served. If a chosen pair wishes to give up

their seats for another pair that is fine but can do so every other week.

 

OK that's my idea now let me have it big time--tell me of obvious flaws and how to fix them.

BTW whatever happened to the bbo poster league? I have seen no new posts since the first season.

[Zelandakh]

I look at these sessions more as a reward for those trying to help others understand this great game of ours.

If this is the criteria you have been using then why did you turn down Jeffrey and Frances, two of the most helpful posters we have on these forums?

[gszes]

If this is the criteria you have been using then why did you turn down Jeffrey and Frances, two of the most helpful posters we have on these forums?

 

 

 

I assume you are referring to the 4/27 match---The 4 players scheduled Nige1-tylere philking-cameron_1 had not played before and had top

priority over everyone except the pairs that actually won the previous match and of those 4 I was the only one showing interest in playing

and I decided to sit out because I felt those that had not had a chance yet should get top priority. As it turns out tylere never responded or

showed up so I ended up subbing for him that match.

 

The 5/11 match the first 4 that volunteered where the ones that played since no one else stepped up before the deadline even though

PhilKing-Cameron_1 lost the previous match.

 

All one has to do is look at mgoetze historical archive or the one I started recently and you can see who has lost the most recently. The

most recent loss places one at the bottom of the "seniority list". As time goes on and the losses pile up they move above all those

that lost after them. A win (a rare mythical creature) places on at the top of the list until a loss is incurred (read the limits on same team

representation).

[cherdano]

I find it a little surprising that you list 7 criteria, and none of them mention "regular partnerships". It's not fun for the jec team either when they play against a pair with 5 minutes of system discussions.

[jallerton]

Since I have sort of volunteered to fill a vacancy I thought this might be a great time to have a wide ranging discussion on how and why we choose a team.

 

OK that's my idea now let me have it big time--tell me of obvious flaws and how to fix them.

 

Is the purpose of this thread to consult on what criteria should be used in picking the team, as the two paragraphs above would suggest?

 

Or are you telling us that you have already decided upon the criteria below?

 

[quote name='gszes' timestamp='1368670138' post='725107'

]Is there a method to choosing?? IMO I will try and turn in a team 4 days in advance up until that time the team that is chosen will go by the following "system"

 

1. Team or pair that won and sat out a session to play together

2. Posters that have never played

3. Posters that won the last time out (we have tons of those hehe) but still limited to every other session unless playing with a different partner. A team or pair that wins and wants to play together again have to sit out the next session but then move to the top of the seniority list (switching partners to keep the same team intact does not count as playing with a different partner).

4. Two posters playing together

5. Poster and non-poster partner

6. Poster and 3 non-poster team

7. Poster that lost less recently (a loss moves you to bottom priority)

 

If we do not have a team by wed before the match we no longer worry about the above "system" and go to first come first served. If a chosen pair wishes to give up their seats for another pair that is fine but can do so every other week.

 

Let me start with what I consider the most obvious argument. We are 1-35 against some of the best of the best and it seems to matter little which team we field and it is for that reason I am not overly concerned about fielding the "best" team. I look at these sessions more as a reward for those trying to help others understand this great game

of ours.

 

This is a good example of how you can use statistics to draw whatever conclusion you like. Many people would conclude from the fact that we are 1-35 down that we ought to maximise our chances of winning a few of these matches.

[GreenMan]

This is a good example of how you can use statistics to draw whatever conclusion you like. Many people would conclude from the fact that we are 1-35 down that we ought to maximise our chances of winning a few of these matches.

 

That's not a statistical conclusion, that's a value conclusion.

 

The statistical conclusion, which is reasonable IMHO, is that team quality is not correlated with winning or losing. It follows from this that we can give other factors a higher priority without affecting our winning percentage.

 

FWIW I agree with cherdano that "regular partnerships" should be an important factor. As for the rest, I'm agnostic.

[gszes]

I find it a little surprising that you list 7 criteria, and none of them mention "regular partnerships". It's not fun for the jec team either when they play against a pair with 5 minutes of system discussions.

 

 

 

poster and non poster partner was meant to be a reference to a poster playing with their regular non poster partner sorry if that was not clear

[gszes]

Is the purpose of this thread to consult on what criteria should be used in picking the team, as the two paragraphs above would suggest?

 

Or are you telling us that you have already decided upon the criteria below?

 

 

 

These criteria are my idea of how to run this thing so that there are no surprises and everyone understands

clearly how/why a team was chosen. Ummm anyone that has read my posts knows I am far from infallible

and I am sure we can come up with a better structure that is fair to all. Give me some more ideas. Let's

plan some sort of mini competition to win a spot shoot I don't know all the answers. I have seen some

REALLY good teams get hammered and getting close hasn't even been in sight much. The overwhelming

majority of the losses have been by over 35 imps (mgoetze figured we were losing at close to 1.75 imps per hand).

 

I quit watching the last match with 8 boards left and we were down by 47 we picked up 16 imps over the last 6 boards

is that a sign of better times or desperation paying off for a short period of time???? By now almost every poster that

cares about playing has played and that option should be exercised rarely. Those that are interested are likely going

to get a chance to play. Note that PhilKing and Cameron_1 played back to back sessions. If you do not like or care

for my "criteria" choices come up with a system everyone can live with. I have no desire to act as a dictator. I have

some spare time and think these matches are great. Not all posters care about playing -- they meet these guys in

real life on a consistent basis. My idea is to essentially treat posters as equals even though some are much more

prolific writers than others (for which we are grateful). Give all that want a chance to flex their bridge muscles against

the big leagues a chance. Those that get slaughtered will probably wait a bit before trying again. I see some INTEREST

now lets come up with ideas on how to pick a team that makes EVERYONE deliriously happy :))))))))))))))))))))))))))

[c_corgi]

I don't think all these criteria are really a good idea. So far they seem to have had the effect of alienating one of the most deserving pairs (in terms of ability, established regular partnership and helpfulness of posting), while ensuring that they are ranked below any new candidate who decides to put there name forward. This might have the reverse of the desired effect: being assured priority over more deserving candidates might inhibit new people stepping forward. Sometimes it might be necessary to make a subjective judgement, but I would have thought these can often be resolved by discussion between the players, and if not, maybe publish the alternatives in the thread and see which get upvoted.

[PhilKing]

These criteria are my idea of how to run this thing so that there are no surprises and everyone understands

clearly how/why a team was chosen. Ummm anyone that has read my posts knows I am far from infallible

and I am sure we can come up with a better structure that is fair to all. Give me some more ideas.

 

You keep asking for ideas and everyone keeps making the same response - when a top established pair of regular posters such as Frances and Jeffrey make themselves available, pick them. (See below).

 

Most of the time that does not happen, in which case deserving posters will get to play.

 

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

 

 

jallerton can speak for theirself but it seemed to me that the offer was simply to fill out the team with a regular partnership of two BBF posters, rather than one poster + one not OR two posters who hadn't played together, and assuming that Phil and Cameron were already committed to.

 

IMHO the forums give the best account of themselves with regular partnerships, but the pickup approach appears to work fine too, so whatevs. :) I'm just glad we have these matches at all. :)

 

 

I think it's silly to discard jallerton and finch on one of the few occasions they are actually available to play.

 

 

This is crazy, the team should consist of established partnerships whenever possible.

 

 

IMO jallerton and franceshinden must play if available. PhilKing, Cameron1 and TylerE are worthy representatives. Although I'm happy to make up the team if needed. When is the match?

 

 

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

 

If this is the criteria you have been using then why did you turn down Jeffrey and Frances, two of the most helpful posters we have on these forums?

 

 

I don't think all these criteria are really a good idea. So far they seem to have had the effect of alienating one of the most deserving pairs (in terms of ability, established regular partnership and helpfulness of posting), while ensuring that they are ranked below any new candidate who decides to put there name forward. This might have the reverse of the desired effect: being assured priority over more deserving candidates might inhibit new people stepping forward. Sometimes it might be necessary to make a subjective judgement, but I would have thought these can often be resolved by discussion between the players, and if not, maybe publish the alternatives in the thread and see which get upvoted.

 

Sometimes there is no clear concensus, but this is not one of those situations.

[diana_eva]

I find it a little surprising that you list 7 criteria, and none of them mention "regular partnerships". It's not fun for the jec team either when they play against a pair with 5 minutes of system discussions.

 

Agree with Cherdano.

 

JEC plays these matches to practice, and he is looking for strong competition. When Timo first got the BBF a spot in these matches, he posted in A/E Forums. So IMO strong pairs, established partnerships should have higher priority than who won last or who never played.

 

OTOH Gzes makes a valid point that it does not matter too much how strong the team is since JEC's team is likely to win anyway, therefore these matches can also be a way to reward regular posters who are not world class players.

 

But the order should be strongest first, then, if no strong available, other regular posters in whatever order (exp regular poster + non-poster regular partner, regular partnership but not world class, random partnership of regular posters etc.)

[GreenMan]

JEC plays these matches to practice, and he is looking for strong competition. When Timo first got the BBF a spot in these matches, he posted in A/E Forums. So IMO strong pairs, established partnerships should have higher priority than who won last or who never played.

 

This is a good point that hasn't AFAIK been mentioned before: Our hosts prefer strong competition. And since they are the hosts, I am now persuaded, we should make their preference a priority.

[gszes]

hmmm there is much interest in "stronger" so what do we think about

a mini tournament each week IF we have more than 4 players (or

3 teams) that have a desire to play a round robin of maybe 16 boards

the top 2 pairs/team get priority. W/o a direct competition I see little

completely fair way to determine STRONG.

 

We now have 1 WEEk left and I see ZERO volunteers (well thats not true since

I pretty much always volunteer). As for the assertion a STRONG pair should

have priority over a pair the WON last is completely ridiculous. WINNING is

showing strong period sheesh.

 

We can work on the idea of a "playoff" if we ever have too many to play. for now

we are still struggling with getting ANY TEAM whatsoever. I am also in agreement

that any new poster should not have priority over an established poster but we need

to decide on a reasonable number of posts to qualify and ideas???? I will throw out

100 and see what others think.

 

CALL TO ARMS

[PhilKing]

Glad all the points have been taken on board.

 

I don't see a rush of volunteers of the type required if simple obvious criteria are not adopted.

[TylerE]

I'm available next weekend as a single if needed. Let me know.

[gszes]

I'm available next weekend as a single if needed. Let me know.

ok there are TWO volunteers remember that first come first served is going

to be the order of the day if no one steps up before wed so keep that in mind

[gszes]

since things are looking kind of grim I have asked one of my regular partners to pair

with me. He is aware posters have priority but just in case gszeszycki-abcxl are signing

up on a first come first served basis. So that means we have one pair and possibly tylere

does anyone else want to step up????

[MickyB]

I'm not sure why I'm even asking this, given that you've now initiated several "discussions" on policy and have ignored what the majority have to say, however -

 

Q1) Why do people who have won a match get such priority? I can't think of any logical reason for this.

Q2) Do people who have beaten JEC when not representing the forums also get priority?

 

Just to clarify, since there has been some confusion about this in the past, this isn't my way of volunteering to play in the next match.

[TylerE]

One my of my main partners is about 90% available to play with me on Sat. So pencil in TylerE-TheArb I guess?

[gszes]

I'm not sure why I'm even asking this, given that you've now initiated several "discussions" on policy and have ignored what the majority have to say, however -

 

Q1) Why do people who have won a match get such priority? I can't think of any logical reason for this.

Q2) Do people who have beaten JEC when not representing the forums also get priority?

 

Just to clarify, since there has been some confusion about this in the past, this isn't my way of volunteering to play in the next match.

 

First note that past winners lose their elite status as soon as they lose (what have you done for me lately). When

you lose you go to the back of the line (not that the line is overly long).

 

Winning means winning against JEC during the bbo forum posters match. That means you have to play to win

and gasp risk losing like our 1-36 record oh wait we are starting over 0-3 record would seem to indicate is a

high degreee of probability.

 

Think of it as a make it take it (from street basketball) type of situation or the winners on a public tennis court

yelling NEXT to the players waiting to play while the losers go sit and wait for another chance. As long as one

continues to win that player can come back every session and play with a new partner (not from the same

team) or sit out a session and play with anyone they want. Winning IMO is how one proves strong.

Credentials are important but take a back seat to actually winning.

 

If there is ever enough interest we could strongly consider some sort of mini match between those that want

to play and eliminate this entire system. The system is designed to reward success and act as a reward system

for posters in general as well as trying to get people to commit to playing early.

 

LET"S be honest we are hung up on a part of a system that could have only been used ONCE in the entire time

JEC has been letting the posters play. Ignoring the majority opinion BTW is meaningless if we do not have

ANY volunteers to play. Are one's chances of winning stronger if your teammates are 2 world class partners

vs two advanced posters from bbo forums? ABSOLUTELY but unless we have any volunteers the point is

moot. I also think that if 2 advanced bbo posters are scheduled to play and two WORLD CLASS players suddenly

come up with an opening to play -- all it would take is a quick question and almost any sane advanced/expert player

will be more than happy to wait their turn (since that player/pair would be high on the "seniority" list and could

probably play in the next session.

[c_corgi]

...

LET"S be honest we are hung up on a part of a system that could have only been used ONCE in the entire time

JEC has been letting the posters play. Ignoring the majority opinion BTW is meaningless if we do not have

ANY volunteers to play...

 

When an ideal pair volunteered to play they were told, on the basis of this system or ideology, that they would only be used as a last resort. That is why we are hung up on it. It might also be a contributing factor to the subsequent lack of volunteers. The majority opinion is that a system which creates such a ridiculous situation should not be used.

[gszes]

When an ideal pair volunteered to play they were told, on the basis of this system or ideology, that they would only be used as a last resort. That is why we are hung up on it. It might also be a contributing factor to the subsequent lack of volunteers. The majority opinion is that a system which creates such a ridiculous situation should not be used.

 

 

ok good PASSION thats a start now for the brass tacks--WHAT exact measure should be used any given

week to choose the player that are to represent BBO FORUM POSTERS--I made up a system and if

everyone hates it great we still need a concrete method of decision making. What would happen if

ackk too many players suddenly volunteered? On what basis should the team be chosen first come

first served? most masterpoints? most popular? A vote (what qualifications does one need to vote)? a playoff?

 

Mgoetze had a ton of problems getting volunteers and he was upset at many times having to field advanced

players---I have no such problem. The experience of playing JEC is great I have made ten new bridge friends

since I played in the match we won and still play casually sometimes with my p from that match. We are in

a unique situation where posters get some extra exposure to some top notch competition and we don't have

to travel the world to do so. Let's try to enjoy it while we can and give everyone a fair chance.

[gszes]

One my of my main partners is about 90% available to play with me on Sat. So pencil in TylerE-TheArb I guess?

It's wed night and unless we have some further objection the foursome for this match looks like

gszeszycki/Abcxl TylerE/TheArb. My plan is to turn this lineup in around 10am eastern tomorrow.

 

According to the system I set up we are in first come first served and the system no longer matters

so anyone that wishes to step forward at this late date will have to convince the pairs chosen to let

them take their place. JEC is very understanding about last minute changes to our lineup and they

are ok with us bringing new players at the half way point. Keep this in mind if a pair still wishes to

play we can probably arrange for my p and I to leave after the 14th board (my p is aware that posters

have priority for this match).

[thearb]

It's wed night and unless we have some further objection the foursome for this match looks like

gszeszycki/Abcxl TylerE/TheArb. My plan is to turn this lineup in around 10am eastern tomorrow.

 

According to the system I set up we are in first come first served and the system no longer matters

so anyone that wishes to step forward at this late date will have to convince the pairs chosen to let

them take their place. JEC is very understanding about last minute changes to our lineup and they

are ok with us bringing new players at the half way point. Keep this in mind if a pair still wishes to

play we can probably arrange for my p and I to leave after the 14th board (my p is aware that posters

have priority for this match).

 

I can confirm my availability for this match now 100%. Thank you for the opportunity. Obviously I am not a regular poster and do not mind stepping aside at short notice if someone else more eligible becomes available,

 

best

[Zelandakh]

Welcome to the forums - and good luck!