[hrothgar]

Hi All

Much as I enjoy the BBO Forum Indy's that Diana and Aurora run each Sunday, I am beginning to get a wee bit frustrated with the random nature of some of the results.
The forum regulars tend to play pretty reasonably, but some of the subs have been making some questionable calls.

I am considering running a new event that will leverage the "Challenge" System to run a virtual Knockout event.

Here's the basic idea:

1. The event is a single elimination KO.
2. Each round of the event will consist of 64 boards played over the course of one week.
3. MP scoring is mandated. (which for a two person challenge is essentially BAM)

Each week, you get informed of your opponent for the week.

You generate two 16 board challenges for your opponent
He / She does the same for you

At the end of the week, the survivors advance to the next round.

Let me know if folks would be interested in playing or have questions / comments about the format.

Long term, I'd love it if we could have a group challenge (all play the same boards) so we can discuss interesting hands.
I'd also really appreciate the ability to use "non-basic" GIBs

[gordontd]

I definitely think the Challenge format can be used for new events - earlier I suggested having a league. I would certainly take part in a knockout such as you propose. Initially 64 boards sounded like a lot, but the format means that the playing time can be very flexible so perhaps that would be ok. Another variable that I understand is under our control in Challenges is that "best hand for human" is only an option, not compulsory, though I haven't yet discovered where it is set. I suggest consistency in this, and would prefer that it not be "best hand..."

[hrothgar]

gordontd, on 2016-May-23, 06:20, said:

Another variable that I understand is under out control in Challenges is that "best hand for human" is only an option, not compulsory, though I haven't yet discovered where it is set. I suggest consistency in this, and would prefer that it not be "best hand..."

I like this proposal

[Phil]

I like the idea of a forums 'ladder' where one could play another player via challenge (64 way too many- more like 16?).

[barmar]

Phil, on 2016-May-23, 08:18, said:

I like the idea of a forums 'ladder' where one could play another player via challenge (64 way too many- more like 16?).

If you're going to make each round take a week, you might as well do lots of boards. It's only 9 board/day.

[eagles123]

i like your suggestion Hrothgar except i would prefer imps to mp

[nige1]

hrothgar, on 2016-May-23, 06:01, said:

Hi All
Much as I enjoy the BBO Forum Indy's that Diana and Aurora run each Sunday, I am beginning to get a wee bit frustrated with the random nature of some of the results. The forum regulars tend to play pretty reasonably, but some of the subs have been making some questionable calls.

I am considering running a new event that will leverage the "Challenge" System to run a virtual Knockout event. Here's the basic idea:
1. The event is a single elimination KO.
2. Each round of the event will consist of 64 boards played over the course of one week.
3. MP scoring is mandated. (which for a two person challenge is essentially BAM)

Each week, you get informed of your opponent for the week.
You generate two 16 board challenges for your opponent
He / She does the same for you
At the end of the week, the survivors advance to the next round.
Let me know if folks would be interested in playing or have questions / comments about the format.
Long term, I'd love it if we could have a group challenge (all play the same boards) so we can discuss interesting hands.
I'd also really appreciate the ability to use "non-basic" GIBs

Great idea, Hrothgar. I'd like to play under those rules. As usual, a few comments

• Hrothgar's flexible format suits those like me who have kitchen duties on Sunday evening.
• I much prefer MPs to Eagle123's imps suggestion -- MPs are a better test of skill -- especially over short matches.
• To keep up everybody's interest, the format could be Swiss rather than KO (similar to Phil's ladder suggestion).
• Like Phil, I'd prefer shorter matches. e.g 16 or 32 boards. A kind of ladder would also allow meaningful competition with less than 64 boards a week, because of rematches. But the scores could be cumulative so as not to lose information

[Phil]

barmar, on 2016-May-23, 08:24, said:

If you're going to make each round take a week, you might as well do lots of boards. It's only 9 board/day.

I don't see any reason it needs to be 1x/week. Challenges should be 'on demand'.

[hrothgar]

Phil, on 2016-May-23, 10:05, said:

I don't see any reason it needs to be 1x/week. Challenges should be 'on demand'.

When I had originally conceived of this, I did so in the context of a tournament.
If indeed, this is going to use a tournament format then I feel that some kind of time limit is appropriate to move things along.

If we are using a ladder format, then I don't see any such requirement.

[TylerE]

In favor of:

Swissing (possibly with a cut factor?)
Shorter matches (no more than 32).

Neutral on:
MPs vs IMPs (Actually, the more I think about, if swissing it should probably be IMPs, as then we can use an appropriately calculated VP table)

[broze]

I'd be up for this whether in a Swiss or a knockout. I also think that matches should be no more than 32 boards.

I'm relatively neutral on IMPs vs BAM for a knockout (I agree with nige that BAM is probably a better test of skill) but for an ongoing Swiss I would much prefer IMPs.

Don't mind best hand or regular.

I think once a rough consensus has been reached a new topic should be created and pinned detailing the rules.

[steve2005]

I think 16 boards is quite sufficient. That way you can do more challenges if your up for 32 or more boards.

[phoenix214]

Im for - Scoring whatever:
Match lenght - 32 is fine - no need to play 64.

[TylerE]

Alternatively for scoring, swiss it like chess.

Play 2 16 segments. If one player wins both, the match is 1-0, if they split, score it as a draw, 0.5-0.5. Note: this ignores margin of victory. Losing one set 0-16, and winning the other 9-7 is an overall draw. A lose and an 8-8 tie could be scored as 0.75-0.25 I suppose.

[gwnn]

TylerE, on 2016-May-23, 13:35, said:

Alternatively for scoring, swiss it like chess.

Play 2 16 segments. If one player wins both, the match is 1-0, if they split, score it as a draw, 0.5-0.5. Note: this ignores margin of victory. Losing one set 0-16, and winning the other 9-7 is an overall draw. A lose and an 8-8 tie could be scored as 0.75-0.25 I suppose.

Chess has only three results while these challenges have more. There's no reason to ignore the margin of victory here as a 9-7 win is basically a draw (it is very likely that the two players are in fact similar strength/played similarly well). You are adding in more randomness for no good reason.

[johnu]

hrothgar, on 2016-May-23, 10:16, said:

When I had originally conceived of this, I did so in the context of a tournament.
If indeed, this is going to use a tournament format then I feel that some kind of time limit is appropriate to move things along.

If we are using a ladder format, then I don't see any such requirement.

In other games/sports (e.g. golf), even ladder events have a time limit. Otherwise, 1 or more players may clog the ladder by not playing for extended periods of time, defeating the purpose of the ladder. (Note: this does not apply to WWE wrestling ladder matches where there is no time limit )

For a tournament, you definitely need a time limit or your tournament may never finish or take so long that players lose interest and drift away.

[manudude03]

I've kinda been mouthing off the last few weeks about the overall standard of the BBO forum tourneys going down since I first played in it.

I would also be agreeable to this idea. I agree that 64 boards is too much, and 16 or 32 would seem ideal. I think it should be BAM or you may find some people having little chance due to the boards not having much potential for swings. I used to be a member of some ladders on Case's Ladder. We could probably set up a league there if we wanted.

If you wanted a solution that was kept solely within BBO, then I think the members should be restricted to those who actually post, with a lower limit of say 10 posts so new people have a chance of getting in.

[gordontd]

I think that enough people have expressed ideas here, not always in accord with each other, that it's now time for someone (Richard, perhaps with input from Diana_eva?) just to go ahead and organise it in the way that they think seems best and we can all see if it needs refinement when we've played the first set.

[diana_eva]

I love the idea. My only suggestion is to keep it very simple for start. My experience so far has been that no matter how well something is organized on paper, when it requires participants to *do something* other than show up and play unexpected complications arise

Remember that friend challenges expire in 3 days.

[shyams]

First of all, I used to occasionally play Diana's BBF tournaments. However, of late, my bridge playing has reduced considerably so I am rarely present online.

Second, I like hrothgar's format -- it is great. The finetuning suggested by others does not detract from the elegance of the first suggestion. If I could join in future, I sure would like to play -- but, for the moment, I am unlikely to play in the near future.

Third, may I contribute with an alternative idea/format as well?

How about a "robot-style" MP tournament with every table having North & East as robots and West & South as humans.
--- Keep tournament chat open, encourage banter during tournament (i mean talk about play/results, not "favourite youtube videos")
--- Track performance thru some brownie point awards for top few (25%?) places.
--- Repeat every weekend.

I see some merits as follows:
* It will eliminate the variability of the BAM format in Richard's suggestion.
* It will increase number of results for comparison -- if 10 people join, it will make 5 tables not 2.5
* The presence of robots introduce an element of control over how each player's partner performs.

Views?