TylerE, on Aug 30 2010, 09:10 AM, said:
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:
inquiry Jul 9 2010 said:
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....
Quote
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Help
