[inquiry]

These scores are "final" pending scoring error. Round 3 will start Wed, Sep 1. You have until Tuesday to point scoring error, or show why one of the corrected boards (6, 11, 13) should be scored differently (all other boards, the scoring is final and too late to dispute).


117 tylere / bid_em_up
109 hrothgar/Free
107 bluecalm/redds
98 elianna/awm
97 gnasher/catch22
95 Flycycle/Wackojack
94 jlall/hanp
93 ant590 - crayzeejim
93 mbodell - javabean
93 jdonn/gib
90 Siegmund/MSchmahl
89 rogerClee/cherdano
89 East4Evil/sohcahtoa
86 sallyally/joylson
86 tlgoodwin/timg
86 kfay/jchiu
86 olegru - driver733
84 lobowolf/bkjswan
80 karlson/threenobob
80 peachy/lg62
77 kristen33/jillybean

Pairs advancing top group are
bluecalm/redds
elianna/awm
Flycycle/Wackojack
jlall/hanp


2nd group includes the six lowest top group scorers from round 2
rogerClee/cherdano
mbodell - javabean
lobowolf/bkjswan
East4Evil/sohcahtoa
tlgoodwin/timg
karlson/threenobob
olegru - driver733
peachy/lg62
=== Plus the top scorers from the lower group in round 2 ====
tylere / bid_em_up
gnasher/catch22
ant590 - crayzeejim
jdonn/gib

This post has been edited by inquiry: 2010-August-29, 14:05

[jdonn]

Yes! YES!!!

[inquiry]

This are still nto final. Justin pointed out an error in calculatino on board 13. This reflects the new 7-7 scoring on that board (7 points each for two contracts)

117 tylere / bid_em_up
110 bluecalm/redds
109 hrothgar/Free
101 elianna/awm
97 gnasher/catch22
97 jlall/hanp
96 Flycycle/Wackojack <----- corrected as noted by jlogic below
96 ant590 - crayzeejim
93 mbodell - javabean
93 jdonn/gib
93 Siegmund/MSchmahl
92 rogerClee/cherdano
89 East4Evil/sohcahtoa
86 sallyally/joylson
86 tlgoodwin/timg
86 kfay/jchiu
86 olegru - driver733
84 lobowolf/bkjswan
83 peachy/lg62
80 karlson/threenobob
80 kristen33/jillybean


I will recalculate who is in and who is out after all objections are heard.

This post has been edited by inquiry: 2010-August-29, 18:29

[JLOGIC]

You just moved Wackojack up 3 points from the original scoring even though according to the scores on board 13 he was in 3N (and you changed the scores for 1N and 3D AFAIK from these 2 lists). I think they should be 95 still.

BTW Ben thanks for doing this, seems like a huge PITA.

[gnasher]

JLOGIC, on Aug 29 2010, 10:26 PM, said:

BTW Ben thanks for doing this, seems like a huge PITA.

Me too.

[jdonn]

gnasher, on Aug 29 2010, 05:28 PM, said:

JLOGIC, on Aug 29 2010, 10:26 PM, said:

BTW Ben thanks for doing this, seems like a huge PITA.

Me too.

You too are a huge PITA?

Thanks Ben!

[inquiry]

JLOGIC, on Aug 29 2010, 04:26 PM, said:

You just moved Wackojack up 3 points from the original scoring even though according to the scores on board 13 he was in 3N (and you changed the scores for 1N and 3D AFAIK from these 2 lists). I think they should be 95 still.

BTW Ben thanks for doing this, seems like a huge PITA.

good catch, not sure why I gave him a seven instead of a 5, it has been corrected...

[bluecalm]

Pretty amazing GiB made it with some random BBO forum donk

[JLOGIC]

bluecalm, on Aug 29 2010, 08:23 PM, said:

Pretty amazing GiB made it with some random BBO forum donk

We're comin for you next round

[inquiry]

As we get ready for round 3, remember, what happens in round 4 and round 5.

Upper bracket, for Round 4... the top scoring pair in round 3 gets a bye for round 4

Lower bracket, the other 3 pairs from upper bracket round 3, plus top 3 pairs from lower bracket round 3.

Round 5 has the "winner" of the round 4 lower bracket bidding against the remaining undefeated pair. If the undefeated pair wins, they are the champs. If they lose, there will be a round 6 playoff.

[jdonn]

JLOGIC, on Aug 29 2010, 09:54 PM, said:

bluecalm, on Aug 29 2010, 08:23 PM, said:

Pretty amazing GiB made it with some random BBO forum donk

We're comin for you next round

Won't be hard! Then again if I hadn't tanked 5 minutes then bid a grand off an ace on the very last decision of the round we would have done a lot better, so there is a shot!

[hanp]

gnasher, on Aug 29 2010, 05:28 PM, said:

JLOGIC, on Aug 29 2010, 10:26 PM, said:

BTW Ben thanks for doing this, seems like a huge PITA.

Me too.

+1.

[TylerE]

When did the low bracket go from being a 50% survivor to a 30% survivor? I strongly feel that the cut factor for the bottom bracket should be the same as a top. With this setup it's possible for a pair to be eliminated while only being in the bottom part of the field once, which feels wrong for a double elimination contest.

[hanp]

What's a double elimination to you Tyler? How many times can you lose before you are out?

[JLOGIC]

hanp, on Aug 30 2010, 02:41 AM, said:

What's a double elimination to you Tyler? How many times can you lose before you are out?

lol

[paulg]

hanp, on Aug 30 2010, 08:41 AM, said:

What's a double elimination to you Tyler? How many times can you lose before you are out?

Luckily it is not being run by a particular Scottish organiser whose implementation of Scotland's premier weekend event, advertised as double elimination, enabled de Botton's team to win despite being beaten four times.

[TylerE]

hanp, on Aug 30 2010, 02:41 AM, said:

What's a double elimination to you Tyler? How many times can you lose before you are out?

Not a format where potentially coming 4th out of 14 is counted as a loss.

[hanp]

In the "upper bracket" the situation is not much better, only 1 out of 4 will make it this round, the rest drops. I think the idea is to get to one winner relatively fast and that seems like a good idea. Also, I think that there has been plenty of discussion about the format. Inquiry has decided on a format before we started and in my opinion he made a good choice. Now we are two rounds in and you start complaining again!

[hanp]

cardsharp, on Aug 30 2010, 03:53 AM, said:

hanp, on Aug 30 2010, 08:41 AM, said:

What's a double elimination to you Tyler? How many times can you lose before you are out?

Luckily it is not being run by a particular Scottish organiser whose implementation of Scotland's premier weekend event, advertised as double elimination, enabled de Botton's team to win despite being beaten four times.

Now that on the other hand seems like an excellent format to me, assuming the particular Scot made some money out of it!

[TylerE]

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.