[blackshoe]

Agree with Andy. I think that if dumping were allowed, it would happen rarely, but that's something for experience, not guesswork. Also it seems to me that the objection to dumping is primarily that it harms the "entertainment value" of the event. This may well be a concern for high level events — national and world championships, for example — but who are we trying to entertain at lower levels? The participants? I don't think they would have a problem with it, unless they're the opponents of the dumpers ("I want us to win the match on our own merits, not as a gift from dumpers"). Most of the rest wouldn't even notice. And if everyone is allowed to dump, and everyone is trying their best to win the event, at least it's an even playing field in that respect.

[mjj29]

barmar, on 2012-August-08, 17:03, said:

That doesn't deal with the problem, it avoids it by saying that it's not really a problem. It seems like they've thrown up their hands and said "Since we can't prevent it, we'll allow it." I don't know if that's really the case -- maybe they really think dumping is OK. But it seems like a cop-out.

So, assuming you DO want to prohibit dumping, as is more common, how do you go about that in a simple, unambiguous way?

Don't run a tournament in a format where it is advantageous to dump. In particular, group stages where more than one team qualify and in which the certainty of qualifying in second can be known before the final match are quite susceptible to this (which was the case in the Badminton).

If the only way to get a more favourable matchup later is to play better now, or if the only way to qualify for later is to play better now, then this will have the effect that teams won't dump. The most effective way to prevent a particular behaviour is to have the participant's interests line up with your interests, not to prohibit that behaviour.

[Cyberyeti]

mjj29, on 2012-August-09, 04:39, said:

If the only way to get a more favourable matchup later is to play better now, or if the only way to qualify for later is to play better now, then this will have the effect that teams won't dump. The most effective way to prevent a particular behaviour is to have the participant's interests line up with your interests, not to prohibit that behaviour.

What you want to achieve is that the higher you finish, the more advantage you get. American football and rugby league manage this with their playoff formats, but in these games there is a major concept of home advantage to differentiate between teams.

The problem is in sports like soccer (world cup) and badminton, the draw is pre-done, so you may know who you're going to play before going into the last game.

If the draw for the final stages was only done after the group stage was complete, it would solve this issue. Impractical in soccer, but could be done in badminton.

Alternatively you can do what they do in the tennis tour finals, you play the first group matches, then in the second round, the two winners and two losers play each other meaning the last match is pretty much always meaningful and not susceptible to dumping.

[barmar]

gnasher, on 2012-August-08, 17:20, said:

I don't want to prohibit dumping, because it is ridiculous to organise a competition and then prohibit a contestant from trying to win it. And I'm not going to try to think like someone who does want to do this.

Earlier you wrote, "It's very easy to write a short regulation that deals with the problem without any ambiguity." Since you referred to it as a problem, I thought you agreed that dumping is undesirable. But I suppose it was ambiguous, apparently you meant that the problem is with people who think dumping is wrong.

[Bbradley62]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-August-09, 05:58, said:

mjj29, on 2012-August-09, 04:39, said:

If the only way to get a more favourable matchup later is to play better now, or if the only way to qualify for later is to play better now, then this will have the effect that teams won't dump. The most effective way to prevent a particular behaviour is to have the participant's interests line up with your interests, not to prohibit that behaviour.

Alternatively you can do what they do in the tennis tour finals, you play the first group matches, then in the second round, the two winners and two losers play each other meaning the last match is pretty much always meaningful and not susceptible to dumping.

The tennis tour finals is exactly the format that encourages dumping. Generally, the dumping occurs in the last round of the group matches, where a player (who is already guaranteed a place in the semis) might decide that:

• he'd rather finish second in his group than first, because he would prefer to play the guy who won the other group next, rather than the guys who took second there
  
• he'd rather "today's opponent" be the other semi-final qualifier instead of other players in the group
  
• it would be better, in the long run, to not work hard today and save his energy for the semis and finals.

[Bbradley62]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-August-09, 05:58, said:

What you want to achieve is that the higher you finish, the more advantage you get. American football and rugby league manage this with their playoff formats, but in these games there is a major concept of home advantage to differentiate between teams.

Of course, in American team sports, the dumping situation occurs at the other end of the standings. Once a team knows they're not making the play-offs, they're likely to decide that it's best to finish as low as possible, to get the best draft position possible.

[pran]

If CoC were written according to the following principle I believe the problem would disappear by itself:

After all qualification (round robin) groups have completed their sessions an overall ranking list is determined according to some pre-determined rule made so that ties are avoided.

The highest ranked contestant now selects his opponent for the first KO round, then the highest ranked contestant among the remaining contestants selects his opponent, and so on until all matches for the first KO round have been formed.

For the second and following KO rounds the same principle can be applied, preferably with the winner of each KO match receiving the ranking of the highest ranked contestant in that match.

[Cyberyeti]

Bbradley62, on 2012-August-09, 08:15, said:

The tennis tour finals is exactly the format that encourages dumping. Generally, the dumping occurs in the last round of the group matches, where a player (who is already guaranteed a place in the semis) might decide that:

• he'd rather finish second in his group than first, because he would prefer to play the guy who won the other group next, rather than the guys who took second there
  
• he'd rather "today's opponent" be the other semi-final qualifier instead of other players in the group
  
• it would be better, in the long run, to not work hard today and save his energy for the semis and finals.

Except that if you arrange it right, it's near impossible to dump. The scores will be 4220 after 2 rounds given that the two first round winners play each other in the second round. It depends slightly if the player on 4 is playing the 0 or one of the 2s in the third round, but making the 4 play first helps a lot.

If he has 2 straight sets wins and is playing the 0, he very likely wins the group anyway even if he loses this match.

If he plays one of the other 2s, he could easily be in danger of not qualifying if he loses in straight sets and the other 2 beats the 0. He may be able to dump once he wins a set.

[Cyberyeti]

Bbradley62, on 2012-August-09, 08:26, said:

Of course, in American team sports, the dumping situation occurs at the other end of the standings. Once a team knows they're not making the play-offs, they're likely to decide that it's best to finish as low as possible, to get the best draft position possible.

Other than Manningless Indianapolis (who might have been trying anyway, they were a one injured man team), I haven't really seen too much of this in the NFL (the American sport I know most about), but in Rugby League in the UK where there is no draft, we see this layout (purloined from Aussie sport I think) which works well.

5 home to 8 - loser eliminated
6 home to 7 - loser eliminated

1 home to 4
2 home to 3

Loser 14 hosts winner 67 (opps may be swapped depending on who won/lost I think)
Loser 23 hosts winner 58

Highest ranked team left chooses and hosts winner of one of the above two matches
Other two play each other

2 winners of above play final

so the top 4 have to lose twice to be eliminated. There is an alternative version that has been used with 6 rather than 8 and the top 2 getting a "free loss".

[bluejak]

barmar, on 2012-August-08, 15:08, said:

Has it? That quote says that a TO should do so if they want to avoid such tactics. Do they provide any advice on how?

Why should they? The EBU itself does not wish to ban dumping by a regulation, and merely clarify the position for any other organisation that does. Furthermore, you are quoting an L&EC regulation: why should they give advice on how to run tournaments to other organisations? If another organisation wants such advice, should they not ask the EBU Tournament Committee?

barmar, on 2012-August-08, 17:03, said:

That doesn't deal with the problem, it avoids it by saying that it's not really a problem. It seems like they've thrown up their hands and said "Since we can't prevent it, we'll allow it." I don't know if that's really the case -- maybe they really think dumping is OK. But it seems like a cop-out.

That's a really really unfair presumption with no basis whatever. The EBU seems to take more care over Regulations and CoCs than almost any other bridge organisation. When they see no problem in dumping, and say so, to assume they are lying and could not be bothered is rude, defamatory, and baseless.