[broze]

gordontd, on 2016-May-24, 01:23, said:

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.

This is always the best way. Someone get something going and refinements will come.

[hrothgar]

broze, on 2016-May-24, 15:33, said:

This is always the best way. Someone get something going and refinements will come.

I'm out of town at a wedding this coming weekend. I'll set something up when I get back on Monday

[Vampyr]

TylerE, on 2016-May-23, 10:46, said:

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)

The White Book has MP-to-VP conversions.

[MrAce]

I like the whole idea. I am in !

My only demand is, make sure it switches and makes the human declare. I really do not care whether it is "best hand" or not. Don't care MP or IMP.

I suggest everyone available to join. Losing does not mean you played bad necessarily. A very tiny differences in the auctions which ended up in same contracts makes GIB defend totally godlike or most moronic defense. It is fun overall though.

[diana_eva]

MrAce, on 2016-May-30, 17:28, said:

My only demand is, make sure it switches and makes the human declare. I really do not care whether it is "best hand" or not. Don't care MP or IMP.

These are all human declare.

[MrAce]

Ok, I said I do not care MP or IMPs but MP between 2 people really does not make sense. It becomes BAM, not MP at all. I think I would enjoy IMPS much more. Playing BAM with GIB will only cause frustration among participants. But I am ok with it if everyone else enjoys.

I have a question Diana. Can we also arrange something (other than this event) like "instant tourneys" where only forum members are allowed, a 16 board IMP and 16 board MP per week?

[diana_eva]

We could try something like one human - one robot partnerships. A pair tourney where everyone partners a robot, money bridge style.

Not sure what you mean with instant tourney, what would the format be for that?

[helene_t]

diana_eva, on 2016-May-31, 07:33, said:

We could try something like one human - one robot partnerships. A pair tourney where everyone partners a robot, money bridge style.

Great idea ♥

[MrAce]

diana_eva, on 2016-May-31, 07:33, said:

We could try something like one human - one robot partnerships. A pair tourney where everyone partners a robot, money bridge style.

Not sure what you mean with instant tourney, what would the format be for that?

It means 16 boards of IMP or MP with 3 GIB. Everyone plays the same 16 boards whenever they can in 1 week given time.. Available only to forum members who registered to Diana.

-This allows us to have debates on boards since we all played the same boards etc.
-We have more scores to compare ours.
-MP then makes sense (instead of being a BAM)
-Every month (after 4 weeks) we get a monthly ranking by total % or IMPS.

Not sure if Diana has the power or tools to arrange this though.

diana_eva, on 2016-May-31, 07:33, said:

We could try something like one human - one robot partnerships. A pair tourney where everyone partners a robot, money bridge style.

Here is why this does not work, at least for me; it requires the player to be at the tournament on a specific day and time. This will always create problems for people depending on which days and time you set. It is easier for everyone to play an event on their own chosen day and time in 1 week. People with more than 1 account to BBF can play with only 1 of their account.

[diana_eva]

OK, something like the daylongs, but weeklong BBF tourney, right?

[MrAce]

diana_eva, on 2016-May-31, 09:27, said:

OK, something like the daylongs, but weeklong BBF tourney, right?

Yes

[wank]

i don't know anything about gibbon handling, but i'd play. best send out opp details and play by dates by forum message imo to make sure they get read (by which i mean that's what you'd need to do make sure i read it).

[P_Marlowe]

wank, on 2016-May-31, 22:26, said:

i don't know anything about gibbon handling, but i'd play. best send out opp details and play by dates by forum message imo to make sure they get read (by which i mean that's what you'd need to do make sure i read it).

I also think, having a reminder here, helps. I am no longer logged into BBO evry day,
but I check BBF daily.

[Zelandakh]

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.

The beauty of the ladder structure is precisely that you can play a lot of little depending on your requirements. The basic rule would be that you can challenge a given player once per day (they can also challenge you if you go above them) and have a certain time frame (48 hours perhaps, this can be adjusted to match requirements) to accept a challenge. If you win the challenge you take over the position of the loser and everyone else drops down one position. You can challenge players up to a given number of positions above you. This is the other part that needs to be adjusted. My experience is that 2 or 3 positions above makes for a decent compromise and would suggest 3 as a starting number.

So if you make 3 challenges per day that is already 48 boards. To that you have people challenging you and potentially additional challenges if you win a match and open up additional opponents. On the other hand, you can issue a challenge once a week if you prefer. And there is no reason why a ladder format could not run alongside tournaments for those that have the time and desire for more boards.

[manudude03]

I mentioned earlier that I was a member of some ladders on Case's Ladder. It uses the MyLeague system (link here) and contains a ladder and the facility to make tournaments. If I remember right (it's been a number of years), when you beat an opponent, you go up half the difference in rank (overtaking them if you were a rank below them). I think this is better than just overtaking the #1 spot. Otherwise you could land in a situation where a poor player can get lucky against a good player and instantly be at the top.

If I understand Zelandakh's compromise correctly, it would also work restricting those you can challenge to a few places above you, but you might need to make some compromises at the very start or later on if some people drop off the radar (blocking newcomers from competing).

[Phil]

If we are closing entries at some point (are we?) why not just set up a round Robin and post the results on a Google docs link. To flatten results, a VP scale should be used.

By the way, what's the procedure for reporting scores?

[wank]

i wouldn't close entries. you want it to build momentum. people often only join in when they see something's got legs.

[Phil]

wank, on 2016-June-02, 10:44, said:

i wouldn't close entries. you want it to build momentum. people often only join in when they see something's got legs.

I suppose it depends if it's a ladder or everyone plays everyone.