[hrothgar]

Hi all

Quick question about brackets (and whether they are really necessary).

Normally, when I think of brackets, I think of events that involve head to head competition between two teams. It occurred to me that their is no reason to structure this even this way.

It seems more accurate to assume that this is a many versus many competition.

Why not just decide that the teams that score in the top 50% in each round advance and the rest are KO? Alternatively, if you want to build a built more safety into the system, have the top 66% advance and the bottom 33% get KOed.

(Apologies if this is the actual plan)

[awm]

I thought the plan was to have a "double elimination" tournament that functions the way hrothgar suggests. But this creates two "brackets" -- the people who were in the bottom half for one set of boards (but are still in because double elimination) and the people who have always been in the top half.

[inquiry]

originally it was going to be brackets with different set of hands for each contest.

That went away fairly quickly when more than 8 pairs signed up. Reason, one had to come up with 16x4, 16x2 then 16 hands for the contest with 8 tables, but imagine how many (add in some byes) for the 28 or 29 pairs we have now.

Next it was same set of hands for all teh contestants, but then why should a "bracket" be used when pair 1 vs 2 both have scores say in the 80's with 1 winning while in a match of pair 3 vs 4, the winner has only a 50% score. Is it fair that pair 3 with 50 is a winner while pair 2 with an 81% score is a loser?

So the idea of one pair playing against a specific different pair went away just as quickly.

The there was the idea that half the field would advance (winners) and half would be losers... that one stayed for quite a while before reality set in... here is what happens. Lets say 28 pairs....

Round 1 - 28 pairs (16 boards), 28 bidding tables, needing host
Round 2 - 28 pairs (another 16 boards), 14 in winner, 14 in loser
Round 3 - 22 pairs (antorhe 16 boards), 8 in winner (take highest "loser"), plus 14 still in loser ("take highest out of loser bracket)
Round 4 - 4 in winners, 12 in loser (save best "loser" to even match)
Round 5 - 2 in winners, 8 in loser
Round 6 - 1 winner waiting, 4 in loser (bottom 5 teams go from loser bracekt last round)
Round 7 - 1 winner waiting, 2 in loser bracket
Roudn 8 - the 1 winner bracket versus surviver of loser
Round 9 - if needed to replay round 8 matchup because loser bracket pair won

The real problem was this is 28 + 28 + 22 + 16 + 10 + 4 + 2 + 2 = 112 teaching tables, and can be 2 more

The current plan calls for 28+28+ 14+7+2 for 78 teaching tables and maybe 2 more.

Another thing, one might just say everyone bid the hands in round one, and the highest score is the winner. Or the highest score gets a bye and then everyone bids round two with the highest score being the winner, then the two highest scores bid against each other.

I considered that, but that would not be in keeping with the original idea of multiple rounds.

I will note that I have loser bracket bidding different hands than the winner bracket. The concept being if both brackets bid the same hands someone (mabye you richard, but certainly someone) would want to keep a running total on all hand to determine a "true" champion... this goes back the 50 hand idea. I thought that would not be fair to the pair who wins by the condition of contest. So I nixed that idea myself, even though it is more work on me to make extra sets of hands.

So what we ended up with is not ideal, but it was what i thought I could live with. First, not too many different hands (I need 128 different hands), not too many teaching tables (with hanio5 and a few contestants after they bid their hands, I think it is workable). So am i selfish for yet another "asinine" decision on running it? Maybe. I did ask advise, and i did put some thought into it. The final thing was actually sort of what was recommend by one member with some tweeks by me.

I hope we can grow a challenge the champion kind of thing out of this, with regular (not sure how often, monthly seems good, but maybe twice monthly) contest with just two pairs, winner gets to face someone else the next contest... that would be a more "standard" kind of approach.

[TimG]

inquiry, on Jul 17 2010, 11:00 AM, said:

I hope we can grow a challenge the champion kind of thing out of this, with regular (not sure how often, monthly seems good, but maybe twice monthly) contest with just two pairs, winner gets to face someone else the next contest... that would be a more "standard" kind of approach.

I think what you're doing is great (and I haven't spent the time to fully understand the conditions). All I know is I get to bid 16 deals with a partner and compare results to a bunch of other forum members. If I do well, I'll get to bid more sets. It's good!

I think it would also be great to have a monthly contest. If you limit it to two pairs, I hope you make allowance for other pairs to participate by bidding the same hands, even if only for fun or demonstration.

[hanp]

TimG, on Jul 17 2010, 11:32 AM, said:

I think what you're doing is great (and I haven't spent the time to fully understand the conditions). All I know is I get to bid 16 deals with a partner and compare results to a bunch of other forum members. If I do well, I'll get to bid more sets. It's good!

Completely agree with this and I really think that this is what matters most.

Quote

I think it would also be great to have a monthly contest.  If you limit it to two pairs, I hope you make allowance for other pairs to participate by bidding the same hands, even if only for fun or demonstration.

Also agree with this idea, talking about the hands afterwards is more fun if you had the chance to bid them youself. I do like the competitive aspect though.