[gszes]

We need volunteers to storm the walls of castle JEC sat 5/25.
Players with no fear of boiling oil getting slammed or even
worse drawn and doubled.

Since I have sort of volunteered to fill a vacancy I thought this might
be a great time to have a wide ranging discussion on how and why
we choose a team. Let me start with what I consider the most obvious
argument. We are 1-35 against some of the best of the best and it seems
to matter little which team we field and it is for that reason I am not
overly concerned about fielding the "best" team. I look at these sessions
more as a reward for those trying to help others understand this great game
of ours.

Is there a method to choosing?? IMO I will try and turn in a team 4 days in advance
up until that time the team that is chosen will go by the following "system"

1. Team or pair that won and sat out a session to play together
2. Posters that have never played
3. Posters that won the last time out (we have tons of those hehe) but still limited
to every other session unless playing with a different partner. A team or pair
that wins and wants to play together again have to sit out the next session but
then move to the top of the seniority list (switching partners to keep the same
team intact does not count as playing with a different partner).
4. Two posters playing together
5. Poster and non-poster partner
6. Poster and 3 non-poster team
7. Poster that lost less recently (a loss moves you to bottom priority)

If we do not have a team by wed before the match we no longer worry about the
above "system" and go to first come first served. If a chosen pair wishes to give up
their seats for another pair that is fine but can do so every other week.

OK that's my idea now let me have it big time--tell me of obvious flaws and how to fix them.
BTW whatever happened to the bbo poster league? I have seen no new posts since the first season.

[Zelandakh]

gszes, on 2013-May-15, 20:08, said:

I look at these sessions more as a reward for those trying to help others understand this great game of ours.

If this is the criteria you have been using then why did you turn down Jeffrey and Frances, two of the most helpful posters we have on these forums?

[gszes]

Zelandakh, on 2013-May-16, 03:32, said:

If this is the criteria you have been using then why did you turn down Jeffrey and Frances, two of the most helpful posters we have on these forums?

I assume you are referring to the 4/27 match---The 4 players scheduled Nige1-tylere philking-cameron_1 had not played before and had top
priority over everyone except the pairs that actually won the previous match and of those 4 I was the only one showing interest in playing
and I decided to sit out because I felt those that had not had a chance yet should get top priority. As it turns out tylere never responded or
showed up so I ended up subbing for him that match.

The 5/11 match the first 4 that volunteered where the ones that played since no one else stepped up before the deadline even though
PhilKing-Cameron_1 lost the previous match.

All one has to do is look at mgoetze historical archive or the one I started recently and you can see who has lost the most recently. The
most recent loss places one at the bottom of the "seniority list". As time goes on and the losses pile up they move above all those
that lost after them. A win (a rare mythical creature) places on at the top of the list until a loss is incurred (read the limits on same team
representation).

[cherdano]

I find it a little surprising that you list 7 criteria, and none of them mention "regular partnerships". It's not fun for the jec team either when they play against a pair with 5 minutes of system discussions.

[jallerton]

gszes, on 2013-May-15, 20:08, said:

Since I have sort of volunteered to fill a vacancy I thought this might be a great time to have a wide ranging discussion on how and why we choose a team.

gszes, on 2013-May-15, 20:08, said:

OK that's my idea now let me have it big time--tell me of obvious flaws and how to fix them.

Is the purpose of this thread to consult on what criteria should be used in picking the team, as the two paragraphs above would suggest?

Or are you telling us that you have already decided upon the criteria below?

gszes, on 2013-May-15, 20:08, said:

Is there a method to choosing?? IMO I will try and turn in a team 4 days in advance up until that time the team that is chosen will go by the following "system"

1. Team or pair that won and sat out a session to play together
2. Posters that have never played
3. Posters that won the last time out (we have tons of those hehe) but still limited to every other session unless playing with a different partner. A team or pair that wins and wants to play together again have to sit out the next session but then move to the top of the seniority list (switching partners to keep the same team intact does not count as playing with a different partner).
4. Two posters playing together
5. Poster and non-poster partner
6. Poster and 3 non-poster team
7. Poster that lost less recently (a loss moves you to bottom priority)

If we do not have a team by wed before the match we no longer worry about the above "system" and go to first come first served. If a chosen pair wishes to give up their seats for another pair that is fine but can do so every other week.

gszes, on 2013-May-15, 20:08, said:

Let me start with what I consider the most obvious argument. We are 1-35 against some of the best of the best and it seems to matter little which team we field and it is for that reason I am not overly concerned about fielding the "best" team. I look at these sessions more as a reward for those trying to help others understand this great game
of ours.

This is a good example of how you can use statistics to draw whatever conclusion you like. Many people would conclude from the fact that we are 1-35 down that we ought to maximise our chances of winning a few of these matches.

[GreenMan]

jallerton, on 2013-May-16, 15:46, said:

This is a good example of how you can use statistics to draw whatever conclusion you like. Many people would conclude from the fact that we are 1-35 down that we ought to maximise our chances of winning a few of these matches.

That's not a statistical conclusion, that's a value conclusion.

The statistical conclusion, which is reasonable IMHO, is that team quality is not correlated with winning or losing. It follows from this that we can give other factors a higher priority without affecting our winning percentage.

FWIW I agree with cherdano that "regular partnerships" should be an important factor. As for the rest, I'm agnostic.

[gszes]

cherdano, on 2013-May-16, 15:32, said:

I find it a little surprising that you list 7 criteria, and none of them mention "regular partnerships". It's not fun for the jec team either when they play against a pair with 5 minutes of system discussions.

poster and non poster partner was meant to be a reference to a poster playing with their regular non poster partner sorry if that was not clear

[gszes]

jallerton, on 2013-May-16, 15:46, said:

Is the purpose of this thread to consult on what criteria should be used in picking the team, as the two paragraphs above would suggest?

Or are you telling us that you have already decided upon the criteria below?

These criteria are my idea of how to run this thing so that there are no surprises and everyone understands
clearly how/why a team was chosen. Ummm anyone that has read my posts knows I am far from infallible
and I am sure we can come up with a better structure that is fair to all. Give me some more ideas. Let's
plan some sort of mini competition to win a spot shoot I don't know all the answers. I have seen some
REALLY good teams get hammered and getting close hasn't even been in sight much. The overwhelming
majority of the losses have been by over 35 imps (mgoetze figured we were losing at close to 1.75 imps per hand).

I quit watching the last match with 8 boards left and we were down by 47 we picked up 16 imps over the last 6 boards
is that a sign of better times or desperation paying off for a short period of time???? By now almost every poster that
cares about playing has played and that option should be exercised rarely. Those that are interested are likely going
to get a chance to play. Note that PhilKing and Cameron_1 played back to back sessions. If you do not like or care
for my "criteria" choices come up with a system everyone can live with. I have no desire to act as a dictator. I have
some spare time and think these matches are great. Not all posters care about playing -- they meet these guys in
real life on a consistent basis. My idea is to essentially treat posters as equals even though some are much more
prolific writers than others (for which we are grateful). Give all that want a chance to flex their bridge muscles against
the big leagues a chance. Those that get slaughtered will probably wait a bit before trying again. I see some INTEREST
now lets come up with ideas on how to pick a team that makes EVERYONE deliriously happy )))))))))))))))))))))))))

[c_corgi]

I don't think all these criteria are really a good idea. So far they seem to have had the effect of alienating one of the most deserving pairs (in terms of ability, established regular partnership and helpfulness of posting), while ensuring that they are ranked below any new candidate who decides to put there name forward. This might have the reverse of the desired effect: being assured priority over more deserving candidates might inhibit new people stepping forward. Sometimes it might be necessary to make a subjective judgement, but I would have thought these can often be resolved by discussion between the players, and if not, maybe publish the alternatives in the thread and see which get upvoted.

[PhilKing]

gszes, on 2013-May-16, 18:42, said:

These criteria are my idea of how to run this thing so that there are no surprises and everyone understands
clearly how/why a team was chosen. Ummm anyone that has read my posts knows I am far from infallible
and I am sure we can come up with a better structure that is fair to all. Give me some more ideas.

You keep asking for ideas and everyone keeps making the same response - when a top established pair of regular posters such as Frances and Jeffrey make themselves available, pick them. (See below).

Most of the time that does not happen, in which case deserving posters will get to play.

MickyB, on 2013-April-26, 09:17, said:

I think that, in general, we should be aiming to field the strongest team possible.

GreenMan, on 2013-April-26, 12:17, said:

jallerton can speak for theirself but it seemed to me that the offer was simply to fill out the team with a regular partnership of two BBF posters, rather than one poster + one not OR two posters who hadn't played together, and assuming that Phil and Cameron were already committed to.

IMHO the forums give the best account of themselves with regular partnerships, but the pickup approach appears to work fine too, so whatevs. I'm just glad we have these matches at all.

diana_eva, on 2013-April-26, 17:20, said:

I think it's silly to discard jallerton and finch on one of the few occasions they are actually available to play.

cherdano, on 2013-April-26, 17:49, said:

This is crazy, the team should consist of established partnerships whenever possible.

nige1, on 2013-April-26, 18:13, said:

IMO jallerton and franceshinden must play if available. PhilKing, Cameron1 and TylerE are worthy representatives. Although I'm happy to make up the team if needed. When is the match?

keylime, on 2013-April-26, 19:22, said:

I agree with the sentiment that the strongest possible team should be fielded. Any word on time?

Zelandakh, on 2013-May-16, 03:32, said:

If this is the criteria you have been using then why did you turn down Jeffrey and Frances, two of the most helpful posters we have on these forums?

c_corgi, on 2013-May-17, 05:13, said:

I don't think all these criteria are really a good idea. So far they seem to have had the effect of alienating one of the most deserving pairs (in terms of ability, established regular partnership and helpfulness of posting), while ensuring that they are ranked below any new candidate who decides to put there name forward. This might have the reverse of the desired effect: being assured priority over more deserving candidates might inhibit new people stepping forward. Sometimes it might be necessary to make a subjective judgement, but I would have thought these can often be resolved by discussion between the players, and if not, maybe publish the alternatives in the thread and see which get upvoted.

Sometimes there is no clear concensus, but this is not one of those situations.

[diana_eva]

cherdano, on 2013-May-16, 15:32, said:

I find it a little surprising that you list 7 criteria, and none of them mention "regular partnerships". It's not fun for the jec team either when they play against a pair with 5 minutes of system discussions.

Agree with Cherdano.

JEC plays these matches to practice, and he is looking for strong competition. When Timo first got the BBF a spot in these matches, he posted in A/E Forums. So IMO strong pairs, established partnerships should have higher priority than who won last or who never played.

OTOH Gzes makes a valid point that it does not matter too much how strong the team is since JEC's team is likely to win anyway, therefore these matches can also be a way to reward regular posters who are not world class players.

But the order should be strongest first, then, if no strong available, other regular posters in whatever order (exp regular poster + non-poster regular partner, regular partnership but not world class, random partnership of regular posters etc.)

[GreenMan]

diana_eva, on 2013-May-17, 09:25, said:

JEC plays these matches to practice, and he is looking for strong competition. When Timo first got the BBF a spot in these matches, he posted in A/E Forums. So IMO strong pairs, established partnerships should have higher priority than who won last or who never played.

This is a good point that hasn't AFAIK been mentioned before: Our hosts prefer strong competition. And since they are the hosts, I am now persuaded, we should make their preference a priority.

[gszes]

hmmm there is much interest in "stronger" so what do we think about
a mini tournament each week IF we have more than 4 players (or
3 teams) that have a desire to play a round robin of maybe 16 boards
the top 2 pairs/team get priority. W/o a direct competition I see little
completely fair way to determine STRONG.

We now have 1 WEEk left and I see ZERO volunteers (well thats not true since
I pretty much always volunteer). As for the assertion a STRONG pair should
have priority over a pair the WON last is completely ridiculous. WINNING is
showing strong period sheesh.

We can work on the idea of a "playoff" if we ever have too many to play. for now
we are still struggling with getting ANY TEAM whatsoever. I am also in agreement
that any new poster should not have priority over an established poster but we need
to decide on a reasonable number of posts to qualify and ideas???? I will throw out
100 and see what others think.

CALL TO ARMS

[PhilKing]

Glad all the points have been taken on board.

I don't see a rush of volunteers of the type required if simple obvious criteria are not adopted.

[TylerE]

I'm available next weekend as a single if needed. Let me know.

[gszes]

TylerE, on 2013-May-18, 20:13, said:

I'm available next weekend as a single if needed. Let me know.

ok there are TWO volunteers remember that first come first served is going
to be the order of the day if no one steps up before wed so keep that in mind

[gszes]

since things are looking kind of grim I have asked one of my regular partners to pair
with me. He is aware posters have priority but just in case gszeszycki-abcxl are signing
up on a first come first served basis. So that means we have one pair and possibly tylere
does anyone else want to step up????

[MickyB]

I'm not sure why I'm even asking this, given that you've now initiated several "discussions" on policy and have ignored what the majority have to say, however -

Q1) Why do people who have won a match get such priority? I can't think of any logical reason for this.
Q2) Do people who have beaten JEC when not representing the forums also get priority?

Just to clarify, since there has been some confusion about this in the past, this isn't my way of volunteering to play in the next match.

[TylerE]

One my of my main partners is about 90% available to play with me on Sat. So pencil in TylerE-TheArb I guess?

[gszes]

MickyB, on 2013-May-22, 05:13, said:

I'm not sure why I'm even asking this, given that you've now initiated several "discussions" on policy and have ignored what the majority have to say, however -

Q1) Why do people who have won a match get such priority? I can't think of any logical reason for this.
Q2) Do people who have beaten JEC when not representing the forums also get priority?

Just to clarify, since there has been some confusion about this in the past, this isn't my way of volunteering to play in the next match.

First note that past winners lose their elite status as soon as they lose (what have you done for me lately). When
you lose you go to the back of the line (not that the line is overly long).

Winning means winning against JEC during the bbo forum posters match. That means you have to play to win
and gasp risk losing like our 1-36 record oh wait we are starting over 0-3 record would seem to indicate is a
high degreee of probability.

Think of it as a make it take it (from street basketball) type of situation or the winners on a public tennis court
yelling NEXT to the players waiting to play while the losers go sit and wait for another chance. As long as one
continues to win that player can come back every session and play with a new partner (not from the same
team) or sit out a session and play with anyone they want. Winning IMO is how one proves strong.
Credentials are important but take a back seat to actually winning.

If there is ever enough interest we could strongly consider some sort of mini match between those that want
to play and eliminate this entire system. The system is designed to reward success and act as a reward system
for posters in general as well as trying to get people to commit to playing early.

LET"S be honest we are hung up on a part of a system that could have only been used ONCE in the entire time
JEC has been letting the posters play. Ignoring the majority opinion BTW is meaningless if we do not have
ANY volunteers to play. Are one's chances of winning stronger if your teammates are 2 world class partners
vs two advanced posters from bbo forums? ABSOLUTELY but unless we have any volunteers the point is
moot. I also think that if 2 advanced bbo posters are scheduled to play and two WORLD CLASS players suddenly
come up with an opening to play -- all it would take is a quick question and almost any sane advanced/expert player
will be more than happy to wait their turn (since that player/pair would be high on the "seniority" list and could
probably play in the next session.