[smerriman]

Entries are closed.

Must be about time for one of these thingies.

Let's go with everyone's favorite, an IMP, best-hand challenge event, with the same expected time schedule as the last event (4 challenges per week).

I'm going to up the difficulty immensely and post the registration deadline in New Zealand Standard Time: 7pm, Friday the 6th of September.

Register via the poll above.

Same format as other events, but if someone has a bright idea about how multi-user challenges could work and be scored fairly in a round robin format, let me know (they're limited to you vs 4 friends, so can't have the entire pool play).

Usual wall of text for first-timers:

This is a forum event based on friend challenges. You will be playing challenges against other members in a round robin / knockout format No prizes, just fun. To prove you are capable of creating/accepting challenges, if you have never played in a challenge event before, send me an 8-board IMP best-hand challenge. I will accept promptly - you must complete the challenge before expiry to prove you are capable of participating. (If you've competed in any previous event, voting in the poll suffices).

[mlbridge]

Thanks for hosting another tourney.

[cherdano]

smerriman, on 2019-August-27, 01:12, said:

Same format as other events, but if someone has a bright idea about how multi-user challenges could work and be scored fairly in a round robin format, let me know (they're limited to you vs 4 friends, so can't have the entire pool play).

There is an organisational problem, and a combinatorial one.
The organisational one is that it becomes harder to arrange challenges when there are more than 2 players involved.
The combinatorial one is to arrange a system where every two members in a group appear in the same challenge equally often. This is certainly a problem that's been solved before and I can search for it, or probably solve the problem yet again by myself in 20 minutes - if we are happy that the organisational issue won't be too much. Or I bet some BBFer already knows a solution.

I think it would be a good idea, but maybe we should start low, with just three players in each challenge.

[sakuragi]

would suggest

• could sacrifice some combinational (i.e. 2 player/opp may not appear equally often) for organizational. afterall it's a friendly match. hopefully when the num of participants is known the combinational one would be easier. could arrange probably 3/4/5-player challenge during round robin.
  
• on organizational end. 2/3 * 16-board matches weekly would better fit me, and probably ease organizational.
  
• Prefer non best hand

[smerriman]

cherdano, on 2019-August-28, 03:24, said:

There is an organisational problem, and a combinatorial one.
The organisational one is that it becomes harder to arrange challenges when there are more than 2 players involved.
The combinatorial one is to arrange a system where every two members in a group appear in the same challenge equally often. This is certainly a problem that's been solved before and I can search for it, or probably solve the problem yet again by myself in 20 minutes - if we are happy that the organisational issue won't be too much. Or I bet some BBFer already knows a solution.

I think it would be a good idea, but maybe we should start low, with just three players in each challenge.

The combinatorial aspect should be pretty simple, though I agree scheduling more than 2 players can be tricky.

But the biggest aspect I was unsure on was how to combine scores for separate challenges. Does converting IMPs to VPs make sense when IMPs are calculated based on more than two players? I guess you could theoretically go through the boards and calculate individual VP scores for each pair participating in each challenge, but something seems dodgy about the lack of independence when you're scaling like that.

Given the framework is now in place, perhaps @barmar can make some exceptions for larger group challenges with a longer time limit for forum events, allowing the entire group to play each other at the same time.

[cherdano]

smerriman, on 2019-August-28, 23:06, said:

But the biggest aspect I was unsure on was how to combine scores for separate challenges. Does converting IMPs to VPs make sense when IMPs are calculated based on more than two players?

This does not seem right - imagine two players scoring +5 IMPs and the third -10, then the group would average more than 10 IMPs, I.e. it seems unfair to the rest of the field.

Quote

I guess you could theoretically go through the boards and calculate individual VP scores for each pair participating in each challenge, but something seems dodgy about the lack of independence when you're scaling like that.

I don't really see a problem with this, as long as all challenges have the same number of players - it's like playing two challenges at once.

[heart76]

Maybe doing as a WCh, i.e. a preliminary phase of X groups of 4 or 5 contenders (of course with seeding), reduced to 2 groups for the main round and then semis and finals.
There is a knockout after every round which may allow to play a consolation round, or not.

[sakuragi]

Eg 18 player total
1. Divide into 4 group 5544
2. The 4 group play 4/5 player group challenge 2*16
3. The 1st 2 in each group make quarter final
4. 1on1 challenge from quarter final onwards

Would leave the call to the organiser lol

[barmar]

smerriman, on 2019-August-28, 23:06, said:

Given the framework is now in place, perhaps @barmar can make some exceptions for larger group challenges with a longer time limit for forum events, allowing the entire group to play each other at the same time.

What I probably could do is create a "weeklong" tourney, with all the entrants pre-registered for it. I'm checking on it.

Unlike the regular daylongs, we wouldn't need to use deal pools, everyone would play all the same hands.

[barmar]

barmar, on 2019-August-29, 08:58, said:

What I probably could do is create a "weeklong" tourney, with all the entrants pre-registered for it. I'm checking on it.

I've confirmed that this is feasible, and I've enabled the necessary option so that smerriman can enter the list of registrants (I'll send him instructions privately). If we decide to go this way, I'll create the tourney after registration closes.

[gwnn]

I was going to record my deals and publish whenever the results of my challenge are in. I guess this means that I should wait until everyone in the challenge is done? That's a bit annoying but OK.

Even from a non-youtube perspective, having more than 1 opponent makes it a bit less personal/exciting to me.

[smerriman]

That's really cool, thanks barmar. I think upon reflection I'll keep this event the same as usual, but set up the next one as an alternative, multi-round MP daylong style event (perhaps 'survivor' style).

[smerriman]

Last day for entries. We currently have 28 (excluding one who registered for the forum, signed up yesterday, and hasn't logged in or sent me a challenge since).