[kgr]

This is a summary of the qualifying regulations for open teams:

Quote

At the end of the Round-robin the first 2 teams from each group will qualify for Swiss A and the other teams for Swiss B.

Quote

The Open teams the 1st and 2nd ranked teams receive a carry over of respectively 6 and 3 VP entering the Swiss A. The teams ranked 4th and 5th receive a carry over of respectively 2 and 1 VP entering the Swiss B.

Q1: No carry over for 3th ranked team?

Quote

The first 27 teams of Swiss A and the first 5 teams of Swiss B will qualify for the K.O. phase without a carry-over;

Q2: Teams ranked 3th till 6th will play against each other in Swiss B. They play in a bad Swiss and still have change to qualify for the K.O.? Could there be any intention to try to end 3th in the Round-Robin?
Ok, less teams go on from Swiss B and maybe other good teams will - intentionally or not - end up in Swiss B. But it is a bit strange to end last in the round robin and then still have a chanche to win the championship?

[paulg]

kgr, on Jun 20 2009, 09:58 AM, said:

This is a summary of the qualifying regulations for open teams:

Quote

At the end of the Round-robin the first 2 teams from each group will qualify for Swiss A and the other teams for Swiss B.

Quote

The Open teams the 1st and 2nd ranked teams receive a carry over of respectively 6 and 3 VP entering the Swiss A. The teams ranked 4th and 5th receive a carry over of respectively 2 and 1 VP entering the Swiss B.

Q1: No carry over for 3th ranked team?

I expect this is just a typo. The Mixed Teams had groups of (mainly) 6 with the top 3 qualifying for Swiss A and the rest for Mixed B and these carry overs correspond to that format - so finishing 3rd received no carry over to Swiss A.

The greater number of teams in the Open means that they need to correct this.

Quote

Quote

The first 27 teams of Swiss A and the first 5 teams of Swiss B will qualify for the K.O. phase without a carry-over;

Q2: Teams ranked 3th till 6th will play against each other in Swiss B. They play in a bad Swiss and still have change to qualify for the K.O.? Could there be any intention to try to end 3th in the Round-Robin?
Ok, less teams go on from Swiss B and maybe other good teams will - intentionally or not - end up in Swiss B. But it is a bit strange to end last in the round robin and then still have a chanche to win the championship?

It seems a dangerous tactic to try and qualify from Swiss B. Some of the groups are quite strong and a fair number of top teams will be in Swiss B without trying to be there.

[RMB1]

Today's bulletin (number 8) says that the first three teams from each group (of six) enter Swiss A. This makes more sense of the carry-overs.

I think you have more chance of qualifying 27th from the top approx. 64 teams in Swiss A, rather than 5th from the next 64 teams in Swiss B.

Robin

[FrancesHinden]

kgr, on Jun 20 2009, 10:58 AM, said:

They play in a bad Swiss and still have change to qualify for the K.O.? Could there be any intention to try to end 3th in the Round-Robin?
Ok, less teams go on from Swiss B and maybe other good teams will - intentionally or not - end up in Swiss B. But it is a bit strange to end last in the round robin and then still have a chanche to win the championship?

It does seem a bit strange, but it's typical of all repechage type events - there is a 'main' method of qualifying for the KO stages (come in the top half of the round robin, then in the top 40% or so of the main Swiss), and a second - much harder - way.

The advantage is that you can have a very bad start to the event and not be out of it totally. There is a big advantage to doing well in the 'A' Swiss - the entire draw for the KO stages is done by asking the teams to pick their opponents, in the order they finished in the Swiss. So the team that wins the 'A' Swiss can pick anyone who came 9th to 27th, or 1st to 5th in the B final; the team that came second can pick anyone from that list not yet picked, and so on.

The format is still a bit odd; first a round robin, then a swiss, then a KO. It is partly designed (I think) to make sure that everyone who enters gets two full days of play. After that, the pairs qualification starts at the same time as the KO stages, and you can drop into the pairs event as you get knocked out of the KO.

[paulg]

FrancesHinden, on Jun 21 2009, 09:20 PM, said:

The format is still a bit odd; first a round robin, then a swiss, then a KO. It is partly designed (I think) to make sure that everyone who enters gets two full days of play. After that, the pairs qualification starts at the same time as the KO stages, and you can drop into the pairs event as you get knocked out of the KO.

If you entered the teams and only played the two days, did it then cost additional money to play in the pairs?

[MFA]

kgr, on Jun 20 2009, 04:58 AM, said:

This is a summary of the qualifying regulations for open teams:

Quote

At the end of the Round-robin the first 2 teams from each group will qualify for Swiss A and the other teams for Swiss B.

Quote

The Open teams the 1st and 2nd ranked teams receive a carry over of respectively 6 and 3 VP entering the Swiss A. The teams ranked 4th and 5th receive a carry over of respectively 2 and 1 VP entering the Swiss B.

Q1: No carry over for 3th ranked team?

Quote

The first 27 teams of Swiss A and the first 5 teams of Swiss B will qualify for the K.O. phase without a carry-over;

Q2: Teams ranked 3th till 6th will play against each other in Swiss B. They play in a bad Swiss and still have change to qualify for the K.O.? Could there be any intention to try to end 3th in the Round-Robin?
Ok, less teams go on from Swiss B and maybe other good teams will - intentionally or not - end up in Swiss B. But it is a bit strange to end last in the round robin and then still have a chanche to win the championship?

Q1. There was a typo in the the regulations.

Q2. The field is way to deep to consider dumping to the swiss B.

Curiously, we started out in swiss A by being demolished by a greek team that knew the fast way to slam without bothering too much about something like keycards and queens of trumps.
In round two, at table 33 (♣2 in the tournament) we faced ... the dutch national team with brink-drijver and de wijs-muller. Says something about the field. There were a lot of solid teams that didn't make it to the A swiss. The Lavazza team for instance. The ended up average in swiss B.

Anyway, knocked out in R32 today by a team we would normally beat, so pairs tomorrow :-(.

[MFA]

cardsharp, on Jun 22 2009, 02:26 AM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Jun 21 2009, 09:20 PM, said:

The format is still a bit odd; first a round robin, then a swiss, then a KO. It is partly designed (I think) to make sure that everyone who enters gets two full days of play. After that, the pairs qualification starts at the same time as the KO stages, and you can drop into the pairs event as you get knocked out of the KO.

If you entered the teams and only played the two days, did it then cost additional money to play in the pairs?

The team qualification was 2½ days. 5 group matches and 7 swiss matches.

But no. Even if knocked out early, one can play the pairs tornament for "only" €400. Same price whenever one joins, except for the team finalists who can play pairs for free.

[mike777]

I seem to have problems pulling up the online results and bulletins. Hopefully forum members can give us a running commentary on who is winning and who is not, thanks.

[Mbodell]

I wonder what percentage of teams which finished #3 in RR made it through Swiss A compared to what percentage of teams which finished #4 in RR made it through Swiss B. That seems to be the "right" metric, although you'd expect a higher percentage because you'd expect #3 to be slightly stronger than #4.

[paulg]

MFA, on Jun 22 2009, 09:47 PM, said:

cardsharp, on Jun 22 2009, 02:26 AM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Jun 21 2009, 09:20 PM, said:

The format is still a bit odd; first a round robin, then a swiss, then a KO. It is partly designed (I think) to make sure that everyone who enters gets two full days of play. After that, the pairs qualification starts at the same time as the KO stages, and you can drop into the pairs event as you get knocked out of the KO.

If you entered the teams and only played the two days, did it then cost additional money to play in the pairs?

The team qualification was 2½ days. 5 group matches and 7 swiss matches.

But no. Even if knocked out early, one can play the pairs tornament for "only" €400. Same price whenever one joins, except for the team finalists who can play pairs for free.

Guaranteed number of boards:

Open Teams - 120 boards, €235 per person (team of 4)
Open Pairs - 260 boards, €200 per person

It does seem that the Teams is extremely expensive unless you go deep into the tournament.

[MFA]

cardsharp, on Jun 23 2009, 02:29 AM, said:

MFA, on Jun 22 2009, 09:47 PM, said:

cardsharp, on Jun 22 2009, 02:26 AM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Jun 21 2009, 09:20 PM, said:

The format is still a bit odd; first a round robin, then a swiss, then a KO. It is partly designed (I think) to make sure that everyone who enters gets two full days of play. After that, the pairs qualification starts at the same time as the KO stages, and you can drop into the pairs event as you get knocked out of the KO.

If you entered the teams and only played the two days, did it then cost additional money to play in the pairs?

The team qualification was 2½ days. 5 group matches and 7 swiss matches.

But no. Even if knocked out early, one can play the pairs tornament for "only" €400. Same price whenever one joins, except for the team finalists who can play pairs for free.

Guaranteed number of boards:

Open Teams - 120 boards, €235 per person (team of 4)
Open Pairs - 260 boards, €200 per person

It does seem that the Teams is extremely expensive unless you go deep into the tournament.

Right, but this is partly due to the consolation finals. It's not that interesting, perhaps, to play a secondary final with little to compete for.