[gszes]

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

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

A good goal BUT

We had a 0-33 record and most of the matches were not close we finally won one 6 weeks ago
and haven't been able to field a team since. So tell me what criteria do we use to pick our
champions??? Should a player play again until they have lost? Do we want to have a vote
listing all of the available players and should it be open for all to see ?? Should we go strictly by
number of posts? Should we go by most MP (in which case we all have to keep our number up to date)
Should a player that has never had a chance go before one that has tried and lost before???
Do we have all players send in a resume and see which looks the most impressive? The list of ideas
is almost endless IMO we will try to field the strongest team possible but using the following "system"

gather players from writers (posters who answer questions)
gather players from questioners
writers with their partners
questioners with their partners
writers and questioners can form an entire team of non posters but the above will have priority.

Now I freely admit I do not know all of the writers (for ex I never saw a post by keylime before last week)
so I do not know all of the writers. I can go to the forums to look when they show interest in playing.

We should also have a seniority type set up in the sense of if you play and lose you go to the back of
the line. Playing and winning (a rare event so far) allows you to keep your current place and indeed
you should be allowed to defend your title at least every other session. That way if we do get a
ummm errr stammer yeah right winning streak one foursome cant play all the time just half the time.

I have no problem with 1 or 2 players going on and on and on as long as they play and win with different
partners.

So what does all of the above have to do with this week??? Well if the list is the way i noted it earlier
we would have a team of Jillybean TylerE Nige1 and myself (all writers) Now the next question
does anyone want to defend their recent victory (i do) If there are no others then we go by who has
never played

TylerE Nige1 have never played partnership philKing and cameron small have never played (as far as i can tell)



RIGHT THERE we have enough to form a team I will sit this one out and try next time and intend to submit

PhilKing and (cameron small) need bbo name and TylerE and Nige1 can partner one another I will let JEC know

about you four and we can straighten out bbo names tomorrow remember game is at 2pm est. jec will invite you.

[Cameron_1]

Cameron_1 is my BBO login

[GreenMan]

 FrancesHinden, on 2013-April-26, 13:25, said:

Correct. You seemed to be concerned about not having regular partnerships of BBF posters.

I assume that's the royal "you" and not directed at me specifically since I hadn't weighed in on that particular question before then. As it happens that's my preference too, but I'm mostly a bystander here so my opinion shouldn't matter so much.

EDIT: Didn't see gszes' last post till now. Agree with everything in it.

[keylime]

Is there a time that the match has been agreed upon?

[jallerton]

 gszes, on 2013-April-26, 09:00, said:

I'll be honest it will be a last resort to play a pair that want to limit who the other two players will be
so if i misread that statement about Jallerton and partner let me know.

GreenMan is correct. In previous posts you seemed to have been complaining about the lack of volunteers and lack of available regular partnerships.

Presumably it will also be a last resort for you to select JLOGIC given that he has a 0/1 record in BBF vs JEC and places restrictions on his preferred opponents. That is a shame.

Anyway, good luck to the selected team. I hope TylerE and Nige1 have time to agree their system!

[diana_eva]

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

[cherdano]

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

[PhilKing]

Still time for a team of 6?

We should be available for some practice with with TylerE and Nigel Guthrie beforehand.

[nige1]

 PhilKing, on 2013-April-26, 17:53, said:

Still time for a team of 6? We should be available for some practice with with TylerE and Nigel Guthrie beforehand.

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]

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

[MickyB]

 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?

2pm Eastern

[MickyB]

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

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

 gszes, on 2013-April-26, 13:31, said:

A good goal BUT

We had a 0-33 record and most of the matches were not close we finally won one 6 weeks ago
and haven't been able to field a team since. So tell me what criteria do we use to pick our
champions???

[snip]

I didn't say it would always be obvious who the strongest team were, I simply said that we should aim to field the strongest team. Obviously it is somewhat subjective and other factors can be taken into account. This week, however, I think there can be no doubt what line-up would give us the best chance of victory, yet [against what seem to be the strongly held wishes of the majority] you have chosen a different team. A strange decision from someone who claims to consider selecting the strongest team to be "a good goal".

I am sure this will lead to a reduced interest in JEC matches from our strongest pairs; fewer wins vs JEC will probably equate to fewer new posters drawn to the forums; and, if we rarely submit strong teams, we may find that the invitation to play these matches is withdrawn. Admittedly, if this was going to happen, it may well have done so during our 33-game losing streak!

[keylime]

K I've emailed Larry because 2pm would be 7 over in the UK and Mars is tied up.

[Cameron_1]

I can't even work out reading all these threads what has been agreed !

[PhilKing]

 Cameron_1, on 2013-April-27, 03:59, said:

I can't even work out reading all these threads what has been agreed !

Ring Larry.

[keylime]

Just got email from Larry; he is still traveling to Rochester, NY, so best to count us out for this match. However, he's interested in the next one.

[gszes]

PhilKing/Cameron_1 and TylerE/Nige1 are the 4 names i sent to JEC I also noted
the possibility that TylerE/Nige1 might give up their spot so Jallerton/Finch can take
their place.

WE HAVE INTEREST

We were 0-33 before the last session (6 weeks ago when we won) I do not think
anyone can make a case that the strongest pair from our forums should be
representing us any given week. The writers on these forums are trying to
show new and advancing players how to improve. We do not all agree with each
other but those reading will decide for themselves which ideas have the most merit.

I think these matches with JEC should be a form of reward for posters. Fomr that point
of view any poster that has not had a chance to play against JEC should have the highest
priority followed by those that ummm actually won (a tiny number i am afraid to say) then
we can argue over who is best. When i chose the team I did not see wher any of the chosen
four had ever played against JEC and that was how I decided on those 4. Why they never
had a chance before was unimportant.

There was a sudden surge in interest in the final 48 hours (out of 3 WEEKS notice) and
a lot has been written in those two days. We can continue this discussion and maybe
come up with a workable system. IT takes INTEREST and maybe we have some now
even if its mostly controversial:))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

[FrancesHinden]

Your stated objectives are inconsistent. You can't both say it's a form of reward for people who post, and include 'winning a match' in your order of priority. Also, the latter could in theory lead to people being picky about teammates.

There seem to be to be 3 approaches, any of which would be entirely sensible:

- play the best team possible that has some connection to the forums. This will often mean 2 posters plus their regular partners, as there are very very very few regular partnerships where both members have made more than, say, 50 posts. Also many people would prefer to play with their usual partner. TBH, it's very rare that you (or the forum posters between them) won't know who the obviously best team is from those available, if some of the players are much better than others.

- play the 'most BBO forum' team possible i.e. priority to regular posters, to those with the most posts or to those with the most helpful posts, priority to pairs made up of regular posters, priority to people who've stepped in to play at the last minute etc

- treat it as a 'perk' of bothering to read these threads/be a member of BBO: priority to people who haven't played a match before, priority to those who are keenest, to those who volunteer first but allow those keen people to play with a partner of their choice.

You only get "controversy" when the objectives are not agreed in advance & in particular when it's not clear if the objective is set by the organiser or by democracy.

[The only problem with approaches other than the first one is if the opponents say they would like to play against the strongest team available but as MickyB says that doesn't seem to have a been a problem so far]

I saw the team was close yesterday, only 13 down before the last board.

[GreenMan]

Frances makes some good points.

I would like to suggest that "best team possible" not be a priority. "Good team" ought to be, of course, but at some point you're splitting hairs or making subjective judgments. If the whole team is Adv+ or better then that ought to be enough.

If I were running things (good thing I'm not, for various reasons ) I'd make established BBF partnerships first priority, then some combination of good players + first volunteers. There ought to be some value in stepping up early.

Oh, and, since putting a team together is a mostly thankless volunteer task, I'd be OK with a first principle that "The organizer's decisions are arbitrary, capricious, and final."