[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums

I was talking abut backgames post

Posted By: Bill Riles
Date: Tuesday, 14 January 2014, at 1:38 p.m.

In Response To: I was talking abut backgames post (Backgame)

As 'backgame' notes, the bracket was fine -- the error was in not assigning the two byes in accordance with the bracket design.

We had 62 players and used a 64 player bracket. The bracket entry slots are numbered 1-64. The bracket is designed with byes to be assigned down from #64. Thus, #63 and #64 should have gotten the byes. The bracket is constructed so the progressive feeds to the Consolation and to the Last Chance preclude, to the extent possible, consecutive byes, the same players matched multiple times, etc.

We originally thought we had four byes but discovered after the draw was posted that two players had been inadvertently omitted. The original four byes were assigned by position in the bracket rather than by number -- so, the original four byes were #16, #32, #48, and #64; they should have been #64, #63, #62, and #61. Carter, of all people ... lolol, was in #17 paired with #48. It appeared, to his good fortune, he had a first round bye. But, to his bad fortune, one of the two omitted players was assigned #48; and, to his worse fortune, that player was Falafel. Falafel won.

Carter then had a bye in the first round of the Consolation before having to play Richard Munitz. Richard won. Carter then had a bye in the first round of the Last Chance, going on to win 2-3 rounds before losing.

If the bracket had been properly used no problem would have existed. As it occurred, the problem was, in my estimation, minimal though unfortunate. Carter, because he was losing, did get consecutive byes in the first rounds of the Consolation and of the Last Chance. Nonetheless, had the original byes been assigned correctly he would not have gotten the consecutive byes even by losing as he did.

The two byes should have been #63 and #64. The two byes were #16 and #64.

Lesson learned.

Messages In This Thread

 

Post Response
Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:
Subject:
Message:

If necessary, enter your password below:

Password:
 

 

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.