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

BGonline.org Forums

Doubles means two per team

Posted By: Daniel Murphy
Date: Friday, 29 October 2010, at 5:42 p.m.

In Response To: Doubles means two per team (adambulldog)

Guzei-Livingston is not much difference

Guzei is Ilia, whom I know only through GOL, as a championship player in 2003, and sometime doubles partner of Chuck (no "s") Bower. Livingston is Stan, W-L 2-3 in Advanced at Midwest in 2009, and 3-4 in Championship at Wisconsin in 2010. Their 2010 Madison club results are online.

Kostadinov-Bowers and Russell-Horton are teams of expert players, if not exactly evenly matched.

Bowers is Bud, an intermediate player, and Kostadinov is Giant #28. Horton is Tom, an intermediate player, and Russell is Giant #30.

O'Laughlin-Koch is not much difference if it is the Koch who came in 2nd at MC.

I don't see a Koch who was second in Monte Carlo. Koch is Hans-Uli, apparently a fairly new player (Intermediate in 2004) who won the championship flight at the Partouche Aix-en-Provence tourney in 2008. O'Laughlin is Giant #18.

Rory is not that much better than Stick, even though Rory does have an ABT win.

Rory's had some good results 2008-2010, but I've seen more evidence of Jacob's world class play.

You missed Hickey-Bennett, the winners of Peoria 2010 thanks entirely to Mary

Congratulations to both teammates.

I'm not sure what is the point of your post.

Data doesn't always have a point, but can be helpful in forming opinions. Consider the evidence and draw your own conclusions. In this thread, I particularly like Mike Main's contribution, which discussed why some tournaments have in the past allowed singles to play doubles. My own opinion is that there's nothing untoward in a single playing doubles, which doesn't strike me as any different from an expert "pro" teamed with an amateur potted plant. Nothing about a doubles format requires both partners to contribute equally or even substantively to play decisions, nor, I think, should that be something a TD should need to consider. If Giant #1 wants to play with Giant #2 or Giant #64, a spouse or a son, a backer or a baker, fine by me. If I were running a tournament, I would require doubles entrants to have partners (it is "doubles," after all), but with no restrictions on entrants (except for a "pro-am" event) and with, of course, the same rules applied to all participants. Pay and play. And have fun.

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.