Firstly, my reaction at Mr Team's response to my suggestion:
Glad you found it useful. Opinion seems to be much more mixed than I thought it would be, though.
Mark Deeks wrote:I guess I don't see what problem this solves. I mean obviously one person picking twice to the other's once seems like a problem, but that person picking twice is either
(a) the challenger, who, in the implicit gameshow rules of making things fair and dramatic, could use a little tiny fraction-of-a-percentage advantages,
I agree that if you're going to say to the established champion "the challenger is getting two numbers picks, so you have to work harder to stay in that chair", then that's fair if it's the same for everyone, but knockouts are different.
Mark Deeks wrote:
(b) the higher seed, who, despite this running in complete contrast to (a) above, earned it,
You might take that view, but I don't see why they should be given an artificial advantage like two numbers picks. The higher seeds are already rewarded by being put against the lower seeds in the knockout stages, but only because there isn't really a fairer way of doing it.
Mark Deeks wrote:
(c) losing by a lot so it doesn't matter anyway, or
Fair.
Mark Deeks wrote:
(d) deservedly ahead and in my view should be allowed to consolidate this advantage by whatever they think is the best pick to do so.
An equally valid viewpoint is that the person ahead shouldn't be able to coast home on an easy one-large game, they should potentially have to work to keep their lead. It's not like it gives the player who's behind any real advantage over the player who's ahead - both players are getting the same numbers.
Mark Deeks wrote:
Take Graeme v Carl, for example. That round 14 numbers pick can be VITAL.
I wondered how long it would take for someone to mention that.
Yeah, that's a game I effectively won on a coin flip. As long as the change isn't applied retrospectively.
Mark Deeks wrote:
Not a big deal either way I suppose, but I just don't see the value in changing it. But if it is changed, then rather than have Rachel pick it, have it either randomly generated by computer, or just mix the large in with the small and take 6 random tiles.
The way I envisaged it working was by picking 6 random tiles from the 24, without knowing which ones are large and which are small. Incidentally, this means you'll get 6 small 28% of the time, not sure about the probabilities of other selections. Some might think that's too much. You can mess about with the probabilities, make the chance of each selection 20% each or whatever else, but as long as it's random I can't see how it isn't fairer than how it works at the moment.
Andy Platt wrote:You could start the show with R1 as the challenger's pick so that over the course of the game the challenger (by Mark's first bit of logic, typically the weaker player in heats) gets the microadvantage of +1 letters selections
IMHO, picking an extra letters round isn't a significant advantage. It's quite rare that I pick vowel or consonant fishing for a particular word. Don't know if that's the same for other players though. Anyway, nowadays the person who picks the round also declares first, and there's a slight disadvantage to declaring first.
(I've already made my predictions, if what I hypothesise is true, we've got a cracking tournament coming our way.) 
