Co-Event Suggestion Box

[Gavin Chipper]

I'm the same hosting order as Graeme, except I usually look up the maxes (jack's thing is best for this since it gives sub maxes etc) before writing the thing down, so that I can then tab back in to the timer and put the phone visible to the players as early as possible (usually 10 seconds in or so).

Actually, this does seem like quite a good method.

[Fiona T]

Also has this been said - as host, don't write the letters down on the scoresheet until the time starts. You don't need to interrupt the letters selection process to do something you will shortly have 30 seconds to do.

I might be considered crazy for saying this, but lets just abolish the selection column. It serves very little purpose, adds basically no value to events, and is the cause of quite a lot of stress and faff for hosts. The only thing that matters is final score and whether there was a tiebreak.

In many cases I agree - all that matters is the final score, but where there are prizes for (e.g.) max games, rudest word, most plausible non-word etc, you need to know what the selection was for the former, and what the declaration was for the latter. Probably experienced hosts such as yourself are checking for a max game as they go, but many of us aren't and it does add an additional burden to a novice host to expect them to do that too.

[Gavin Chipper]

This is a perfect example of why Nick should swap the order when asking for the words. If C1 is asked for their length first, and they're the same length, C2 should be asked for their word first.

This is the system my wife and I use when we play against each other at home. We can't be bothered with writing anything down so we had to come up with a system that didn't depend on that, and mutual trust clearly wasn't good enough for us, so we started using the reverse order thing.

What is it they say? Necessity is the mother of invention? Maybe we need to manufacture the situation from one of the other questions in this thread and get two contestants with broken arms to play each other. That should be enough to get them using the right system.

By the way, at CO-events, when I'm hosting I always swap the declaration order. However, I always feel like I'm going against the grain by doing this and people often seem programmed to give their words in the same order as they give the lengths in. Should I continue? It's clearly The Right Way, but if I'm the only one doing it and it's creating a small amount of tension, is there any point?

I thought I'd import this post from here as it seems like a suitable place for it.

[Adam S Latchford]

part of the advantage of declaring second is lost if orders get reversed.

Lets say i have two dodgy sixes, they go six, then they say one i've written i'd just also go with that same 6. Reversing order loses that advantage i guess

[Gavin Chipper]

I'd consider that a good thing.

You can just write down loads of plausible-ish words and hope your opponent declares one, and then go with that.

[George Armstrong]

Reasons to go with standard declaration; It's the way it's done on the show/ apterous/ Jack's app, so it what people are used to. Plus given most attendees will be doing it this way, it makes it easier for new players to understand how the game works.

Worst of all is when some hosts, whether doing standard or reverse declaration, will divert from it if someone says "a risky" or "I think I have a". Basically all I want is some consistency, everyone doing standard is the easiest way. Or at the very least if you're doing reverse let the players know you are beforehand.

Also, for you reversers, what do you do at Bristol events when playing someone who is expecting standard. If the answer is standard, why not just do standard for Lincoln events then too?

[Gavin Chipper]

The standard declaration isn't used on Apterous as there isn't a separate length/word part of the declaration.

But there is an argument for consistency, although different TV hosts in the past have done it differently and it could change again overnight.

As it is, I think I will cease reversing the declarations, even though, as discussed in the "You are the ref" thread, it is objectively superior.

[Adam S Latchford]

I'd consider that a good thing.

You can just write down loads of plausible-ish words and hope your opponent declares one, and then go with that.

Yeah - you can
I think that's a more than viable tactic to play and don't really see anything ethically wrong with it. You might miss an 8 trying to write down 7 plausible 7s anyway so it's still a risk of a strategy

[JackHurst]

Reasons to go with standard declaration; It's the way it's done on the show/ apterous/ Jack's app

I think you're confused because my app doesn't do that - and also if it did, it's not necessarily an assertion from me on the correct way to play Countdown, I could have just done it that way because it saves lots of time. I've also heard of instances of Colin deviating from "standard" on the show too.

There was a lengthy discussion of this a few years somewhere (gev will find it), I think I was on the side of "It's ok to write down lots of words and copy opponent" and Jono was of the opinion it's cheating. A few years on, and loads more events attended, I am now firmly on the same side as Jono. The main benefit is that it cuts out the grey area around "How many speculative words can somebody write down and pick from before it's cheating".

As a host, if I suspect somebody is chancing it with their declaration then I will go to them first. I don't even understand why people give qualifiers to their declarations like "dodgy", "risky" etc as you are just giving away information. We're probably splitting hairs here anyway, as I reckon it changes the end outcome of a very very small percentage of games.

[Gavin Chipper]

The discussion in the "You are the Ref" thread starts here I think with the scenario put by Noel Mc.

But I don't think whether playing like this is a valid tactic is the main point of contention here. It's whether you should set up the game to allow for this to happen when you can just as easily not. You're also giving the player declaring second a double advantage. They get to give the length second, and the word, and both can be helpful. If there's two advantages to hand out, it makes much more sense to give one to each player. E.g. in tennis after the coin toss, one player picks who serves and the other chooses the ends. You don't get to pick both if you win the toss.

I can see why people want to keep consistency with the show, but regardless, it's clear to see that the show does it wrong.

[Adam S Latchford]

Interesting. Could have my opinion swayed on this issue

As for co event suggestion - I do think if there's somebody who is quite clearly a good host and can hurry a game along that they host first. Shows newer people how it's done and sets a precedent for more experienced but slower hosts on how to carry the game along. Quite annoying when one table is very slow - especially if some mistakes happen and the event is delayed

[JackHurst]

As for co event suggestion - I do think if there's somebody who is quite clearly a good host and can hurry a game along that they host first. Shows newer people how it's done and sets a precedent for more experienced but slower hosts on how to carry the game along. Quite annoying when one table is very slow - especially if some mistakes happen and the event is delayed

Agree .

Also on the topic of time keeping - kicking off roughly on time is appreciated so we don't miss our trains home! In the event attendees have bad fortune and get delayed just let their two table mates play with no host for game 1 round 1 to buy them an extra 30 minutes.

[JackHurst]

I'm curious to hear from hosts (and Graeme) if atropine had a feature where you can mark a player as a an inexperienced/slow hosts and for R1 the draw avoid clustering such players together do you think it would help to keep things running smoothly?

I wouldn't want "slow" to cause offence, maybe there's a better term for it. I think the cases would be:
- You're very new, or haven't been to an event in a very long time
- You've got a disability or injury that makes hosting challenging

Another issue would be that this could compromise the long term fairness of the rd1 draw. For example if you had an experienced player with a disability who always gets separated from tables with new players in rd 1, then in the long run they get the disadvantage of stronger R1 opponents on average.

[Ben Wilson]

Interesting. Could have my opinion swayed on this issue

As for co event suggestion - I do think if there's somebody who is quite clearly a good host and can hurry a game along that they host first. Shows newer people how it's done and sets a precedent for more experienced but slower hosts on how to carry the game along. Quite annoying when one table is very slow - especially if some mistakes happen and the event is delayed

This has been an unofficial rule at COLIN for years now that newbies don't host first, and for precisely this reason. And maintaining a schedule is probably the hardest part of any Co event, especially the hangover where 90% of people are still en route 5 minutes before the start of round 1.

[George Armstrong]

Also on the topic of time keeping - kicking off roughly on time is appreciated so we don't miss our trains home! In the event attendees have bad fortune and get delayed just let their two table mates play with no host for game 1 round 1 to buy them an extra 30 minutes.

Fwiw I did message Andy at the time to say to do this, as that's what Ben did at The Hangover. As long as none of us three late boys were drawn against each other (which we weren't) it would've been fine.

[Graeme Cole]

I'm curious to hear from hosts (and Graeme) if atropine had a feature where you can mark a player as a an inexperienced/slow hosts and for R1 the draw avoid clustering such players together do you think it would help to keep things running smoothly?

Funny you should mention this, because I've already written this feature and it will be in the next version of Atropine.

You will be able to mark any player as a "newbie". The Random and Random From Seeded Pots fixture generators will then guarantee at least one non-newbie on every table, if possible.

This policy has already been used at many previous Lincoln-style co-events, but until now the organiser has had to do it manually by redoing the draw if it puts three newbies on the same table. Now it will do it automatically for you, as long as you tell it who the newbies are.

However, I don't like the idea of expanding the definition of "newbie" to include "people who are perceived as slow hosts". If you, as the organiser, are telling everyone the first round is "random", then you shouldn't be interfering with it. You may say that guaranteeing one non-newbie on every table is also "interfering" with the randomness, but IMO this interference is very easy to justify, because of the obvious benefit of every table having at least one person who's familiar with the procedure, and because someone's newbie status is an objective true/false value over which the organiser has no control, and because the organiser can openly state they're doing this, without any controversy.

If you subjectively labelled people as "slow players" knowing that in doing so they won't all be put on the same table in the first round, is it still "random"? Nobody bats an eyelid when the organiser announces to everyone that the R1 draw is "random, except that it guarantees one non-newbie on every table", but would you feel comfortable also announcing to everyone that you're counting "slow players" as newbies, including naming these players?

[JackHurst]

However, I don't like the idea of expanding the definition of "newbie" to include "people who are perceived as slow hosts". If you, as the organiser, are telling everyone the first round is "random", then you shouldn't be interfering with it. You may say that guaranteeing one non-newbie on every table is also "interfering" with the randomness, but IMO this interference is very easy to justify, because of the obvious benefit of every table having at least one person who's familiar with the procedure, and because someone's newbie status is an objective true/false value over which the organiser has no control, and because the organiser can openly state they're doing this, without any controversy.

If you subjectively labelled people as "slow players" knowing that in doing so they won't all be put on the same table in the first round, is it still "random"? Nobody bats an eyelid when the organiser announces to everyone that the R1 draw is "random, except that it guarantees one non-newbie on every table", but would you feel comfortable also announcing to everyone that you're counting "slow players" as newbies, including naming these players?

Yep I agree with that and thought somebody would say as much. I do think of you limit it to only separating new players then the system isn't very watertight, as was evident on Saturday. The event can only run as quickly as the slowest table.

Great to hear you have a feature for it in the works though

[Rhys Benjamin]

True neutral: Leave the selection column blank. Nobody actually needs it.

*cries in recap*

Also, with reverse declarations I said after CoLon 2022 that I do 1-2-2-1 as a method:

C1: 7.
C2: 7.
Me: Your word, C2?
C2: BANANAS.
C1: I also have BANANAS.

This just doubly ensures there's no copying going on. Richard Whiteley used this method too.

[Steve Hyde]

What would people think of doing away with tie-break conundrums and allowing draws to happen? There isn't the same need to declare a winner that the TV show has, and I feel like achieving level scores over 9 rounds should count for slightly more than a defeat and slightly less than a win. Also avoids one or two tables in a Reading-style event having the whole room watching them when everyone else has finished.

Yes, this is 100% motivated by me "drawing" with Tom Stevenson at CO:Rugby, and having probably my best ever co event performance recorded as a loss. But still, interested to see whether others think it's worth exploring.

[JackHurst]

What would people think of doing away with tie-break conundrums and allowing draws to happen? There isn't the same need to declare a winner that the TV show has, and I feel like achieving level scores over 9 rounds should count for slightly more than a defeat and slightly less than a win. Also avoids one or two tables in a Reading-style event having the whole room watching them when everyone else has finished.

Yes, this is 100% motivated by me "drawing" with Tom Stevenson at CO:Rugby, and having probably my best ever co event performance recorded as a loss. But still, interested to see whether others think it's worth exploring.

Atropine already supports draws, and this would save a little bit of time at events. I ran a few tourneys in my app which had draws and people didn't seem to complain. Draws are an edge case (you probably get 2 or 3 per event), so it doesn't have a huge impact, but I am up for giving it a try

[Adam S Latchford]

What would people think of doing away with tie-break conundrums and allowing draws to happen? There isn't the same need to declare a winner that the TV show has, and I feel like achieving level scores over 9 rounds should count for slightly more than a defeat and slightly less than a win. Also avoids one or two tables in a Reading-style event having the whole room watching them when everyone else has finished.

Yes, this is 100% motivated by me "drawing" with Tom Stevenson at CO:Rugby, and having probably my best ever co event performance recorded as a loss. But still, interested to see whether others think it's worth exploring.

As long as it was very clearly communicated before the event that thats how it was going to work then it'd be fun to try.

Although the 20 points behind final numbers victory / adrian and fiona having 850 conundrums in front of everyone would go which would be sad

[JackHurst]

What do people think about the weighting of non main events towards Focal points? This year I think there will be at least 3 non main events, and next year there may be 4 or more.


A few people have mentioned they should count as a half weighted event for focal points.

Pros:
- Small events are tacked on to main events, so from one "trip" you can end up accumulating double points. Pretty harsh on people who e.g. miss events due to illness etc
- Small events are way more volatile, so weighting them as a half event balances out a bit of that unfairness.


Cons:
- Calculating Focal rankings become a little big more convoluted. You have to count top 8 weighting points worth of focal points instead of events, cutting an event in half if necessary.
- Might make non-main events less appealing to some people?
- Maybe opens up another can of worms about what counts as a "main event" and not. For example if Co:Bra continues to use the 5 game and no final format, does it count as a whole event?

[Gavin Chipper]

I previously suggested that perhaps someone could only count points from one event if there were two events at a weekend (e.g. COLIN and hangover). The reason not all events count towards your end-of-year total is that it's hard to make every event and people shouldn't be expected to if they want to qualify in the top 8 or generally finish high up. But having two events in one go seems a bit of a "hack" allowing people to rack up two lots of points while making just one trip.

[Gavin Chipper]

What would people think of doing away with tie-break conundrums and allowing draws to happen? There isn't the same need to declare a winner that the TV show has, and I feel like achieving level scores over 9 rounds should count for slightly more than a defeat and slightly less than a win. Also avoids one or two tables in a Reading-style event having the whole room watching them when everyone else has finished.

Yes, this is 100% motivated by me "drawing" with Tom Stevenson at CO:Rugby, and having probably my best ever co event performance recorded as a loss. But still, interested to see whether others think it's worth exploring.

I think having draws is fine in principle but I think there was something in the You are the ref thread about it leading to certain situations. I'll have a look in a bit.

But also losing on a tie-break (losing by 0) is arguably just a special case of just losing by a small amount. One could also argue that losing by 1 should get more than losing by 21 etc. Edinburgh used to seed by total points score rather than wins and when you look at the tables, it's arguably a more accurate measure of how well people have done. But I also think it flies in the face of it being a competitive event. So if we're sticking with wins/losses being the main thing, I don't think it's necessary to make a special case for the closest possible version of this, especially as a 1-point difference is the same as 51.

Edit - see discussion here.

[Matt Rutherford]

Draws worth a try at Brum if people are conducive to it. I know Scrabble registers them at 0.5 a win.

On a separate note about smaller events. They should count, in full. It's still a CoEvent.

I'm going to relay an exchange I overheard in the chess club at work...

CHILD A-'I got a draw against *Defending Champion* again. How am I going to make the finals?'
CHILD B-'I have some advice...Don't lose.'

And I'll admit this exchange sums up my thinking when it comes to CoEvents. If it's volatile, there's a simple solution...Turn up and win your games. If you don't beat your opponent, then get better at the game until you do. Sometimes the draw shits on you with a hard opponent. So get to the level where you can beat them (coming from the man who had Zohaib rock up. It's not nice, but if you want to win, you have to face that)

In terms of smaller events in general...(btw GoatBrum will be a six-game affair. Yes, I'm slightly apeshit. Don't try, you don't know). If you want to get to the finals, get to eight events. Illness or other circumstances sometimes yoink you out of the way, but there are three events that can lead to a 'double-points' haul. And it's no guarantee masses of points. Brum 2023 (both) and Rugby 2024 (Goat) were some of my worst finishes ever.

This all does sound slightly glib, I know. But that's the case. There are formats I don't like, but if I play then...Well, don't lose, and I'll do well. If I lose, then time for me to assault the flashcards. Same applies. Some factors are out of my control-for those that are, then time to maximize what I can. Same applies for most folk

[Graeme Cole]

On a separate note about smaller events. They should count, in full. It's still a CoEvent.

Agree. Different day, different competition, and in many cases a different venue.

But having two events in one go seems a bit of a "hack" allowing people to rack up two lots of points while making just one trip.

So? I don't think this is a bad thing. Two events on the same weekend allows people to save money on travel. We shouldn't award fewer points for an event just because we made it easier for everyone to attend. Anyway, the "second" event, such as the COLIN hangover, usually has fewer attendees, so you already get fewer FOCAL points for it. (Is this still how it works?)

I think having draws is fine in principle but I think there was something in the You are the ref thread about it leading to certain situations. I'll have a look in a bit.

...

Edit - see discussion here.

In the past, events have tried allowing draws, such as pre-pandemic Milton Keynes. It didn't really catch on at other events. I'm not aware of the sneaky agree-to-a-mutually-beneficial-draw scenario ever actually occurring, but why allow the possibility unless there's some clearly outweighing benefit to allowing draws?

[Gavin Chipper]

But having two events in one go seems a bit of a "hack" allowing people to rack up two lots of points while making just one trip.

So? I don't think this is a bad thing. Two events on the same weekend allows people to save money on travel. We shouldn't award fewer points for an event just because we made it easier for everyone to attend. Anyway, the "second" event, such as the COLIN hangover, usually has fewer attendees, so you already get fewer FOCAL points for it. (Is this still how it works?)

My point is that people can only make certain events and this gives an advantage to those who happen to by chance be able to make events that happen to be double events. What if someone ran a Co-event and decided to just split it into 6? So 6 rounds as normal, but each round is considered a separate CO-event. You are the ref. This is not something I feel massively strongly about by the way, but I don't think it's a nonsense idea either.

You don't actually necessarily get fewer points if there are fewer attendees. The winner gets fewer (and last place gets more), but the average is always 500.

[JackHurst]

On a separate note about smaller events. They should count, in full. It's still a CoEvent.

Absolutely agree with the sentiment. It's still a proper event, and it's still deserves full the recognition etc. I'm not saying there is less achievement in winning these events, it still always takes a special performance to win any event!

I just think there are fair ways to make adjustments to focal points, given that not everybody can make it to every event.

[JackHurst]

Here's one I think I will get outvoted against on.

The Grand Final for EOY FOCAL finals should be a 15r game. Keep the 7 heat games as 9rs, but make the GF 15r

Throughout the year, most events use 9r as the format, but there is some variation - we have some Goatdown, some 14r events, and some 15r events. The argument was put to me last year that because 9r is what mostly contributes to Focal points, that this should be the format for the GF.

The two main arguments for 9r in general at events:
- It saves time and lets you fit in more games and thus get to play a wider variety of opponents
- It levels the playing field, giving players a much better chance of taking a stronger opponent to a crucial etc.

Saving time for a single game that's the climax for the Focal calendar isn't much of an issue. Adding 6 extra rounds probably adds at most 10 minutes to the game.

Levelling the playing field isn't an issue. By the nature of the tournament, you should have two very strong players having a close game in the final regardless. A 15 rounder has more opportunities for leads and comebacks. Most co event 9r finals these days may as well be a 1 rounder!

[Steve Hyde]

Here's one I think I will get outvoted against on.

The Grand Final for EOY FOCAL finals should be a 15r game. Keep the 7 heat games as 9rs, but make the GF 15r

Throughout the year, most events use 9r as the format, but there is some variation - we have some Goatdown, some 14r events, and some 15r events. The argument was put to me last year that because 9r is what mostly contributes to Focal points, that this should be the format for the GF.

The two main arguments for 9r in general at events:
- It saves time and lets you fit in more games and thus get to play a wider variety of opponents
- It levels the playing field, giving players a much better chance of taking a stronger opponent to a crucial etc.

Saving time for a single game that's the climax for the Focal calendar isn't much of an issue. Adding 6 extra rounds probably adds at most 10 minutes to the game.

Levelling the playing field isn't an issue. By the nature of the tournament, you should have two very strong players having a close game in the final regardless. A 15 rounder has more opportunities for leads and comebacks. Most co event 9r finals these days may as well be a 1 rounder!

100% agreed from the POV of the eternal spectator

[Adam S Latchford]

I'd maybe vote for a best of 3 9 rounders at the focal finals for a bit of additional spice

[Gavin Chipper]

I can imagine a very restless audience with three games to not play in.

[JackHurst]

I can imagine a very restless audience with three games to not play in.

Yeah 27 rounds of Countdown to sit and watch at an event you attended on the premise of _playing_ countdown is too much.

[George Armstrong]

Some folk have made the point in the past that the grand final format at an event should be the same as the format played throughout the day for the sake of fairness and consistency. Possibly wait until after Reading, see how the 15R games go and possibly adopt them for the whole of the Finals/Open tournament?

[Gavin Chipper]

The main problem with 15-rounders is the length obviously, but it gives a good balance of rounds. The 9-rounder has the advantage of being shorter, but it's problem is not so much that the short game makes it more of a lottery, but that specifically the conundrum has proportionally too much weight. What's the solution?

[Fiona T]

The main problem with 15-rounders is the length obviously, but it gives a good balance of rounds. The 9-rounder has the advantage of being shorter, but it's problem is not so much that the short game makes it more of a lottery, but that specifically the conundrum has proportionally too much weight. What's the solution?

Well Eoin Jackson always suggests a 5 point conundrum, but that's never been done on Countdown, so I guess it depends if you want to remain true to the format.

[Gavin Chipper]

The main problem with 15-rounders is the length obviously, but it gives a good balance of rounds. The 9-rounder has the advantage of being shorter, but it's problem is not so much that the short game makes it more of a lottery, but that specifically the conundrum has proportionally too much weight. What's the solution?

Well Eoin Jackson always suggests a 5 point conundrum, but that's never been done on Countdown, so I guess it depends if you want to remain true to the format.

Well we have 10-letter conundrums and Goat tournaments.

[JackHurst]

Some folk have made the point in the past that the grand final format at an event should be the same as the format played throughout the day for the sake of fairness and consistency. Possibly wait until after Reading, see how the 15R games go and possibly adopt them for the whole of the Finals/Open tournament?

Yeah it's a good point. With the new software etc, maybe it becomes a bit more efficient to get through rounds and 15rs might be viable in the time limit.

Even if not, I get the "fairness and consistency" argument a little bit, but it's not as if you're moving from Goatdown to Countdown or vice versa. I've been to quite a few events where the final was a 14r or 15r game and nobody complained.

[Gavin Chipper]

People don't necessarily actively complain but I get the feeling that 14-rounders aren't the most popular. They're certainly not my first choice.

I think 15-rounders for normal play can seem a bit much. A bit intense maybe playing the same person for that amount of time.

[Adam S Latchford]

I can imagine a very restless audience with three games to not play in.

At every event sure

This would be just for the finals - effectively the show piece and the culmination of the focal year. I think people would likely be invigorated enough for it

*5 point conundrums would be a garbage idea but if any scoring tweaking would be done i'd consider not making 9s quite so overpowered in goatdown even though that would heavily impact me personally*

[JackHurst]

People don't necessarily actively complain but I get the feeling that 14-rounders aren't the most popular.

I would go as far as saying at an event with 14-rounders, every single participant dislikes them, and the host is the only person in the room who likes them. It's just an awful format with way too much weight on the conundrum.

[Matt Rutherford]

People don't necessarily actively complain but I get the feeling that 14-rounders aren't the most popular.

I would go as far as saying at an event with 14-rounders, every single participant dislikes them, and the host is the only person in the room who likes them. It's just an awful format with way too much weight on the conundrum.

Lob into this divsions as well. Small sample size, but from what I've seen, it's made the event worse. People do not enjoy them. It means the principle of 'win games and you'll do well' is buggered slightly. People who do worse can do better.

If you are a host who includes either 14-rounders or division (people who are lovely)-read the room. Ditch them

[Graeme Cole]

-For one, use Draw Against Someone On Same Number Of Wins (the 'Geneva' method).

I've just implemented this for the next release of Atropine, because apparently this is what I get up to during the Easter weekend.

I guess the question wasn't about method but more about outcome. What's better for R3 tables
Version A
T1 4W 4W 4W
T2 4W 3W 3W

Or
Version B
T1 4W 4W 3W
T2 4W 4W 3W

Version B has a big downside that 2 players on 3 wins are getting lumped with a pair of 4W players. Version A has the downside that one of the unbeaten players gets away with playing none of the others. Both feel quite unsatisfactory!

It's going to prefer Version A. This isn't out of any great preference on my part for A over B - as you say, neither is particularly satisfactory. Rather, it's just a consequence of Atropine's attempt to minimise the number of matches between players on different win counts.

This feature will use the same Swiss fixture generator you're all familiar with, but with a checkbox option to say "Match players by number of wins then random chance, ignoring standings position". If you tick the box, we randomly reorder players on the same win count within the player list so groups of players higher in the standings aren't preferred by being "found first", then we search for a set of tables that works, the same as the existing generator.

A penalty is associated with matches between players on different win counts. In Version A above, there are two matches between players on different win counts, and in Version B, there are four matches between players on different win counts. So Version A, with the lower penalty, will be preferred.

In the (likely, as above) event that we must choose a player or players to have to play someone on a higher number of wins than them, it prefers to choose the player(s) closest to the top of their win-count-group in the standings. This is the only time the so-called "Geneva"* method considers a player's standings position.

The upside of version B is that the 3W players will be the two with the highest aggregate score.

It took a while for me to realise what this meant, but now I get it - with Version A, the top two 3-win players might already have played each other, in which case we would have to fill table 2 with lower-ranked 3-win players. However, even with Version B we might have to do this, because the top two 3-win players could have both already played the same 4-win player.

* Atropine does not call it "Geneva". If this draw method catches on, perhaps Atropine will name it after whichever co-event popularised it.

[Graeme Cole]

If you are a host who includes either 14-rounders or division (people who are lovely)-read the room. Ditch them

Agree. I can take or leave 14-rounders - they're not my favourite, and I'm not sure what benefits they have that 15 rounders don't, but whatever, I'll play them without much gripe. The play-three-games-then-get-split-into-divisions format, however, can get in the bin for many and varied reasons already discussed at length on this forum. There's at least one event I was considering going to but didn't because it decided to adopt that format.

The same goes for random draws from R2 onwards rather than making some effort to match similar-strength players against each other. I've heard of events where newbies have lost game after game, barely scored a point, concluded that co-events aren't for them, and left half way through the day. That should be a pretty big red flag as to whether it's a good idea. Co-events aren't only about who ends up at the top of the table.

[JackHurst]

Great work Graeme! I am interested to see when this feature gets given a whirl!

[JackHurst]

What would people think of doing away with tie-break conundrums and allowing draws to happen? There isn't the same need to declare a winner that the TV show has, and I feel like achieving level scores over 9 rounds should count for slightly more than a defeat and slightly less than a win. Also avoids one or two tables in a Reading-style event having the whole room watching them when everyone else has finished.

Yes, this is 100% motivated by me "drawing" with Tom Stevenson at CO:Rugby, and having probably my best ever co event performance recorded as a loss. But still, interested to see whether others think it's worth exploring.

Atropine already supports draws, and this would save a little bit of time at events. I ran a few tourneys in my app which had draws and people didn't seem to complain. Draws are an edge case (you probably get 2 or 3 per event), so it doesn't have a huge impact, but I am up for giving it a try

I've changed my mind on this one. I think allowing draws at co-events is a bad idea. I think there's two scenarios you can open up:
A) Players agreeing that they both want to draw a game (several different motivations could arise for this)
B) Players not necessarily agreeing they will draw on purpose, but both being content with a draw from the outset, and therefore engaging in safe and boring gameplay.

[Marc Meakin]

This might be more apt for the Apterous thread but how about a Countdown Game with 14 rounds 5 of every permittable vowel and consonant combinations ( for each player to choose) numbers rounds with every combination ( from 6 small to 4 large) and a conundrum as usual at the end

[Steve Hyde]

This might be more apt for the Apterous thread but how about a Countdown Game with 14 rounds 5 of every permittable vowel and consonant combinations ( for each player to choose) numbers rounds with every combination ( from 6 small to 4 large) and a conundrum as usual at the end

So... 21 rounds?

[Marc Meakin]

This might be more apt for the Apterous thread but how about a Countdown Game with 14 rounds 5 of every permittable vowel and consonant combinations ( for each player to choose) numbers rounds with every combination ( from 6 small to 4 large) and a conundrum as usual at the end

So... 21 rounds?

No the numbers rounds are picked automatically 6 small up to 4 large, sequentially.
Though you could make a case for 11,rounds rather than each player choosing their letters combos

[Steve Hyde]

There are three possible letters picks (3V6C, 4V5C, 5V4C)

There are 5 possible numbers picks (6S, 1L, 2L, 3L, 4L)

I'm not sure how any sensible combination of these plus one conundrum adds up to 14 rounds

[Marc Meakin]

There are three possible letters picks (3V6C, 4V5C, 5V4C)

There are 5 possible numbers picks (6S, 1L, 2L, 3L, 4L)

I'm not sure how any sensible combination of these plus one conundrum adds up to 14 rounds

My bad, I thought 6 vowels and 3 consonants was a legal pick though it still wouldn't make 14 rounds

[Gavin Chipper]

Can all CO-event c4c threads have the title of the top post edited to include the date please?

Edit - Reading and Sheffield are currently the only ones that do this. So not London, Birmingham, Durham and Oxford (though Oxford has the month).

[Graeme Cole]

Can all CO-event c4c threads have the title of the top post edited to include the date please?

Edit - Reading and Sheffield are currently the only ones that do this. So not London, Birmingham, Durham and Oxford (though Oxford has the month).

This is obviously a good idea, and to me seems such an uncontroversial no-brainer that I've invoked my mod powers to do it myself.

[Gavin Chipper]

Top work.

[Fiona T]

Perhaps tournaments that have fewer than 6 rounds should use points scored to rank players rather than wins - for all rounds, so when a draw is done, you're matched by points.

[Gavin Chipper]

I think you'd still want unbeaten players to play each other but other than that I think it's generally a good idea. Losing your first two games in decent close games can mean you just play others who have done the same so you don't get the "advantage" from losing, whereas other players who won a game get an easier draw.

Does it matter if it's fewer than 6 rounds?

[Adam S Latchford]

Perhaps tournaments that have fewer than 6 rounds should use points scored to rank players rather than wins - for all rounds, so when a draw is done, you're matched by points.

Wins are still more important than points scored though - tight games shouldn't be punished

[Gavin Chipper]

Perhaps tournaments that have fewer than 6 rounds should use points scored to rank players rather than wins - for all rounds, so when a draw is done, you're matched by points.

Wins are still more important than points scored though - tight games shouldn't be punished

The final table would presumably be done by wins but the draw by points. I think it would be an improvement.

[Thomas Cappleman]

Perhaps tournaments that have fewer than 6 rounds should use points scored to rank players rather than wins - for all rounds, so when a draw is done, you're matched by points.

Wins are still more important than points scored though - tight games shouldn't be punished

The final table would presumably be done by wins but the draw by points. I think it would be an improvement.

I disagree. This could lead to someone getting decent scores while losing still getting stuck playing the other high scorers, while a lower scorer can keep winning. Better would be to go completely the other way (like MSR's planning for Brum) and only consider wins and ignore points.

[Gavin Chipper]

Wins are still more important than points scored though - tight games shouldn't be punished

The final table would presumably be done by wins but the draw by points. I think it would be an improvement.

I disagree. This could lead to someone getting decent scores while losing still getting stuck playing the other high scorers, while a lower scorer can keep winning. Better would be to go completely the other way (like MSR's planning for Brum) and only consider wins and ignore points.

That might work better. I think the current system as it is doesn't work very well though.