2010/11 Championship

Discussion about all aspects of the ECF County Championships.
Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: 2010/11 Championship

Post by Alex Holowczak » Sat Jun 11, 2011 7:18 pm

Ian Kingston wrote:U180: Lancashire 5-7 Nottinghamshire.

Excellent playing conditions at the Newcastle-Under-Lyme Bridge Club.
Only 12 boards?

Ian Kingston
Posts: 1070
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 3:16 pm
Location: Sutton Coldfield
Contact:

Re: 2010/11 Championship

Post by Ian Kingston » Sat Jun 11, 2011 7:36 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:
Ian Kingston wrote:U180: Lancashire 5-7 Nottinghamshire.

Excellent playing conditions at the Newcastle-Under-Lyme Bridge Club.
Only 12 boards?
At Lancashire's request - clash with the South Lakes Congress. Initially they wanted a change of date, but the venue wasn't available.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: 2010/11 Championship

Post by Alex Holowczak » Sat Jun 11, 2011 7:46 pm

Ian Kingston wrote:
Alex Holowczak wrote:
Ian Kingston wrote:U180: Lancashire 5-7 Nottinghamshire.

Excellent playing conditions at the Newcastle-Under-Lyme Bridge Club.
Only 12 boards?
At Lancashire's request - clash with the South Lakes Congress. Initially they wanted a change of date, but the venue wasn't available.
C1. In any match in the Final stages of these Championships, each County shall be represented by a minimum of 16 eligible players ... (it goes on to say 12 eligible players for the Under 120 or Under 100)

Was the National Controller aware of Lancashire's request?

Ian Kingston
Posts: 1070
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 3:16 pm
Location: Sutton Coldfield
Contact:

Re: 2010/11 Championship

Post by Ian Kingston » Sat Jun 11, 2011 8:12 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:C1. In any match in the Final stages of these Championships, each County shall be represented by a minimum of 16 eligible players ... (it goes on to say 12 eligible players for the Under 120 or Under 100)

Was the National Controller aware of Lancashire's request?
I believe so. I'm not the captain, so I wasn't involved in the decision.

For what it's worth, I don't like the idea that we've reached the final of a 16 board competition by winning two 12 board matches (the quarter-final against Kent was also played over 12 boards).

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: 2010/11 Championship

Post by Alex Holowczak » Sat Jun 11, 2011 8:24 pm

Ian Kingston wrote:
Alex Holowczak wrote:C1. In any match in the Final stages of these Championships, each County shall be represented by a minimum of 16 eligible players ... (it goes on to say 12 eligible players for the Under 120 or Under 100)

Was the National Controller aware of Lancashire's request?
I believe so. I'm not the captain, so I wasn't involved in the decision.

For what it's worth, I don't like the idea that we've reached the final of a 16 board competition by winning two 12 board matches (the quarter-final against Kent was also played over 12 boards).
There's a clear problem with the rules here. Either:
(a) Captains don't know them
(b) The ECF aren't prepared to enforce them - if there's mutual agreement to break them, I can understand why motivation to do so would be low.

So why hasn't anyone bothered to change the rules to allow it? There's no point having a rule you're not going to police.

I'd propose the following changes to the rules:
(a) The time control shall be 40 moves in 120 minutes plus a 30-minute quickplay finish in Division 1 and Division 2, unless mutually agreed otherwise. The time control shall be 40 moves in 100 minutes plus a 30-minute quickplay finish in all other divisions, unless mutually agreed otherwise.
(b) A team shall be composed of 16 eligible players in Divisions 1 to 4, and 12 players in Division 5 and 6, unless mutually agreed otherwise.

The Divisions is ECF County Championship speak for the various sections, presumably so that if grading limits are changed, you don't need to go around changing all the references to them, and possibly hark back to the days when it wasn't grade-restricted, and was based on 1st team, 2nd team etc.

(a) avoids 35 in 105 + G/30, which was played in one of the matches. It's against the rules, but both teams agreed to break them. (David Sedgwick disagrees with me that this breaks the rules.)
(b) allows your 12-board matches. Heck, you can play over 1 board if you're mad enough to agree to it.

There are probably other examples. The problem with this is, where do you draw the line? Maybe you just need to write a rule prefacing all the rules, saying that mutual agreement between both captains and national controller can override the rules. The rules themselves could stop being so vague, and just have specific things as above, using the Preface to allow for all the variance you want. While at it, they can have a bit of a plain-English rewrite, rather than the current lawyer-speak they're written in.

Sean Hewitt

Re: 2010/11 Championship

Post by Sean Hewitt » Sat Jun 11, 2011 8:32 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote: There's a clear problem with the rules here. Either:
(a) Captains don't know them
(b) The ECF aren't prepared to enforce them - if there's mutual agreement to break them, I can understand why motivation to do so would be low.
I think the point is that if two counties agree to play over 12 boards, it's the same as playing 16 boards with 4 double defaults.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: 2010/11 Championship

Post by Alex Holowczak » Sat Jun 11, 2011 8:35 pm

Sean Hewitt wrote:
Alex Holowczak wrote: There's a clear problem with the rules here. Either:
(a) Captains don't know them
(b) The ECF aren't prepared to enforce them - if there's mutual agreement to break them, I can understand why motivation to do so would be low.
I think the point is that if two counties agree to play over 12 boards, it's the same as playing 16 boards with 4 double defaults.
Agreed. So why have a rule saying that it has to be a minimum of 16 boards? You can't actually do anything about it if they choose to play over any number of boards fewer than 16.

Kevin Williamson
Posts: 132
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 6:24 pm

Re: 2010/11 Championship

Post by Kevin Williamson » Sat Jun 11, 2011 8:38 pm

A couple of results from the Open University in Milton Keynes today.

Minor Counties: Beds 9 Sussex 7

U160: Kent 9 Notts 7

David Sedgwick
Posts: 4149
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon

Re: 2010/11 Championship

Post by David Sedgwick » Sat Jun 11, 2011 8:48 pm

Open: Surrey 9½ - 6½ Staffordshire

As I anticipated, Staffordshire put up an extremely tough fight.

The venue, Magdalen College School, Oxford, was perfectly satisfactory in every respect except one; the extremely dodgy internet connection. But for that, I'd have posted the result here an hour and a half ago.

My day ended on a somewhat sour note when I was ripped off by Oxford Bus Company on the way back to Oxford Station. However, I can hardly blame Magdalen College School for that.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: 2010/11 Championship

Post by Alex Holowczak » Sat Jun 11, 2011 8:59 pm

David Sedgwick wrote:Open: Surrey 9½ - 6½ Staffordshire
I read that Surrey haven't won the Open since 1954. :shock:

David Sedgwick
Posts: 4149
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon

Re: 2010/11 Championship

Post by David Sedgwick » Sat Jun 11, 2011 9:04 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:
David Sedgwick wrote:Open: Surrey 9½ - 6½ Staffordshire
I read that Surrey haven't won the Open since 1954. :shock:
Correct. It's the year I was born.

We did of course reach the Final in 2007, only to fall at the last hurdle.

LozCooper

Re: 2010/11 Championship

Post by LozCooper » Sat Jun 11, 2011 9:52 pm

David Sedgwick wrote:Open: Surrey 9½ - 6½ Staffordshire

As I anticipated, Staffordshire put up an extremely tough fight.
A good effort by Staffordshire who had +1 on the top six but got overpowered lower down. The plus score on the top six was somewhat fortunate though. Nice to see Mike Basman still punting the grob and playing what looked like a nice game.

David Clayton
Posts: 181
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm

Re: 2010/11 Championship

Post by David Clayton » Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:01 pm

David Sedgwick wrote:........My day ended on a somewhat sour note when I was ripped off by Oxford Bus Company on the way back to Oxford Station. However, I can hardly blame Magdalen College School for that.
David

Did you not get a plus bus ticket for Oxford?

http://www.plusbus.info/oxford-plusbus- ... kidlington

David

Alexander Hardwick
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 4:45 pm
Location: Surrey

Re: 2010/11 Championship

Post by Alexander Hardwick » Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:27 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:
David Sedgwick wrote:Open: Surrey 9½ - 6½ Staffordshire
I read that Surrey haven't won the Open since 1954. :shock:
And Surrey's win in the SCCU Open this season was their first one since 1963-4. I'm sure that has been mentioned previously on this thread though...

Given Surrey's result in the quarter-final, one might even say that Staffordshire scored a very good result! :) Anyone know what the (rough) grading difference was?

LozCooper

Re: 2010/11 Championship

Post by LozCooper » Sat Jun 11, 2011 11:15 pm

Alexander Hardwick wrote:
Alex Holowczak wrote:
David Sedgwick wrote:Open: Surrey 9½ - 6½ Staffordshire
I read that Surrey haven't won the Open since 1954. :shock:
And Surrey's win in the SCCU Open this season was their first one since 1963-4. I'm sure that has been mentioned previously on this thread though...

Given Surrey's result in the quarter-final, one might even say that Staffordshire scored a very good result! :) Anyone know what the (rough) grading difference was?
I think Surrey's average was 201 and ours was in the 180s. They were 7-3 up so the result was never really in doubt, I think David Anderton, Malcolm Armstong and me were the only Staffs winners but apologies if I've missed anyone. Surrey didn't have Yang-Fan or Sam Franklin today which probably made life a little bit easier for Staffs at the top but they had IMs on boards 2, 5 and 7 and plenty of experienced 200+ players like Granat, Berry etc and I think only four players below 190.

Post Reply