[In The Zone]

Bump.

[Renalicious]

I have a question - if on SF day, both matches are walkover what happens?

[delicatecutter]

I have a question. How is it decided how many people get byes in a tournament? Is that at the manager's discretion? I know that Tier III and IV's don't have them but for other events I've seen anywhere from 8 up to like 32.

[In The Zone]

Originally Posted by delicatecutter

I have a question. How is it decided how many people get byes in a tournament? Is that at the manager's discretion? I know that Tier III and IV's don't have them but for other events I've seen anywhere from 8 up to like 32.

Depends on the # of seeds in the tournament. 56 draws or larger have 16 seeds. IW/Miami have 32. Slams have no byes. 32 draws have 8 byes.

[Andreas]

There's something I don't really understand about the rule of lost games:
With the current rules, losing in a tie break or 5-7 is worse than losing 0-6, and losing 0-6 is the same as losing 4-6. Isn't there a better way to calculate it, or?
For example differences in lost sets?

[wateva]

i have a question...
how can a poster continue playing this game even though he/she was banned from the forum?
they are banned for a reason and to give them the privilege of playing a game of this forum doesn't sound right.

[DAVAJ MKirilenko]

I want to make a new rule.
Chris 84 was seeded in New Haven, but never post a pick.
The manager just gave him 0 points and let the rest the rest.

GoV&Rena made an invalid pick on day 1. Got 1 point. But was the 9th ranked player in the tournament.
I suggest for the next tournaments that the next one will get a bye when 1 of the seeds don't post a pick at day 2.

[joe87]

Originally Posted by Ivanovic Fan!!!!

I want to make a new rule.
Chris 84 was seeded in New Haven, but never post a pick.
The manager just gave him 0 points and let the rest the rest.

GoV&Rena made an invalid pick on day 1. Got 1 point. But was the 9th ranked player in the tournament.
I suggest for the next tournaments that the next one will get a bye when 1 of the seeds don't post a pick at day 2.

yes, that would be better

[In The Zone]

Originally Posted by Ivanovic Fan!!!!

I want to make a new rule.
Chris 84 was seeded in New Haven, but never post a pick.
The manager just gave him 0 points and let the rest the rest.

GoV&Rena made an invalid pick on day 1. Got 1 point. But was the 9th ranked player in the tournament.
I suggest for the next tournaments that the next one will get a bye when 1 of the seeds don't post a pick at day 2.

Originally Posted by joe87

yes, that would be better

That is what we have done in practice. I PMed GoV&Rena about it but he posted his Day 2 pick after the last match had started. So he could not post a Day 2 pick. So we had no choice.

[DAVAJ MKirilenko]

Originally Posted by In The Zone

That is what we have done in practice. I PMed GoV&Rena about it but he posted his Day 2 pick after the last match had started. So he could not post a Day 2 pick. So we had no choice.

Ok. But now we can also add it to the rules which are posted in the first post of every tournament.
It also means that GoV&Rena will get 0 points in the future. This time I gave 1 point. Cause the Kleybanova pick changes in Bye.

[In The Zone]

Originally Posted by Ivanovic Fan!!!!

Ok. But now we can also add it to the rules which are posted in the first post of every tournament.
It also means that GoV&Rena will get 0 points in the future. This time I gave 1 point. Cause the Kleybanova pick changes in Bye.

Okay.

[DAVAJ MKirilenko]

It's time we update the rule about how to decide the winner.

Lost sets.
As 2nd, lost games. I think we better can change it into biggest +.
If a player wins 6-1 6-2. That player gets +9.
In this case the players who win by retirement won't get the advantage anymore. They get 0 games lost when the opponent retires at 0-3. Even worst if it happens in the first game.
If someone retires when she's 5-0 up and you choose the player who is 5-0 down, you get a -5, instead of 5 games lost. You're already lucky enough that that player didn't lose a set or even the match.
In this way we won't have problem anymore with 6-0 6-7 6-0 is worse than 6-0 0-6 6-0.

Good idea?

[Wedgie619]

Originally Posted by DAVAJ MKirilenko

It's time we update the rule about how to decide the winner.

Lost sets.
As 2nd, lost games. I think we better can change it into biggest +.
If a player wins 6-1 6-2. That player gets +9.
In this case the players who win by retirement won't get the advantage anymore. They get 0 games lost when the opponent retires at 0-3. Even worst if it happens in the first game.
If someone retires when she's 5-0 up and you choose the player who is 5-0 down, you get a -5, instead of 5 games lost. You're already lucky enough that that player didn't lose a set or even the match.
In this way we won't have problem anymore with 6-0 6-7 6-0 is worse than 6-0 0-6 6-0.

Good idea?

I like the new way to calculate games... its very similar to the calculating game won v lost percentage (but much easier) which I think is fairer then just games lost

[In The Zone]

Originally Posted by DAVAJ MKirilenko

It's time we update the rule about how to decide the winner.

Lost sets.
As 2nd, lost games. I think we better can change it into biggest +.
If a player wins 6-1 6-2. That player gets +9.
In this case the players who win by retirement won't get the advantage anymore. They get 0 games lost when the opponent retires at 0-3. Even worst if it happens in the first game.
If someone retires when she's 5-0 up and you choose the player who is 5-0 down, you get a -5, instead of 5 games lost. You're already lucky enough that that player didn't lose a set or even the match.
In this way we won't have problem anymore with 6-0 6-7 6-0 is worse than 6-0 0-6 6-0.

Good idea?

I'm not sure how I feel about it. It's a bit more complicated. I like that retirements count in our game because that's the point of our game -- suicide, whether it benefits you or goes against you.

I'll hold out how I feel about it while more people comment.

[DarkchildSwiss]

i prefer the current rules over the suggested one.