Guernsey Pairs/Open Ranking Points

[Sir Chancelot]

Just reading through the rules on Ranking Points for Opens.
On the A.E. site it states "That the Guernsey Open pairs will attract only half the ranking points because of its lower prestige and smaller entry"
mmmm interesting - do all opens with 64 entrants get counted as lower entry status, so less ranking points ?

Also with all of the England Team taking part can the powers that be still justify the term "lower prestige" ?
Just asking

That can't be right, surely ?
I agree that in the context of a comparison with the World Championships (Jersey) then the W/Champs would carry double the points, but it would be unfair to count Guernsey as anything less than a 'normal' Open.

But then again no Opens on the mainland run a separate Open Pairs - apart from the AEBBA-run Bournemouth weekend of course.

[Sir Chancelot]

Thanks for your input Clive.
Anyone who attended the most recent Guernsey Open would testify that the quality of entrants and standard of play throughout was very high and I find it rather insulting that this Open should be demised and ridiculed in a set of rules by being termed 'lower prestige'.
The Guernsey Open is now in it's seventh year and although it may have begun from small but well organised beginnings, I think we can honestly claim the winners have just as much prestige as the winners of any other Opens.
Unfortunately time and work commitments exclude me from putting forward any proposals at the next A.G.M. that would correct this anomaly.
Therefore looking at some sort of a lead from an England International player to put the Guernsey Open Pairs on an equal footing with all the other Open competitions.

[BB Warrior]

May 11, 2014 18:07:40 GMT Sir Chancelot said:

Thanks for your input Clive.
Anyone who attended the most recent Guernsey Open would testify that the quality of entrants and standard of play throughout was very high and I find it rather insulting that this Open should be demised and ridiculed in a set of rules by being termed 'lower prestige'.
The Guernsey Open is now in it's seventh year and although it may have begun from small but well organised beginnings, I think we can honestly claim the winners have just as much prestige as the winners of any other Opens.
Unfortunately time and work commitments exclude me from putting forward any proposals at the next A.G.M. that would correct this anomaly.
Therefore looking at some sort of a lead from an England International player to put the Guernsey Open Pairs on an equal footing with all the other Open competitions.

Hi Norman,

As a member of the Ranking Point Committee, my understanding of the reason that the Guernsey Pairs only attracts half of the points that either Jersey or Bournemouth is for the simple reason as shown in Rule 8 of the 2011 Ranking Point System:-

AEBBA Ranking System 2011

8) Pairs (both Bournemouth and Jersey) points given to quarter finals onwards in order 7,5,3,1. Win bonus to apply but reduced to 0.25. New Guernsey Pairs receive half points as the entry is less than half of Jersey and Bournemouth

To me, since there are only half (or less) the number of entries it seems only reasonable that only half the number of Ranking Points are given for the Guernsey Pairs?

I can assure you that it is certainly not the intention of anybody on the Ranking Committee to ridicule the Guernsey Pairs and I am sure that if the level of entries was similar to those of Jersey or Bournemouth that the same level of ranking points would be awarded in all of the competitions.

[BB Warrior]

May 11, 2014 17:42:01 GMT tommo III said:

That can't be right, surely ?
I agree that in the context of a comparison with the World Championships (Jersey) then the W/Champs would carry double the points, but it would be unfair to count Guernsey as anything less than a 'normal' Open.

I think that some confusion exists here.... the Guernsey Open (singles) gets full ranking points, the same as every other County Open and also Grand Prix Points.

It is only the Guernsey Pairs that has reduced Ranking Points as the number of entries for the competition is only half (or less) than either Jersey or Bournemouth Pairs.

[Sir Chancelot]

[/quote]Hi Norman,

As a member of the Ranking Point Committee, my understanding of the reason that the Guernsey Pairs only attracts half of the points that either Jersey or Bournemouth is for the simple reason as shown in Rule 8 of the 2011 Ranking Point System:-

AEBBA Ranking System 2011

8) Pairs (both Bournemouth and Jersey) points given to quarter finals onwards in order 7,5,3,1. Win bonus to apply but reduced to 0.25. New Guernsey Pairs receive half points as the entry is less than half of Jersey and Bournemouth

To me, since there are only half (or less) the number of entries it seems only reasonable that only half the number of Ranking Points are given for the Guernsey Pairs?
[/quote]

This is a very dated rule in IMHO

I think the situation/rule deserve re examination.

The Guernsey league is a lot smaller and why apply a different set of ranking points to a smaller competition ?
Why punish/discriminate against the Minnows ?
Equality to all players should be the rule no matter what the numbers entering add up to.
The quality of entrants is the same as the Bournemouth Pairs and a lot of the Channel Island pairings are unable to travel to the UK Opens because of costs and work commitments.
The standard of play needed to win through such a competition surely merits a re consideration of this biased rule.

May 11, 2014 22:22:23 GMT BB Warrior said:

I think that some confusion exists here.... the Guernsey Open (singles) gets full ranking points, the same as every other County Open and also Grand Prix Points.
It is only the Guernsey Pairs that has reduced Ranking Points as the number of entries for the competition is only half (or less) than either Jersey or Bournemouth Pairs.

That is what I thought.

And to answer Norman's reaction to this comment, at the time the ruling was made Guernsey Pairs was still in relative infancy compared to Jersey and Bournemouth, and as Warrior said had only half the entries.

This year however it seemed to have renewed interest and was very competitive.

As the competition gains in kudos one might hope that the Ranking Committee might be prompted to raise its points allocation accordingly.

[Sir Chancelot]

Also to add input to the debate, please consider that the competition is not held on some remote Island in the Outer Hebrides.
Guernsey is easily accessible by boat or plane and some of the recent pairings in the Guernsey Open by the higher ranked players ie this years' 'Dave Ingram and Ian Lelliot' would suggest that a high proportion of players take this competition seriously.
I believe that if The Ranking Point Committee are going to reduce the amount of ranking points for Opens based on numbers of players/pairs entered, they have to do this fairly and in proportion, the rule individually applied on total numbers entered after each Open.
In the grand scheme of Bar Billiards kudos, is it really going to cause uproar if the Ranking Committee re-visit the Guernsey Pairs ranking points allocation, to put it on the same setting as the Bournemouth Pairs ?

[Chris_Sav]

Debate started under Guernsey Winter League, moved here

[barbelman]

Personally I have never understood why the Jersey Open should attract more ranking points than other Opens and similarly I cannot understand why this ruling seems to single out Guernsey but it's easily remedied at the next AGM.  I am sure it was brought in for the first year of Guernsey to see how it went and was never altered.  Decisions are made by committee - that's what they are there for - and things don't unless someone proposes the change......

If you extrapolate this ruling to other Opens then should there be less points for (say) Berkshire Open at 58 entries compared to (say) Sussex with 110 entries?  It's a bit of a minefield when you treat some Opens differently to others.

I agree with Norm that the effort Guernsey put into their competitions should be recognised but he shouldn't take it as an insult - it's simply an historic ruling that hasn't been changed (but could be in future)

Tony

[BB Warrior]

The Ranking Committee discuss the Ranking Points every year and make amendments and additions to keep the system up to date and as fair as possible for all competitions. New Competitions are added and any suggestions for alterations are discussed and majority decision is reached between the 5 people on the Committee.

The subject of Ranking Points for the Guernsey Pairs was actually discussed as recently as January 2014 and, at that time, the decision was that the existing system should carry on due the lower number of entries, however I have forwarded this discussion to the other members of the Ranking Committee and await their replies as to whether this should be reconsidered in view of the points made here.

With regards to the point made by Barbelman about more Ranking Points being allocated in larger Opens, this does actually happen already with players receiving additional Points for winning matches played before the Last 64 as clearly more games have to be won to win the larger competitions.

Is it unfair that a large competition is worth more Ranking Points when it has more entries and therefore requires a player to win more matches to win the competition than a smaller one?

[barbelman]

May 12, 2014 9:13:41 GMT BB Warrior said:

The Ranking Committee discuss the Ranking Points every year and make amendments and additions to keep the system up to date and as fair as possible for all competitions. New Competitions are added and any suggestions for alterations are discussed and majority decision is reached between the 5 people on the Committee.

The subject of Ranking Points for the Guernsey Pairs was actually discussed as recently as January 2014 and, at that time, the decision was that the existing system should carry on due the lower number of entries, however I have forwarded this discussion to the other members of the Ranking Committee and await their replies as to whether this should be reconsidered in view of the points made here.

With regards to the point made by Barbelman about more Ranking Points being allocated in larger Opens, this does actually happen already with players receiving additional Points for winning matches played before the Last 64 as clearly more games have to be won to win the larger competitions.

Is it unfair that a large competition is worth more Ranking Points when it has more entries and therefore requires a player to win more matches to win the competition than a smaller one?

Yes!! 

Seriously, if the ethos in that penultimate statement is true then why discriminate against the GSY pairs as your committee's reasoning should compensate for the low entry?

Tony

[Sir Chancelot]

In reply to Tony and thank you for your support, I think at least the wording 'Lower Prestige' when referring to the Guernsey Open on the A.E.B.B.A. website should be immediately removed, with or without a meeting taking place

[BB Warrior]

May 12, 2014 9:53:49 GMT Sir Chancelot said:

In reply to Tony and thank you for your support, I think at least the wording 'Lower Prestige' when referring to the Guernsey Open on the A.E.B.B.A. website should be immediately removed, with or without a meeting taking place

I agree entirely with this comment, the Guernsey Pairs is not "Lower Prestige" due to either the quality of the entries or the competition itself, it simply has "Lower Entries" and the wording on the AEBBA Website should be amended accordingly.

[Sir Chancelot]

May 12, 2014 10:01:21 GMT BB Warrior said:

May 12, 2014 9:53:49 GMT Sir Chancelot said:

In reply to Tony and thank you for your support, I think at least the wording 'Lower Prestige' when referring to the Guernsey Open on the A.E.B.B.A. website should be immediately removed, with or without a meeting taking place

I agree entirely with this comment, the Guernsey Pairs is not "Lower Prestige" due to either the quality of the entries or the competition itself, it simply has "Lower Entries" and the wording on the AEBBA Website should be amended accordingly.

So why was this not picked up, amended or discussed at the most recent meeting of The Ranking Points Committee ?
May I ask for future reference who the other 4 members are ?
It would be interesting to know if they all have entered and attended a Guernsey Open.

[BB Warrior]

May 12, 2014 9:29:05 GMT barbelman said:

May 12, 2014 9:13:41 GMT BB Warrior said:

With regards to the point made by Barbelman about more Ranking Points being allocated in larger Opens, this does actually happen already with players receiving additional Points for winning matches played before the Last 64 as clearly more games have to be won to win the larger competitions.

Is it unfair that a large competition is worth more Ranking Points when it has more entries and therefore requires a player to win more matches to win the competition than a smaller one?

Yes!! 

Seriously, if the ethos in that penultimate statement is true then why discriminate against the GSY pairs as your committee's reasoning should compensate for the low entry?

Okay, an interesting point made and something that perhaps should be discussed.

At present, my view is that the Ranking System is effectively based around a competition with 64 entries and the Points awarded are consistent based on that across all of the Tournaments that are included.

If there are more than 64 entries, then players that win games in rounds before the last 64 gain additional points for having played and won more games.... to me, that seems reasonable.

I believe (without checking) that current system has a reduction to 75% of RP's if there are less than 50 entries and a reduction to 50% if there are less than 35 entries, that applies to ALL competitions, not just the Guernsey Pairs.

To win the Jersey Pairs you have to win 6 matches, Bournemouth you have to win either 5 or 6 (depending on number of entries) and the semi-finals and final of Bournemouth are over 4 legs rather than 2 legs. At Guernsey this year, I think that there were 26 pairs and the winners won 4 matches to claim the title.

Using your argument, the winners of Jersey and Bournemouth should receive MORE Ranking Points than the winners of Guernsey.... which they currently do so where is the problem?

I think that perhaps the wording (lower prestige) on the AEBBA Website is probably what has caused the subject to be raised more than the actual number of Ranking Points that have been awarded and I agree that this should be changed.

However, unless we are looking to change the entire Ranking Point system and base it on a 32 entry competition and (presumably) then increase the number of points for larger competitions, I am not personally sure what else we can do? And if we did that, then the entire Ranking System for the last 3 years would also have to changed as it would devalue the points previously awarded.

[BB Warrior]

May 12, 2014 10:10:45 GMT Sir Chancelot said:

So why was this not picked up, amended or discussed at the most recent meeting of The Ranking Points Committee ?
May I ask for future reference who the other 4 members are ?
It would be interesting to know if they all have entered and attended a Guernsey Open.

Perhaps we were looking more at the NUMBERS rather than the wording when it was discussed?

I agree entirely that the wording needs to be changed and I am confident that this will happen at the next update, although I do not expect the number of points to be changed as this was discussed very recently and was agreed unanimously at that time.

There are two former Guernsey Open Champions (Nigel Senior and Mark Trafford) on the Ranking Committee as well as Lorin Clough, Mal Spier and myself.

[NigelS]

I think it is worth clarifying a couple of thing here as there does appear to be a little confusion.

Firstly the Guernsey Open is treated the same as all the other opens apart from Jersey. We put a rule in about competition numbers as it was felt there had to be a certain number of entries in any open (not just Guernsey) for full points to be awarded. So if any open falls below 50 players, 75% of normal points would be awarded. I think that fairly logical. It is obviously hoped that this would never have to be enforced, but you try to consider all eventualities. For example if only 30 players turned up to an open is it really right to award it full ranking status?

With regards to barbelmans point re Jersey and whether it should be worth more points than other opens, I guess thats a matter of opinion. Again we voted on that as a commitee and felt as the World Champs it should be worth more. Some have argued it shouldnt be in the rankings at all because it is played under different rules, some argue it is just another open so should be treated no different. However I would be surprised if a majority of players don't consider it to be the biggest tournamnet, and that seems to follow as it has the most entries despite it being one of the furthest away.

Moving onto the pairs. The "lower prestige" part in the ranking explanation is down to my wording - but I think it has been taken slightly the wrong way and I am not sure it is as controversial as it is being made out (and it wasnt meant to be). There are 3 pairs tournaments in the ranking system - one the world champs, another the british pairs and then the guernsey pairs. I think it fair to say that the first two are of "higher prestige" than guernsey pairs. One because of the "world" title in the jersey event and two because the "national" title in the bournemouth event. I think the guernsey pairs shouldn't be worth as much in ranking terms as the other two but it should be in the system, and I would think it likely if any other opens introduced a pairs event it too would be worth half points as the Guernsey pairs. I think the numbers reflect this and Guernsey hasnt hit the 45 pairs to get the full points anyway which the other two events comfortably do. This isn't to run Guernsey down, and I hope it is not taken that way. I have attended every Guernsey Open, and am a previous winner of the singles and the pairs and it is one of my favourite weekends. But I am comfortable we have as a ranking commitee made the correct decision on its ranking status.

Fair points made by Nigel. And earlier by Dave.

As one of the original ranking officers, though, may I suggest the Guernsey Pairs becomes 75% rather than 50% ranking points next time around ? And any other new one happening to be starting up (we know of none at present !) comes in at 50%.
Also to remove the (could be seen as) defamatory "lower prestige" comment.

Thks,
tommo

[BB Warrior]

May 12, 2014 18:05:26 GMT tommo III said:

As one of the original ranking officers, though, may I suggest the Guernsey Pairs becomes 75% rather than 50% ranking points next time around ? And any other new one happening to be starting up (we know of none at present !) comes in at 50%.

Why make an exception for one competition?

Surely all that will achieve is de-value all of the other Tournaments held throughout the year (effectively by 50%) and will also mean that the players that have previously entered the Guernsey Pairs will be penalised by receiving less Ranking Points for their efforts than people that take part in future.

The Ranking Point System that we have at present is not perfect (no system ever is) and will always be a subject for discussion and debate, but it does provide a consistant record from one year to the next for all of the National Tournaments.

If we want the Guernsey Pairs to be worth more points then the simple answer to that is already in the hands of both the players and organisers - more entries please!

[Sir Chancelot]

May 13, 2014 11:39:19 GMT BB Warrior said:

May 12, 2014 18:05:26 GMT tommo III said:

As one of the original ranking officers, though, may I suggest the Guernsey Pairs becomes 75% rather than 50% ranking points next time around ? And any other new one happening to be starting up (we know of none at present !) comes in at 50%.

Why make an exception for one competition?

Surely all that will achieve is de-value all of the other Tournaments held throughout the year (effectively by 50%) and will also mean that the players that have previously entered the Guernsey Pairs will be penalised by receiving less Ranking Points for their efforts than people that take part in future.

If we want the Guernsey Pairs to be worth more points then the simple answer to that is already in the hands of both the players and organisers - more entries please!

Mr Ingram - when/which year did the Jersey 'World Championship' become double ranking points ?
If this was changed AFTER the ranking points system was introduced, you argument about players previously entering getting less points is not valid.
You cannot say that because a rule is wrong you must never change it.

If you look at the typical range of pairs entries for Bournemouth and Jersey, there are what can be termed as 'fun' entries where pairings are often there to make up the numbers and have not chance of progressing into the next round. This fact has to be taken into the equation when a number count is brought into the debate.
It would be good to think that we could increase the numbers entering for the Guernsey pairs.
But highly unlikely in the current economic climate.

Listen carefully - I will say this only once !
No matter how many runners in a race, the winner or winners deserve equal reward, no matter where the race is held.
All Opens are entered by the top ranked players and I still believe that to discriminate against a smaller Open by awarding less ranking points is morally wrong, although Nigel's explanation was honest and very detailed.
PS No Tongues.

[Sir Chancelot]

And further to above you 'ARE making an exception to one competition' !
By reducing the ranking points for the Guernsey Open Pairs

[BB Warrior]

May 13, 2014 12:35:53 GMT Sir Chancelot said:

And further to above you 'ARE making an exception to one competition' !
By reducing the ranking points for the Guernsey Open Pairs

OMG Norman, you are starting to try my patience here.

Look at any sport and a person or team that wins the WORLD title or a NATIONAL title and they earn more money / prestige / Ranking Points for winning those than they do a REGIONAL competition.

Golf, Tennis, Darts, Football.... EVERY Sport is the same.

Jersey is the WORLD Pairs (and Singles) Championships.

Bournemouth is the BRITISH National Pairs Championships.

Guernsey is a REGIONAL Open competition, the same as Sussex, Surrey, Kent.... all of the Opens are treated EQUALLY.

If another county ran a Pairs competition, the same rules for Ranking Points would apply to that competition as apply to Guernsey.

If they had 26 pairs entries, then HALF Ranking Points would be applied. If they had 60 pairs, then they would get FULL Ranking Poinats, exactly the same as Guernsey would if there were 60 pairs in that competition.

I think I had better leave it at that as this discussion is not getting us anywhere.

May 13, 2014 17:14:08 GMT BB Warrior said:

Jersey is the WORLD Pairs (and Singles) Championships.
Bournemouth is the BRITISH National Pairs Championships.
Guernsey is a REGIONAL Open competition, the same as Sussex, Surrey, Kent.... all of the Opens are treated EQUALLY.

That really is the crux of the matter, when it suits England Guernsey are treated as a country - to play Internationals against - but on something like this they are reduced to mere 'county' status.

I think Warrior does have a point though about the level of entrants being a criterion. Since inauguration of the Open Pairs in 2011 when 30 entered, there has been a slight decline in each year (29 in 2012, 27 in 2013 and 26 in 2014).

A further valid point is that there is nothing at the moment to compare Guernsey Pairs with - the (Jersey) World Championships count double as they are exactly that, and Bournemouth is an AEBBA-run National competition, not one that's run by a county. (There have been some in the past, but there are none at present !)

But I would like to think that there is some scope for a re-think on the points some time in the future - as was hinted earlier. Unfortunately Jersey do not seem to support the event in the same way as Guernsey support the World Championships (Bob King apart !) and if they did that might help to raise the Guernsey enrty/profile a bit.

So whilst I can understand the reluctance to award more RPs, Guernsey should take heart in the knowledge that the standard of tables and consequently the standard of play was remarkably high, with notable achievements from the 'Home' players. And the Singles entry remains static at around the 64 mark...... Plenty of hope for the future.

Well done to the organisers, and keep up the good work, Guernsey !

[The Bridesmaid]

Hi all
I think that the way things are done are just fine by the ranking points committee, not everyone is ever going to be happy the way things are done, sorry but that's life! you are doing great jobs doing the points system and without you this issue would not even come up so people need to let you get on with it.
As regards to the Guernsey Open/Pairs I won the pairs with Paul this year and I assume we get ranking points for that but if for any reason entries do go up am I right in saying my points stay the same as that particular year there were lower entries?
Keep up the good work and we are in the process of sorting out rooms at the rocquettes for a cheaper price/better deal. I think they saw numbers were down this year at the hotel and want to change things. see you all November at the worlds in jersey.

champs

[Sir Chancelot]

May 13, 2014 17:14:08 GMT BB Warrior said:

May 13, 2014 12:35:53 GMT Sir Chancelot said:

And further to above you 'ARE making an exception to one competition' !
By reducing the ranking points for the Guernsey Open Pairs

OMG Norman, you are starting to try my patience here.

I think I had better leave it at that as this discussion is not getting us anywhere.

Everything in Dave's post understood except the term OMG
Had to look it up on Google and in the Urban Dictionary it quotes
'OMG - AKA Oh My God. Possibly the most irritating piece of chatroom venicular in existence.
Often used by teenage girls in a chatroom'.

I'm sure Dave did not intend to be irritating or was playing God when this Open Debate started

[The Bullet]

Just a quick thought on this subject before I crawl back under my rock.
Why not have all the open pairs competitions start with the normal points and then competitions such as Jersey will have enhanced points allocated such as normal open pairs points x2. This would appear to be a fairer system then having a pairs competition with normal points x50%.
In this way you will not make a pairs competition feel under valued.
Just a thought.
Good night, now back to my rock.

[Chris]

Think a rule that is set which is fair should be set. It should though not need to name any specific competition.

So e.g if below 25 entries 25% of ranking points
If below 50 entries 50% of ranking points
If below 75 entries 75% of ranking points
Not a rule just an example.

I think what Norman might mean is why highlight a competition e.g Portsmouth, Devon, Dorset yes fictitious

Just make the rule and outline the criteria.

Love BC words... now crawling under my stone !!!

Chris

[BB Warrior]

The rules (guidelines) that the Ranking Point System is worked out under are already there, these apply to ALL Tournaments not just one individual competition.

The Ranking Points for this years Guernsey Pairs have now been calculated from the scores that are on the Guernsey Website, however sadly the Ranking Points for the actual Guernsey Open can't be done yet as the scores don't seem to be available for that?

I have emailed Luke and asked if he can send these to me but have not received a response yet, perhaps one of the Guernsey members could find out when they will be available on the website and let me know and I will happily calculate the full points for the Open Competition?

[Chris]

Why can there not be just a rule rather than looking at an event ??

Happy to know if I am being thick !!!

A Rule would be better than naming an event ???