An explanation of revisions to the draw WSDC 2013 Simon Quinn

Regrettably, the draw initially released for WSDC 2013 was wrong. It omitted Team Hungary, who should have been included. I have been asked therefore to extend the Pre-Tournament Rankings and The Grid, in order to facilitate a new draw. In this document, I explain how I have made those extensions.

1. Extending the Pre-Tournament Rankings This part is straightforward. Hungary has not attended any of the past three WSDC tournaments. Every other team on the Pre-Tournament Rankings has attended at least one of those three tournaments. Hungary therefore ranks in the new position 50 on the Rankings. (By recent WSDC convention, a team having not attended in the past three years is treated as having an average of zero wins and zero judges.) For reasons relating to The Grid (discussed shortly), I have added an extra team to Group G. Therefore, we now have six teams in each of Groups A to F (36 teams), and seven teams in each of Groups G and H (an addition l4 teams).

2. Extending The Grid Well, I wouldnt start from here. So goes the apocryphal answer to the apocryphal travellers request for directions. I have been asked to extend The Grid to accommodate a 50 th team. I am not sure how I would design a 50-team Grid if I had time and the opportunity to consult widely with the WSDC community. But, in the past fortnight, I have developed and circulated a 49-team Grid which, after discussion, seemed reasonable and fair. That 49-team Grid involved extending a 48-team Grid by the addition of one team. In the circumstances, I think the best approach for me to take is to take the same method of extending The Grid from 48 to 49 teams and apply it symmetrically to add a 50th team. That is what I have done. The extension from 48 teams to 49 involved (i) adding a position H7 and (ii) assigning eight rotatable teams. These teams were teams H1 to H7, as well as team G6. To extend from 49 teams to 50, I have simply (i) added a position G7 and (ii) assigned a further eight rotatable teams. I have assigned these teams as G1 to G5, plus F5 and F6, plus G7. In each round, two of these rotatable teams has a bye. The following table shows which teams have a bye in each round. The teams in the list of first rotatable teams swap their position with team H7. The teams in the list of second rotatable teams swap their position with team G7. (Of course, H7 cannot swap with itself, nor G7 swap with itself; in those cases, those teams simply take the

bye.) Note that I have maintained the order of substitutions for first rotatable teams, so that the extension from 49 teams to 50 does not affect the structure of the extension from 48 teams to 49. Round 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 First rotatable teams H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7 G6 Second rotatable teams G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 F6 F5 G7

On its own, this structure creates an unacceptable imbalance for Team G7: G7 would, under this approach, meet two Group C opponents, two Group D opponents, and no opponents from either Group A or Group B. We can resolve this problem by swapping G5 and G7 in Round 6 (suggested by Chris Erskine), or by swapping G5 and G7 in Round 7 (suggested by Branislav Fecko. To my understanding, both of these solutions are equally acceptable, and neither is preferable from a logistical point of view. I will therefore take the first acceptable suggestion that provided by Chris. 3. Imbalances To my understanding, the following is the list of imbalances where a team meets two opponents from the same group. (Without implicating him, let me thank Derek Lande for providing some very useful Excel code to calculate and summarise these imbalances.) Team H1 meets two Group H opponents, and no opponent from Group D. Team H2 meets two Group G opponents, and no opponent from Group E. Team H3 meets two Group H opponents, and no opponent from Group F. Team H4 meets two Group H opponents, and no opponent from Group C. Team H5 meets two Group H opponents, and no opponent from Group G. Team H6 meets two Group H opponents, and no opponent from Group B. Team H7 meets two Group G opponents, and no opponent from Group A. Team G1 meets two Group G opponents, and no opponent from Group C. Team G3 meets two Group G opponents, and no opponent from Group E. Team G4 meets two Group F opponents, and no opponent from Group D. Team G5 meets two Group D opponents, and no opponent from Group A. Team G6 meets two Group H opponents, and no opponent from Group G. Team G7 meets two Group C opponents, and no opponent from Group B. Team F5 meets two Group G opponents, and no opponent from Group C. Team F6 meets two Group G opponents, and no opponent from Group F.

4. Restrictions on venue assignment Moving away from a 48-team Grid imposes some additional venue restrictions on the organisers; I noted this in the previous Grid explanation. If I have understood the new Grid correctly, this requires that: - On Day 1, these teams need to be together: H7, D5, E5, A1, H1, D4, E4, A2, H2. G7, C5, F5, B1, G1, C4, F4, B2, G2. On Day 2, these teams need to be together: H7, C5, F5, A3, H3, C1, F1, A4, H4. G7, D5, E5, B3, G3, D1, E1, B4, G4. On Day 3, these teams need to be together: H7, B2, G2, A5, H5, B4, G4, A6, H6.

This aspect may require further checking and confirmation, but I do not anticipate that it will present substantial restrictions on the tournament. 5. Thanks Many thanks to everyone in the WSDC community for their assistance in checking and refining this particularly Chris Erskine, Branislav Fecko, Beth James, Derek Lande, Aaron Maniam, Ronit Prawer and Claire Ryan.

Simon Quinn 10 January 2013