English Chess Forum

Finalised draw with nominations confirmed:

Open
Q1: Staffordshire v Kent
Q2: Lancashire v Surrey

S1: Yorkshire v Q1 winner
S2: Middlesex v Q2 winner

Minor
P1: Hampshire v Greater Manchester

Q1: Cambridgeshire v Essex
Q2: Somerset v Suffolk
Q3: Sussex v Leicestershire
Q4: Nottinghamshire v P winner

S1: Q1 winner v Q2 winner
S2: Q3 winner v Q4 winner

U180
Q1: Warwickshire v no nomination
Q2: Yorkshire v Essex
Q3: Surrey v Lancashire

S1: Devon v Q1 winner
S2: Q2 winner v Q3 winner

U160
P1: Cambridgeshire v Kent

Q1: Hertfordshire v Greater Manchester
Q2: Middlesex v Lancashire
Q3: Yorkshire v Essex
Q4: Leicestershire v P1 winner

S1: Q1 winner v Q2 winner
S2: Q3 winner v Q4 winner

U140
Q1: Lancashire v Middlesex
Q2: Kent v Staffordshire
Q3: Nottinghamshire v Hertfordshire

S1: Hampshire v Q1 winner
S2: Q2 winner v Q3 winner

U120
Q1: Hertfordshire v Warwickshire
Q2: Staffordshire v Essex
Q3: Lancashire v Nottinghamshire

S1: Norfolk v Q1 winner
S2: Q2 winner v Q3 winner

U100
Q1: Kent v Nottinghamshire
Q2: Norfolk v Surrey

S1: Lancashire v Q1 winner
S2: Warwickshire v Q2 winner

The default dates are: April 26, May 17, June 14, and the Final will be played on July 12

Puzzling that the Open could only muster 6 entries. Any reason for that?

Ihor Lewyk wrote:Puzzling that the Open could only muster 6 entries. Any reason for that?

Because most of the rest have given up the futile competition with the big 2 northern counties and the big southern counties

Ihor Lewyk wrote:Puzzling that the Open could only muster 6 entries. Any reason for that?

WECU and EACU didn't submit any entries and MCCU only submitted one. If as a county, you don't enter an Open, it's because you don't think the prospective team is strong enough and a grade limited alternative is a more attractive proposition. The prospect of ECF fines for provisionally entering and then withdrawing may have come into it, if not for the Open, then the grade restricted events.

A bit sad that Somerset don't enter the Open, considering how close they came to the final a couple of years ago, but then maybe that team was just unusually and unrepeatedly strong.

Richard Bates wrote:A bit sad that Somerset don't enter the Open, considering how close they came to the final a couple of years ago, but then maybe that team was just unusually and unrepeatedly strong.

Pretty much: we've lost Turner (won't join the ECF) and Sherwin (retired from competitive play) since then, which took us from having a team that could compete with Yorkshire and Middlesex to one that got trounced by Lancashire. You might see us back in the Open if some rich benefactor gives us enough money to field Adams .

I played Sherwin in a competition last week!

Ah, that's encouraging. Maybe we can get him out for the national stages then.

I was going to draw attention to the pairings but Mick anticipated me. County captains and Union representatives were notified by email earlier in the week. I'd like to thank all concerned for their patience while I learnt the ropes.

Andrew Zigmond wrote:I was going to draw attention to the pairings but Mick anticipated me. County captains and Union representatives were notified by email earlier in the week. I'd like to thank all concerned for their patience while I learnt the ropes.

You may wish to learn the ropes but beware of (k)Notts.

May I venture to make a couple of suggestions which, indeed, you may be actioning?

Firstly can a list of "cleared" players under C1.2(b) be shown on the ECF website please?

Secondly once arrangements have been agreed between the two captains on date/venue can they be shown on the website as well? In my case I have to await a preliminary match in the Minor Counties event to ascertain my quarter-final opponent which gives a mere three weeks to sort out and agree a venue with whichever team wins. It could be that another team is already playing at an intermediate venue which we could share.

We're playing Suffolk on the Sunday in Milton Keynes; a share might be plausible if Hampshire wins the preliminary.

G Man v Hants has now been arranged for Leamington in the Minor preliminary

Mick Norris wrote:Finalised draw with nominations confirmed:

Minor
P1: Hampshire v Greater Manchester

Q1: Cambridgeshire v Essex
Q2: Somerset v Suffolk
Q3: Sussex v Leicestershire
Q4: Nottinghamshire v P winner

S1: Q1 winner v Q2 winner
S2: Q3 winner v Q4 winner

Can someone please explain why MCCU 1 (Notts) are in the same half of the draw as MCCU 2 (Leics)?
Can whoever is responsible for this error please ensure this doesn't happen in future?

Dragoljub Sudar wrote:Can someone please explain why MCCU 1 (Notts) are in the same half of the draw as MCCU 2 (Leics)?

Because there's no rule saying they should be kept apart in the Semi Finals. This is consistent with what we said when we had this argument the first time, about two months ago.

Dragoljub Sudar wrote:

Mick Norris wrote:Finalised draw with nominations confirmed:

Minor
P1: Hampshire v Greater Manchester

Q1: Cambridgeshire v Essex
Q2: Somerset v Suffolk
Q3: Sussex v Leicestershire
Q4: Nottinghamshire v P winner

S1: Q1 winner v Q2 winner
S2: Q3 winner v Q4 winner

Can someone please explain why MCCU 1 (Notts) are in the same half of the draw as MCCU 2 (Leics)?
Can whoever is responsible for this error please ensure this doesn't happen in future?

You forgot to mention that MCCU3 (Manchester) are also in the same half of the draw! I have discussed this at some length on this forum and the Director has dismissed this. The rules provide that Union first and second representatives can't meet in the quarter-finals but that rule does not extend to the semi-finals. It was convention over a long period of time that the draw was made to avoid Union first and second reps meeting unless both reached the final. In Nottinghamshire's case should our teams progress to the semi-finals they will find that three out of the four teams could be meeting MCCU opponents. I note that the Director has now, with his customary zeal, replied to this.

I can only echo the excellent post of Sean Hewitt in the previous thread

"The draw may well be legal (I've not checked, but I have no reason to doubt it) but that does not mean that it is sensible or satisfactory. In my opinion, it is neither. I seem to recall that this issue has been raised before (before Alex's time) and the response was that teams from the same union were 'kept apart where possible'. I think it is the change to this custom and practice which is being objected to."