I dont post much either, but I agree with DN that this is an important point.Like DN, I dont have a big issue with the invitations, per se. I can understand if they had said there would be three - or even five - "at large" seats. This is done in golf and in tennis (in terms of invitations offered to someone who didnt otherwise qualify) and I dont think anyone would have a problem with the three top bracelet winners getting the three "byes".The problem is changing the rules after the game has started.I think your emphasis on the equity, DN, detracts from the simplest and most straigh-forward