2026 Regulation Changes- 3BLD rounds changing to bo5, Dual Rounds

[bldcuber314]

It was announced on WCA forums that these changes will likely go through next year!

Dual Rounds-

This basically means that the current regulation which states that at least 25% of competitors must be eliminated each round may be removed. This would allow organisers to have rounds with 100% progression, providing more competing opportunities.

3BLD bo5-

This would change the 3BLD format to bo5, with no cutoffs. Mo3 would be replaced with ao5, but previous mo3 records, etc. would still stand until they are broken by ao5 records. This would be great as it introduces more opportunity for people to compete in 3BLD(bo3 doesn't make much sense for the length of the event), and cumulative time limits could be enforced the same way. In my opinion this would be a great change, but there is the issue that currently mo3 records may be carried by a single, and since the fastest single doesn't count in an ao5, records may be harder to beat.

There are a lot more changes, link to the WCA forum- https://forum.worldcubeassociation.org/t/january-2026-regulations-request-for-feedback/65326

 

[Caleb Valenzuela]

Dual rounds might mean that there will be 2 3x3 round 1s???

It was announced on WCA forums that these changes will likely go through next year!

Dual Rounds-

This basically means that the current regulation which states that at least 25% of competitors must be eliminated each round may be removed. This would allow organisers to have rounds with 100% progression, providing more competing opportunities.

3BLD bo5-

This would change the 3BLD format to bo5, with no cutoffs. Mo3 would be replaced with ao5, but previous mo3 records, etc. would still stand until they are broken by ao5 records. This would be great as it introduces more opportunity for people to compete in 3BLD(bo3 doesn't make much sense for the length of the event), and cumulative time limits could be enforced the same way. In my opinion this would be a great change, but there is the issue that currently mo3 records may be carried by a single, and since the fastest single doesn't count in an ao5, records may be harder to beat.

There are a lot more changes, link to the WCA forum- https://forum.worldcubeassociation.org/t/january-2026-regulations-request-for-feedback/65326

 

[eeeeeeeee]

YAY

 

[abunickabhi]

Finally, a good change for the blindsolving community to get more solves per comp.

I love that this is finally happening.

3blind was not fun to compete at all, as the round finished quickly and many organizers just have one round.

So I had to travel hundreds of kilometres for just 2 min of effort (3 solves), and there would be a few DNFs in those attempts.

Making it best of 5 is a step in good direction. The concern that beginners would take more time, can be addressed by having a cutoff of say 1 minute.

Also best of 5 is a good metric to find out the winner as 3blind is very much scramble dependent, and unfortunate cases where a deserving competitor DNFs an easy scramble would be less likely.

This idea existed for years, along with a median of 5, which I feel is a better metric.

 

[Fred]

So if an organizer chose to do a dual round of 3BLD, I could decuple DNF! Over three times as many chances to get a blind success would be amazing.

They also hinted they might add something about misscrambles later. There's nothing about 4-pad mode, but they're opening the door to using other timer brands (which do not have a 4-pad mode) in the future.

 

[BVCuber13]

Finally, a good change for the blindsolving community to get more solves per comp.

I love that this is finally happening.

3blind was not fun to compete at all, as the round finished quickly and many organizers just have one round.

So I had to travel hundreds of kilometres for just 2 min of effort (3 solves), and there would be a few DNFs in those attempts.

Making it best of 5 is a step in good direction. The concern that beginners would take more time, can be addressed by having a cutoff of say 1 minute.

Also best of 5 is a good metric to find out the winner as 3blind is very much scramble dependent, and unfortunate cases where a deserving competitor DNFs an easy scramble would be less likely.

This idea existed for years, along with a median of 5, which I feel is a better metric.

Cutoffs for 3BLD would be incredibly harsh and unnecessary. Obviously you would have a time limit, say 10:00.00, or even a cumulative time limit, such as 30:00.00, and this would help accommodate more newer BLDsolvers. Just think of how many people would lose out on 3 solves of a bo5 format because they DNFed the first two solves, it’s just not fair.

 

[abunickabhi]

Cutoffs for 3BLD would be incredibly harsh and unnecessary. Obviously you would have a time limit, say 10:00.00, or even a cumulative time limit, such as 30:00.00, and this would help accommodate more newer BLDsolvers. Just think of how many people would lose out on 3 solves of a bo5 format because they DNFed the first two solves, it’s just not fair.

Yeah I agree cumulative is better than cutoffs, from a beginner's perspective.

It would be a lot of calculations for the judge to see after each solve, how much remaining time the competitor has to complete the remaining solves.

 

[eeeeeeeee]

imo they should do bmo4

 

[xyzzy]

Also best of 5 is a good metric to find out the winner as 3blind is very much scramble dependent, and unfortunate cases where a deserving competitor DNFs an easy scramble would be less likely.

If you get an easy scramble and DNF it because you'd decided to take a risk, that's entirely on you. It's not any less deserving for a "less skilled" competitor to win because they played it safe (an entirely valid strategy if you see that your opponents aren't going to!) and others didn't.

This also applies to other high-DNF-rate events like clock and FMC.

---
(this part is not a reply to abunickabhi's post)

I am in general against any change that promotes further risk-taking, which includes both of the proposed changes here. People are already treating competitions as opportunities to farm records (including both regional records and personal records), which benefits people willing/capable to go to many comps more than it benefits people who are "more skilled". Dual rounds would significantly exacerbate this, in addition to directly going against one of the major reasons for progressively shrinking round sizes: trying to reduce the number of scramble groups needed per round, in the spirit of reducing variance and increasing fairness intra-round.

Switching 3BLD to a bo5/ao5 format also has the record-farming problem, although by itself it doesn't seem like as major of a change, and it's offset by ao5 records being harder to beat than mo3. Combining this with dual rounds just seems insane to me, though, because it functionally makes it a bo10 round. Should we really reward pushing risk-taking to a 10%-success-rate level?

(disclosure: I have not read the WCA announcement yet; maybe the details there will make me change my mind, but I doubt it)

 

[Cubist-Guitar]

I don’t like the proposals all that much. I hate the idea of changing formats for events, because I hate the idea of permanent record holders, unbreakable records, or records being completely broken in the first several weeks. It seems unfair to spend years training for a difficult and accuracy-based format that is familiar and (shall I say) easy to work with, just for a different method to throw away that away just to be easier and more confusing.

I’m a bit more optimistic about dual rounds, but I think that this also has the problem xyzzy mentioned of record farming. I think I only be OK with this if there was a case-by-case official committee for approval of comps with dual rounds. For example, Pretzel Mania is a style of comp that I am familiar with that is advertised as beginner friendly, and I would approve dual rounds for this, especially since cubers who average over 45 seconds have a tough time getting official averages that make “cutoff”. This is a good thing for the cubing community, as it allows more cubers to compete in more rounds regardless of comparative speed. However, personal record/state/national record grinding would become commonplace if this was just something that could always happen at a delegates will. If a delegate/organizer is exceedingly good at an event, they could choose to add rounds under the guise of “more rounds for all”

 

[NebraskanSpeedsolver]

I personally don't know much about blind solving, so I can't comment on that aspect, however I don't really care for the idea of changing formats either.

As for the dual rounds, I feel like it's an interesting addition but I feel like it should be reserved for either newcomer comps or small locals, rather than being used in majors or even worlds. I do agree that it will help newcomers out in the sense of making sure they can get an average, but I do fear it will take a lot of extra training and time for sure.

What I noticed missing from the regs - ANY MENTION OF FTO

 

[SkewbIsTheBestEvent]

Dual rounds might mean that there will be 2 3x3 round 1s???

Moreso than 3x3 R1 would happen but everyone could qualify for R2

I especially like this for clock since it allows faster competitors who use 7-simul to DNF without worrying of making the next round.

 

[AJT17]

Since I don't do BLD much I won't really comment on that change.

For the dual rounds I think they will be a lot more beneficial for cubers like me who live 8 hours away from almost any comp. It is a lot more of a struggle for me to get comps, and in turn get rounds, so having there be multiple rounds where I can guarantee myself at least two rounds of results it can make the comps a lot more worth it. Since almost every comp is 8+ hours away, sometimes I go to a comp and only get around 1-2 rounds for any event aside from 3x3, so having the added security of an extra round can help me to get some decent results. Since I have been trying to improve my OH times for the past 2 years I have found that 2 rounds every few months adds a lot of unneeded pressure that dual rounds could take away. In the past year leading up to World's I was trying to get as many OH rounds as possible and I was only able to get 6 rounds in 5 months, with a comp every 2 months on average. If I had an extra round for even one of those comps I could have a ton of extra pressure relieved since I could use the first 2 rounds to try to get some improved PR's without the stress of finals. Then I could dedicate my energy to trying to get a good placement in finals instead of also trying to PR because I missed it in the first round.
Though I do see xyzzy's side where people could use it to farm records, but I think the benefits to competitors who can't go to as many comps is going to be a lot greater than the advantage competitors who can go to a ton of comps will get. I also think it shouldn't really give an inherent advantage since they both get access to extra rounds so competitors who can go to more comps wouldn't get any more of an advantage than if they were to just go to a few extra comps instead. So it allows all competitors to get more chances at improving PR's per comp so they can save some money if they were to travel a far distance just for a few extra rounds.
Attached is a picture of where comps are relative to where I live, no it's not exact I didn't dox myself. Almost every single one is around 8+ hours away, the few NM comps, usually one a year, are closer but every other one is a full day's travel away. If I had the opportunity to have dual rounds at all of these comps, I feel like I would have improved my PR's a lot more proportionally to what I averaged at home, than what I currently have where with OH I am almost 1 second slower in comp, as well as multiple other events. It also would have encouraged me to practice more since I would have multiple chances to improve PR's, and enjoy comps more. Which I think would also get more newcomers to compete and continue competing because they will be able to spend more time competing and socialising with their first one, showing how good the environment is.

 

[Thomas.Caleb]

100% advancing for 3x3 is mad stupid and unreasonable

 

[eeeeeeeee]

100% advancing for 3x3 is mad stupid and unreasonable

replace "100% advancing for 3x3" with @Thomas.Caleb and you've formed your first non-nonsensical sentence

 

[OtaMota]

@porkynator lets go

 

[abunickabhi]

Change 3x3 Blindfolded Format to Best of 5 by ohexter · Pull Request #48 · thewca/wca-regulations-january-2026

Change 3x3 Blindfolded Format to Best of 5 by editing 9b3. Move 4x4 Blindfolded and 5x5 Blindfolded to 9b6 without changing their format. Combine 9b3b and 9b3b+ for both 3x3 blindfolded and 4x4 bli...

github.com

bo5 is the final verdict.

Let's see how it affects 3blind competing in 2026.

 

[That0newe1rdo]

Question :

- Will there now be a SR/NR/CR/WR for mo5 ?
- If someone DNFs 2 solves and gets 3 successes will it be a mo3 ?

(also included ao5 and taht but didnt notice it said in og post)

 

[OtaMota]

- Will there now be a SR/NR/CR/WR for mo5 ?

Ao5* will be interchangeable with the current Mo3 records. Mo3 records will stand until a fater Ao5 overtakes it.

- If someone DNFs 2 solves and gets 3 successes will it be a mo3 ?

No

 

[mdcuber9]

There’s a comp that spans Dec 31 and Jan 1 with 3BLD, https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/competitions/Chaaswurfel2025
However, it still says bo3 on the website even though the round of 3BLD is happening in 2026 there.