[LionHeart1]

Hi,
our club regularly arranges tourneys with Swiss movement. I realized that since the middle of March the pairs are split into several sections. The players are unsatisfied with this solution, because the essence of the Swiss movement will be lost, namely the best pairs meet each other. And this method is wrong for the TD, too: it is more difficult to survey the status of the tourney. The only advantage is perhaps that if you are a quick player and you are not in a slow section, your timeouts are shorter. Do you think this change was a good idea?
Best regards
LionHeart1

[mgoetze]

I would wish for much more control of the tournament movements in general. BBO just automagically doing some random movement or other doesn't work well for me.

[ArtK78]

There are pros and cons of operating a tournament in sections. The pros are that the movement is much easier, and it offers more chance for players to be awarded points for high finishes in sections (in addition to overall winners). But if what you want is to have the best pairs playing against each other, as in a swiss movement, running the tournament in sections is not the way to go.

Furthermore, if ones runs a tournament in sections, the tournament should be seeded so that the top pairs are spread throughout the sections. Otherwise you may wind up with the best players being concentrated in one or two sections by random chance (or by deliberate actions of some of the players).

[LionHeart1]

ArtK78, on 2012-March-25, 09:17, said:

There are pros and cons of operating a tournament in sections. The pros are that the movement is much easier, and it offers more chance for players to be awarded points for high finishes in sections (in addition to overall winners). But if what you want is to have the best pairs playing against each other, as in a swiss movement, running the tournament in sections is not the way to go.

Furthermore, if ones runs a tournament in sections, the tournament should be seeded so that the top pairs are spread throughout the sections. Otherwise you may wind up with the best players being concentrated in one or two sections by random chance (or by deliberate actions of some of the players).

To say the truth I don't see the pros for playing in sections. If the only advantage is that there will be more place winners, split the pairs into as small sections as possible (e.g. 4 pairs in a section) and then almost every pair will be place winner. But if we call this kind of tournament Swiss, it should be Swiss. Or the tourney organizer should have the possibility to choose option if single or multiple section.

[Oof Arted]

LionHeart1, on 2012-March-28, 02:08, said:

To say the truth I don't see the pros for playing in sections. If the only advantage is that there will be more place winners, split the pairs into as small sections as possible (e.g. 4 pairs in a section) and then almost every pair will be place winner. But if we call this kind of tournament Swiss, it should be Swiss. Or the tourney organizer should have the possibility to choose option if single or multiple section.

Whatever you call this it is not Swiss

In Swiss the Top 2 Pairs play each other each round (assuming they have not played each other previously) descending in pairs until the Lowest

[Rain]

BBO tourneys have always been split into sections, no? These sections got smaller recently, but that's the only major change. (And yep the main idea is we wanted to award more points). Since there was always a section, "Swiss" has always been the same - you get matched within your section only, and will never play the people in different sections. The sections are now smaller, but unless the tourney has 12+ rounds (I think it is now 15 table sections) there is virtually no difference...except tourneys that issue points can soon start issuing more points.

The other things like not showing table number are more cosmetic and can be tweaked.

[LionHeart1]

Rain, on 2012-March-28, 08:46, said:

BBO tourneys have always been split into sections, no? These sections got smaller recently, but that's the only major change. (And yep the main idea is we wanted to award more points). Since there was always a section, "Swiss" has always been the same - you get matched within your section only, and will never play the people in different sections. The sections are now smaller, but unless the tourney has 12+ rounds (I think it is now 15 table sections) there is virtually no difference...except tourneys that issue points can soon start issuing more points.

The other things like not showing table number are more cosmetic and can be tweaked.

No, as far as I know, Swiss tourneys weren't split into sections earlier. Or we haven't yet reached the limit of one section. Our problem is, that it is more difficult to control the tourney for the TD, the different sections finish the rounds in different time and the TD cannot easily follow the end of the rounds. We usually play 16 deals in 8 rounds, up to now the TD had to watch 8 times in every 7-8 minutes, now playing in 2 or 3 sections, the TD has to watch the end of the rounds 16 or 24 times and almost continuously. And if the TD has something to do (t.ex. to adjust a board or to sub somebody), the tourney easily slips out of his hand.

[jandrew]

Quote

BBO tourneys have always been split into sections, no?

I have never come across any of the swiss tournaments that I have run being split into sections.

Indeed, that is why I change from timed, non-swiss tournaments - which were (most inconveniently) split into sections.

A swiss tournament has only one pair to win, and come second, third, etc ... ..., anything else is a nonsense.

Anyway - the swiss tournaments, which I and two colleagues run, are aggregated into a league which lasts for 3 months. How many different winners do you want or need in each of the 13 weeks? It is very much more difficult to keep the score if there are multiple sections.

It may be that our tournaments do not have enough pairs to trigger a split into sections - [what is the precise trigger point?]. But what if we get to that trigger in some weeks and not others? AAAARRRGGHGHH

Sections may be OK in some tournaments, but in swiss tournaments they really are a pain for the organisers. What is the point of multiple winners?

PLEASE don't make life so much more awkward for TDs and scorers.

jandrew

[barmar]

The old max section size was 50 tables, now it's 15.

[Rain]

Old max section size was 50, but the tourneys I've played in are usually 38-40 table sections.
The TD usually announces the top table for each section in these cases, so players get an idea when they are top, though usually a player will know just by looking at his own result whether he's top or not.
(This only applies to Swiss of course. Doesn't matter in mitchell unless there were a lot of rounds where # of rounds > tables in section, which never happened in the past, and is rare even now.)

Quote

A swiss tournament has only one pair to win, and come second, third, etc ... ..., anything else is a nonsense.

What does this mean Jandrew? Don't you have an overall leaderboard with the result as usual? You would go by overall result, IMP or MP, no?
The change to smaller sections also meant we have adapted the ACBL style leaderboard that is so popular for everyone. Players who did well in their particular section will now see their names listed as section winners, in addition to the usual overall winners. Why is this objectionable?

The argument to try and make TD life easier I understand, and we'll think of something to help TDs for sure.

[jandrew]

Quote

Quote

Quote


A swiss tournament has only one pair to win, and come second, third, etc ... ..., anything else is a nonsense.

What does this mean Jandrew? Don't you have an overall leaderboard with the result as usual? You would go by overall result, IMP or MP, no?

If there are two sections the winner of Section 1 does not play against the winner of section 2. This seems very strange to me. What if you had a knock-out competition where the two finalists did not play against each other in the final - but where they are both declared joint winners(and the losing semi-finalists declared join 3rd)?

The usual aim of a tournament is to arrive at a winner - not to create a scheme where there are multiple winners.

Anyway, one of the objects of a swiss tourney is that the better players are thrown against each other in combat. Splitting the tournament into sections avoids that objective.

In the swiss tournaments that I referred to in my post, the winner is given the highest score, the second is given the next highest score ... ... right down to the last placed who is given a score of 1. If there are multiple sections, there are multiple winners unless (as scorer) I search through all sections looking for the next higher IMP score to assemble an overall list of the placing of all entries. This is what I currently get - why make that difficult by creating sections? I shall need to "de-sectionalise" the result lists to create an overall list.

The current listing of the best 10 pairs leaves me still to sort out the remaining places and scores - and a rather worrying feeling that about half of the top ten have not played even one hand against the other half- who, really, was the best pair?

And where is the advantage in creating more sections. I can understand that in primary school every pupil must be a winner with none dissapointed. But we are adults, we can understand failure, we understand the concept of a single winner. Why do we need to obscure the facts of life?

As TD, I remind tables that they are running out of time and when to hurry. Where a tournament is split into sections I can no longer broadcast such messages - they are not relevant to at least half the tables playing.

jandrew

[jandrew]

barmar, on 2012-March-29, 10:29, said:

The old max section size was 50 tables, now it's 15.

I'm puzzled.

Am I getting het-up about something which did not happen, or which has been changed back?

I have checked a random sample of swiss tournaments played in the last 24 hours and NONE of that sample which had fewer than 50 tables had been split into sections.

It looks as if I shall sleep easy tonight

(Or is this a new "feature" for tournaments set up using the new browser software only?)

jandrew

[LionHeart1]

jandrew, on 2012-March-29, 12:47, said:

In the swiss tournaments that I referred to in my post, the winner is given the highest score, the second is given the next highest score ... ... right down to the last placed who is given a score of 1. If there are multiple sections, there are multiple winners unless (as scorer) I search through all sections looking for the next higher IMP score to assemble an overall list of the placing of all entries. This is what I currently get - why make that difficult by creating sections? I shall need to "de-sectionalise" the result lists to create an overall list.

A good idea, I make the same: copy the whole result with copy/paste into an Excel-sheet, delete the unnecessary rows (the headings) and sort the sheet by points (or by percentage) descending.

[jandrew]

LionHeart1, on 2012-March-30, 04:58, said:

A good idea, I make the same: copy the whole result with copy/paste into an Excel-sheet, delete the unnecessary rows (the headings) and sort the sheet by points (or by percentage) descending.

Yes - then merge that Excel-sheet into the one which has the previous 8 weeks to get the 'quarter so far'. BUT, why add this extra level of complication and opportunity for error?

In any event, I am still worried that we are not getting the correct winners. The top three pairs in section 1 (with lots of IMPS) might be quite ordinary players getting good results against inferior opposition in that section, whereas the winners of section 2 (with lower IMP scores) has been truely the better players battling against a much stronger field in their section.

jandrew

[eleanorsf]

Please put high priority on the "cosmetic" change to show the real table number, as well as the section and table number. When TDs tell Table 31 to hurry up, we the players have no idea who s/he is talking to since it no longer shows the real table number.

Thanks.

[eleanorsf]

Thank you!!! The new page heading is extremely informative, great job.

[jandrew]

Quote

Quote

Posted 2012-March-29, 21:49


barmar, on 2012-March-29, 17:29, said:


The old max section size was 50 tables, now it's 15.

I'm puzzled.

Am I getting het-up about something which did not happen, or which has been changed back?

I have checked a random sample of swiss tournaments played in the last 24 hours and NONE of that sample which had fewer than 50 tables had been split into sections.

It looks as if I shall sleep easy tonight

(Or is this a new "feature" for tournaments set up using the new browser software only?)

jandrew

AAARgh. I spoke too early.

Today our Tourney had 18 tables and was split into two sections of 9 tables.

What's the point?

Being the first out of nine is not as gratifying as being top of 18. And, I wonder whether the winners of section 1 (who came only third on a comparison of IMPs) think that they might have been overall winners if their section had had a different mix of players.

It is not for me to say that BBO have got it wrong here - they have there own priorities. But I can't see the reason for this change to Sections in tournaments with less than 50 tables.

It seems to me that it is going to be more difficult for the TD (usually only one TD in these small tourneys), and it leaves everybody in some doubt about who actually won.

This is, after all, a swiss tourney where the good pairs are pitted against the other good pairs. That might work in large sections, but does not work for sections of only 8 tables.

It seems to me that the limit of 50 tables was OK. It might be acceptable down to say 30 tables. Below that, it seems to me to be a mockery of the whole concept of having a tourney.

I wonder whether BBO can be persuaded to look at this again?

jandrew

[shintaro]

Oof Arted, on 2012-March-28, 07:59, said:

Whatever you call this it is not Swiss

In Swiss the Top 2 Pairs play each other each round (assuming they have not played each other previously) descending in pairs until the Lowest

As Oof states splitting 18 tables into 2 sections just is not Swiss pairs

The 2 highest should always play each other (Except when they have played them on a previous round)

Splitting into sections makes the term Swiss Pairs a total misnomer

Please Please Prgrammers Re - Think

[jandrew]

Looking again at this tournament (I ended up playing in Section 1 and not doing very well) I see why - with only 9 tables in the Section :

• I played against the first opps - once only;
  
• I played against the second opps - twice;
  
• I played the third pair of opps - no less than three times

That is only 3 different pairs in a tourney of 6 rounds and 12 hands.

Is this an example of "unintended consequences"?
It is certainly no longer a tournament

jandrew

[Shimnadale]

I don't enjoy playing in tournaments with sections as during it you've no idea how you're doing (for better or worse) and that's part of the challenge and fun of it all. With Swiss Movement you know how you are doing verses everyone else by your table position and that kept your interest level up. Splitting Swiss Movement into sections just confuses everyone, well inexperienced bridge players like me anyhow. You don't really feel you've won anything worth while if you do win because you are not pitted against everyone else and you've really no idea how you did really because you don't know how good your section was. The outcome, therefore, becomes shrouded in some vague mist and it all becomes rather irrelevant and pointless. What a pity if the Acol Tournaments become like the host of others on BBO where this happens. Please please can someone reconsider the recent changes made to the software and allow people the choice of whether or not they wish to play in tournaments that divide players into sections.