[wnt53]

Nothing is perfect but, if I have a tournament expecting 5-7 tables, I'd like to use a Mitchells with an arrow switch. Which is the option in the BBO tournament set-up to generate such a movement, or as close as BBO can manage that produces one list of results? I have seen the results from some tournaments set up this way, but there is no obvious setting to achieve this outcome. Your advice gratefully received.

[paulg]

 wnt53, on 2020-April-15, 13:07, said:

Nothing is perfect but, if I have a tournament expecting 5-7 tables, I'd like to use a Mitchells with an arrow switch. Which is the option in the BBO tournament set-up to generate such a movement, or as close as BBO can manage that produces one list of results? I have seen the results from some tournaments set up this way, but there is no obvious setting to achieve this outcome. Your advice gratefully received.

The only setting you can control is making the event 'barometer'. This may, or may not, achieve the result you desire.

[jandrew]

 paulg, on 2020-April-15, 13:19, said:

The only setting you can control is making the event 'barometer'. This may, or may not, achieve the result you desire.

It grieves me to take issue with Paul.
My understanding of the "BAROMETER" check is that it gives players access to their current results at the end of each round.
Where I want all pairs to be mixed into a single list (as the OP desires) I check "SWISS" which shuffles pairs around into one list (moving better-scoring pairs towards table 1).

[paulg]

 jandrew, on 2020-April-16, 03:34, said:

It grieves me to take issue with Paul.
My understanding of the "BAROMETER" check is that it gives players access to their current results at the end of each round.
Where I want all pairs to be mixed into a single list (as the OP desires) I check "SWISS" which shuffles pairs around into one list (moving better-scoring pairs towards table 1).

JK
You never need to worry about correcting me

Thanks

p

[Vampyr]

 jandrew, on 2020-April-16, 03:34, said:

It grieves me to take issue with Paul.
My understanding of the "BAROMETER" check is that it gives players access to their current results at the end of each round.
Where I want all pairs to be mixed into a single list (as the OP desires) I check "SWISS" which shuffles pairs around into one list (moving better-scoring pairs towards table 1).

The OP doesn’t want Swiss; he wants a MITCHELL with an arrow-switch. No doubt he is used to (as I am) single-winner games.

Swiss Pairs is an event comprised of matches, where matchpoints are converted to Victory Points. From your comments, it looks like BBO does not support Swiss Pairs, just some ersatz Swiss “movement”.

BBO has become successful with very little functionality. All of the new players are temporary, and not essential to BBO’s business model. So I am doubtful that much will change.

[jandrew]

 Vampyr, on 2020-April-16, 06:50, said:

The OP doesn’t want Swiss; he wants a MITCHELL with an arrow-switch. No doubt he is used to (as I am) single-winner games.

Swiss Pairs is an event comprised of matches, where matchpoints are converted to Victory Points. From your comments, it looks like BBO does not support Swiss Pairs, just some ersatz Swiss “movement”.

BBO has become successful with very little functionality. All of the new players are temporary, and not essential to BBO’s business model. So I am doubtful that much will change.

The OP wanted something "as close as BBO can manage that produces one list of results".
BBO's "SWISS" movement provides such a list.

I have been happy with BBO's functionality for 13 years and, as of this moment, 46,000+ players are also happy enough to be visiting on line.
I don't see any sign of a better choice than BBO - perhaps those who complain should fill that gap.

[Vampyr]

 jandrew, on 2020-April-16, 09:33, said:

The OP wanted something "as close as BBO can manage that produces one list of results".
BBO's "SWISS" movement provides such a list.

Well, it does, but it is an entirely different game. Also I have heard that BBO actually use Danish instead of Swiss.

Quote

I have been happy with BBO's functionality for 13 years and, as of this moment, 46,000+ players are also happy enough to be visiting on line.
I don't see any sign of a better choice than BBO - perhaps those who complain should fill that gap.

I think that “happy” is an overbid. Do you think there will be 46,000 players once bridge clubs open again? BBO is fine with respect to its apparent purpose - practising. At the moment people are using it for actual competitions, and it can be frustrating.

[biometrics]

 Vampyr, on 2020-April-16, 15:31, said:

Well, it does, but it is an entirely different game. Also I have heard that BBO actually use Danish instead of Swiss.


I think that “happy” is an overbid. Do you think there will be 46,000 players once bridge clubs open again? BBO is fine with respect to its apparent purpose - practising. At the moment people are using it for actual competitions, and it can be frustrating.

I´m using "unclocked" tournaments. There pairs play as well N-S a E-W. If the number of rounds is about the number of tables +2 (e.g. 5 Table 7 rounds) it seldom happens that pairs get the same opps. BUT: the longer the tornament the higher the Risk that pairs wait up to 10 minutes after finishing to Play against next opps.

I still hope for Howell or scrambeled Mitchell movements to be implemented.

[gordontd]

 Vampyr, on 2020-April-16, 06:50, said:

Swiss Pairs is an event comprised of matches, where matchpoints are converted to Victory Points.

No, that's just the way we run most of our Swiss Pairs in England and surrounding countries, but it can certainly be done in very different ways. Swiss only relates to assignments based on rank.

[Vampyr]

 gordontd, on 2020-April-17, 00:55, said:

No, that's just the way we run most of our Swiss Pairs in England and surrounding countries, but it can certainly be done in very different ways. Swiss only relates to assignments based on rank.

Yes, you are of course right.

Swiss Pairs is my favourite form of scoring and I look forward to playing in one again.

[wnt53]

I tried 'unclocked' and the result is interesting. Single list of results. Faster players move as soon as there is an available pair to play. Slower players can play at their own pace. No adjustments to worry about. The 'unfairness', if there is any, is that faster players play faster players. If fast=better, then slow players would win a higher % playing against weak/slow players than they would playing against fast/strong players. But then in my average room each pair only meets 1/6th of the room anyway. Playing equally well on both occasions, on a good day (for them) they meet weak players and score well; on a bad day they meet the strongest and score badly.

[SeanBothar]

 wnt53, on 2020-April-15, 13:07, said:

Nothing is perfect but, if I have a tournament expecting 5-7 tables, I'd like to use a Mitchells with an arrow switch. Which is the option in the BBO tournament set-up to generate such a movement, or as close as BBO can manage that produces one list of results? I have seen the results from some tournaments set up this way, but there is no obvious setting to achieve this outcome. Your advice gratefully received.

This topic was raised under a previous post "BBO Mitchells - switching"
In a previous post on BBO Swiss Pairs the question of switching in Mitchells was raised.
BBO Mitchells are different from ordinary Mitchells because all the same boards are played at each table for each round.
So for a 13T 13R 26B Mitchell on BBO boards 1 & 2 are played at all tables in round 1, boards 3 & 4 at all tables in round 2 and so on.
For a 13T 13R 26B Mitchell in club "live" competitions switching is normally done on rounds 12 & 13 to give a one winner result.
Many may not be aware that if the same switching was applied on R12 & R13 to a BBO 13T 13R 26B Mitchell this would have no impact at all on the balance.
To understand this consider the "travelling" scoresheets for a 13T 13R 26B Mitchell switched on rounds 12 & 13.
For the "live" club Mitchell, two EW pairs (#14-#26) are in the "NS" column and two NS pairs (#1-#13) are in the "EW" column on each traveller. This is what gives the comparison between NS pairs and EW pairs and gives a fair one winner result.
Now look at boards 23 to 26 on the BBO Mitchell if switching was applied on R12 & R13.
All the EWs (#14-#26) are in the "NS" column and all the "NS" (#1-#13) are in the "EW" column so there is no comparison at all between the NS pairs and the EW pairs. That is why switching on R12 & R13 has no impact at all on the balance with BBO Mitchells.
If switching in needed on BBO Mitchells there has to be a different approach.
Staying with the BBO 13T 13R 26B Mitchell example, switch table 1 on rounds 12 & 13, table 2 on rounds 11 & 12, table 3 on rounds 10 & 11 and so on to table 11 on rounds 2 & 3. Table 12 is best on R13 only and Table 13 on round 2. This gives an excellent balance as good as the "live" club Mitchell.
Forum users will undoubtedly all agree that this is far too complex to code into the movement instructions so unswitched Mitchells have to remain the only option!

[wnt53]

 wnt53, on 2020-June-19, 00:04, said:

I tried 'unclocked' and the result is interesting. Single list of results. Faster players move as soon as there is an available pair to play. Slower players can play at their own pace. No adjustments to worry about. The 'unfairness', if there is any, is that faster players play faster players. If fast=better, then slow players would win a higher % playing against weak/slow players than they would playing against fast/strong players. But then in my average room each pair only meets 1/6th of the room anyway. Playing equally well on both occasions, on a good day (for them) they meet weak players and score well; on a bad day they meet the strongest and score badly.

Am I right in thinking there is a bug in 'unclocked'? There was no need for a revenge match in a tourney I set the other day, yet one popped up. I have to assume because the two pairs became available at the right time to start a new round. It would have been better to make them both wait a little longer and play new pairs. So far that is my only objection to 'unclocked'. It fills a nice niche for one of my weekly tourneys.

[Vampyr]

 SeanBothar, on 2020-June-19, 01:17, said:

If switching in needed on BBO Mitchells there has to be a different approach.
Staying with the BBO 13T 13R 26B Mitchell example, switch table 1 on rounds 12 & 13, table 2 on rounds 11 & 12, table 3 on rounds 10 & 11 and so on to table 11 on rounds 2 & 3. Table 12 is best on R13 only and Table 13 on round 2. This gives an excellent balance as good as the "live" club Mitchell.
Forum users will undoubtedly all agree that this is far too complex to code into the movement instructions so unswitched Mitchells have to remain the only option!

How could this possibly be complex to code?

[pescetom]

 Vampyr, on 2020-June-25, 23:12, said:

How could this possibly be complex to code?

I was recently told that allowing Director to assign a penalty was complex to code. I guess that by those standards this modification is near impossible