[uday]

What would you think of a tournament that worked like this?

1. No director
2. Individual
3. Same FD card at all tables (SAYC, whatever..)
3. No chat by players to table. No chat to other players.
4. Missing/stuck players are replaced by Robots until (and if) they return.
5. Clocked ( Time limits per round )
6. Some incomplete boards maybe adjusted by Robots, others assigned averages


There are some minor things to work out - how to deal w/the 7Nxx types, but I have some ideas on what to do there.

Do you think it matters whether the Robots who fill in for lost players are "trying their best" or are "just pushing cards?"

[jillybean]

As a free tournament fine, as a $ tournament I doubt it would fly, random partners could be worse than gib and there are already many $ indys.

[hotShot]

I think it's a good idea.

The robot should be "trying their best", because otherwise it would hurt the randomly assigned partner of the missing player. Of cause it would be great if the missing player could get Ave- for his own result.

[hrothgar]

uday, on Aug 30 2008, 08:17 PM, said:

What would you think of a tournament that worked like this?

1. No director
2. Individual
3. Same FD card at all tables (SAYC, whatever..)
3. No chat by players to table. No chat to other players.
4. Missing/stuck players are replaced by Robots until (and if) they return.
5. Clocked ( Time limits per round )
6. Some incomplete boards maybe adjusted by Robots, others assigned averages


There are some minor things to work out - how to deal w/the 7Nxx types, but I have some ideas on what to do there.

Do you think it matters whether the Robots who fill in for lost players are "trying their best" or are "just pushing cards?"

Hi Uday

I think that there is merit to the diea, but not as a tournament format.

A few years back, I floated the idea of a permanent floating Indy event. People can drop in whenever. People can drop out whenever. Partners get randomly matched ever board or two.

I think that this would be an attractive way to play socially.

I don't feel that its attractive to use this as a tournament format, nor do I see any advantages in blocking folks from talking. (OK, in theory the fact that no one can talk MIGHT force them to learn whatever standard card was being used 0 but why would I want to play in this type of "tournament" rather than playing again WinBridge on my own PC?

[uday]

My thinking was only that "No talking" will prevent players from being rude ( without a TD, can't easily kick rude players)

[TimG]

uday, on Aug 30 2008, 01:34 PM, said:

My thinking was only that "No talking" will prevent players from being rude ( without a TD, can't easily kick rude players)

I agree with Richard: this is a social type event, to remove chat capability is counter to that.

[pclayton]

If you try it, is it too much to ask to keep some sort of standings? Maybe a minimum # played plus average MP% / +IMPs ?

[pigpenz]

how about running a tourney for those subscribed to GIB and have all sit same way with same GIB Settings?

For the life of me I havent been able to figure out why GIB does what he does at certain times little alone at other tables when i look at other table results.

[pigpenz]

or have the option for those running a Tourney to choose GIB as a sub

[nige1]

pigpenz, on Aug 30 2008, 08:31 PM, said:

or have the option for those running a Tourney to choose GIB as a sub

That would confer an unfair advantage on abandoned players

Seriously, I like Uday's suggestion. It embodies many apposite ideas

Aside: When considereing adjusting an incomplete board, the director (or robot) should take into account who took the most time. A record should be kept. If a player filibusters (tanks in the hope that time will run out and an otherwise bad board will be scrapped) then the hand should always be adjusted and he should suffer further penalties on second and subsequent offences.

[jtfanclub]

I think it would work better as Modified BAM vs. Robots.

Let's say that on a given board, the N-S scores for three all-Robot tables were 420, 170, and -50. Then for each human table, N-S would score score:

0% points for less than -50
16.7% point for -50
33.3% points for better than -50 but worse than 170.
50% points for 170
66.7% points for better than 170 and less than 420.
83.3% points for 420
100% points for better than 420

And EW would score 100%-NS's score. Highest average wins.

In this way, the 7NTXX would only affect his table for one board, and wouldn't affect the other tables at all. In fact, if you were doing it for money, you wouldn't even have the tables get the same cards- just three robot tables playing the same cards as each human table. It's a drunk punching contest- whoever does the best against the robot tables wins.

Keep time for each partnership at each table. In the event that a table didn't finish, the pair that took longer gets 0% and the table that took less time would get 100%. That assumes either 1 board rounds, or if a table fell behind even a little they wouldn't start the last board (so if it was 3 board rounds, 6 minutes per board, it wouldn't start the last board if there was only 4 minutes left in the round). I think 1 board rounds is probably the way to go.

You'd also want to design it so that if at the start of a round there were 4+ robots, it would eliminate 4 robots and get rid of a table (and repeat).

[onoway]

Unlikely I would ever play in it. One of the things I find uncomfortable (boring?) about some of the tourneys esp acbl is when a hand is passed out or claimed quickly and nobody says a word for 5 minutes...it's like being in an elevator with a bunch of people and everyone pretends they are alone. (Is my non duplicate background showing?)

However, the idea of TD's having the option of having GIBS sub for missing players would be a huge benefit at times. (But might encourage people to run mammoth tourneys knowing they can fill them up with GIBS when half the players quit because of bad boards or whatever. Maybe a max of 3?)

The problem of who is responsible for delay in game is ongoing, it would be nice to have some solution.

[sceptic]

I think it has to be worth trying, sounds like it could work

[MikeRJ]

I would support hrothgar's suggestion of a "permanent floating indy" with a defined system. I don't think chat should be banned - I think most people should be able to put up with anyone for a board or two and if anyone is too rude or obnoxious they will end up being reported to "Abuse". Having robots finish a hand if someone drops out seems a reasonable idea.

Mike

[Dealing_Don]

I like the idea of Robots replacing missing partners. It should keep the game moving. Partner should have the opportunity to make the request if P disappears and the system should insert a GIB after a defined period.

[Bbradley62]

Wow! This was in the works for a long time!