[Vampyr]

Trinidad, on 2015-February-08, 18:41, said:

Flighting a Swiss events seems somewhat strange to me. After all, the idea of the Swiss method is that it flights itself.

Not if there are too few rounds for the number of teams.

Quote

I think I could easily solve that drawback of Cross-IMPs in a Swiss event (by weighting the results before averaging, in such a away that the results from neighboring tables weight heavier than those from tables far away), but I think that most players would see it as a drawback that the Cross-IMP result for +1430 depends on where you stand in the field.

Cross-IMPs not relevant, since mainly this is about Swiss Pairs.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2015-February-09, 14:58, said:

Cross-IMPs not relevant, since mainly this is about Swiss Pairs.

Swiss Pairs is a format of play. Cross-IMPs is a method of scoring. Surely the two are not mutually incompatible — although I grant that Cross-IMPs may not be the form of scoring you're used to in Swiss Pairs. It may not even be a very good method. IAC I thought what this was about is how quickly one should (or can) determine the pairings in such an event. In which discussion perhaps all scoring methods are irrelevant.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2015-February-09, 16:06, said:

Swiss Pairs is a format of play. Cross-IMPs is a method of scoring. Surely the two are not mutually incompatible — although I grant that Cross-IMPs may not be the form of scoring you're used to in Swiss Pairs. It may not even be a very good method. IAC I thought what this was about is how quickly one should (or can) determine the pairings in such an event. In which discussion perhaps all scoring methods are irrelevant.

Quite correct.

And the Bridgemate system includes a feature to make faster one round arrears possible: They name it 95% scoring, and it works by calculating the next round seatings as soon as 95% of all results in the current round are available. Seating informations for the next round are then distributed to all players while the last 5% of the boards in the round are still played.

To my knowledge this feature has never received any popularity in Norway.

[gordontd]

Vampyr, on 2015-February-09, 14:55, said:

I don't think that I have ever played in a stratified event I the EBU,

Of course you have. Most Swiss events in the EBU are stratified, but you wouldn't notice because you aren't eligible for the B or C strat master points or prizes.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2015-February-09, 16:29, said:

And the Bridgemate system includes a feature to make faster one round arrears possible: They name it 95% scoring, and it works by calculating the next round seatings as soon as 95% of all results in the current round are available. Seating informations for the next round are then distributed to all players while the last 5% of the boards in the round are still played.

To my knowledge this feature has never received any popularity in Norway.

Has it ever actually been used?

[gordontd]

pran, on 2015-February-09, 16:29, said:

Quite correct.

And the Bridgemate system includes a feature to make faster one round arrears possible: They name it 95% scoring, and it works by calculating the next round seatings as soon as 95% of all results in the current round are available. Seating informations for the next round are then distributed to all players while the last 5% of the boards in the round are still played.

To my knowledge this feature has never received any popularity in Norway.

It sounds like a feature of the scoring program, not of Bridgemates since they don't do the assigning. I would expect it's possible for most scoring programs to assign before all the scores are in. We occasionally do it when one or two tables are holding everyone up.

[pran]

gordontd, on 2015-February-10, 02:51, said:

It sounds like a feature of the scoring program, not of Bridgemates since they don't do the assigning. I would expect it's possible for most scoring programs to assign before all the scores are in. We occasionally do it when one or two tables are holding everyone up.

Yes, that is true - my mistake.

My only excuse is that we use Bridgemate and Ruter (Our standard scoring program) so consistently together that we (I?) often mix which feature is where.

And to ED: No, I do not know of anybody deliberately having used or using the 95% scoring feature in Norway. I know it has accidentally been activated by mistake, and then causing problems because routines must be changed slightly.

[blackshoe]

So not popular because never been used (except for mistakes) rather than not used because not popular. Not that it matters.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2015-February-10, 09:48, said:

So not popular because never been used (except for mistakes) rather than not used because not popular. Not that it matters.

Well, I can only speculate.

But players want their results handed out after each round as they are used to, and if in addition they shall have their seating information for the following round handed out before the current round ends that means an extra tour around the entire room with slips to each pair.

I believe most players and Directors feel that there is not sufficient advantage (if any at all) to justify such procedures.

As a matter of fact I have never received (nor heard about any other director receiving) negative feedback on our one round delay for seating calculations.

[gordontd]

pran, on 2015-February-10, 03:52, said:

we use Bridgemate and Ruter (Our standard scoring program) so consistently together that we (I?) often mix which feature is where.

It's easily done. It drives our Bridgemate rep (who is also an EBU TD) nuts that if there's ever a problem in the scoring the players always say "there's a problem with the Bridgemates".

[jallerton]

gnasher, on 2015-February-08, 04:31, said:

Swiss pairs with short rounds, as played in (at least) Norway and Iceland, is excellent. It's trivially better than a multi-section Mitchell event, because:
- Weak pairs have less influence on who wins.
- It largely eliminates the effect of random differences in strength between lines, sections and directions.
- By the end, the winners will usually have played all the other pairs who were in contention.

The longest English Swiss pairs events, like the 14-round Brighton Pairs, have similar benefits. The more common 7-round one-day Swiss format is quite random, because a lucky or unlucky draw has too big an influence on the result, and because there aren't enough rounds to differentiate the top pairs. But these events are also popular, and getting people to play is quite rightly one of the primary objectives of most bridge organisers.

All true, but given that the short round Swiss events format has rarely been used in England, what makes you think that such a format would not also be popular?

[jallerton]

pran, on 2015-February-09, 16:29, said:

Quite correct.

And the Bridgemate system includes a feature to make faster one round arrears possible: They name it 95% scoring, and it works by calculating the next round seatings as soon as 95% of all results in the current round are available. Seating informations for the next round are then distributed to all players while the last 5% of the boards in the round are still played.

To my knowledge this feature has never received any popularity in Norway.

blackshoe, on 2015-February-09, 18:33, said:

Has it ever actually been used?

I've played in an event in Sweden which in principle used current match assignments, except that assisgnments were made about 5 minutes before the end of the current round, based on whatever information was available at the time. This included all of the current round scores for the faster-played matches, and all but one (occasionally two) comparisons from the slower tables.

[Vampyr]

jallerton, on 2015-February-10, 17:03, said:

All true, but given that the short round Swiss events format has rarely been used in England, what makes you think that such a format would not also be popular?

I personally might like it as long as VPS were used rather than a running percentage, and I would be surprised if this was a minority view.

[gnasher]

jallerton, on 2015-February-10, 17:03, said:

All true, but given that the short round Swiss events format has rarely been used in England, what makes you think that such a format would not also be popular?

I think a lot of people care about masterpoints, and about the concept of winning a match even when you're actually doing badly in the event as a whole.
Perhaps it would be possible to replicate these supposed benefits by calling each two- or three-board round a "match", and giving masterpoints to anyone who scored above average in a round.

Edit: I suspect that another reason that people might prefer the current system is the randomness. You can get into the prizes without really deserving to, by having large wins against mediocre opponents in the last round or two.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2015-February-11, 03:22

[gordontd]

gnasher, on 2015-February-11, 03:18, said:

Perhaps it would be possible to replicate these supposed benefits by calling each two- or three-board round a "match", and giving masterpoints to anyone who scored above average in a round.

The one Swiss Pairs scored by percentages we have run had 4-board rounds and gave match awards. I would expect to do the same if we ever ran one with even shorter rounds, but the thing holding me back on that is that each move slows things down. However, maybe the answer is to do round-in-arrears with 3-board rounds, as Norway does, and then the slow pairs won't have such an effect on the overall time-keeping.

[pran]

I begin to Wonder, and if I understand correct I am astonished about what happens elsewhere:

Swiss pairs in Norway are ordinary events for pairs played over several rounds, the special feature is that movements are not decided in advance but are based on the current ranking of the pairs as the event progresses.

Consequently, like in other events for pairs, no masterpoints are earned for results in any individual round, masterpoiints are given to the (so many) top ranked pairs at the end of the tournament.

Several posters have mentioned "matches" in Swiss pairs. We don't have "matches" in Swiss pairs no more than we have matches in events for pairs with Round Robin, Howell or (God forbid) Mitchell movements. So what do they actually mean when they write "match" here?

[jallerton]

Each round is referred to as a "match" against a particular set of opponents.

In Swiss Teams, each "match" is played against another team.

In Swiss Pairs, each "match" is against another pair. In the UK, Swiss Teams and Swiss Pairs rounds tend to be of a similar length, typically of 7 or 8 boards per round.

[jallerton]

gordontd, on 2015-February-11, 05:13, said:

The one Swiss Pairs scored by percentages we have run had 4-board rounds and gave match awards. I would expect to do the same if we ever ran one with even shorter rounds, but the thing holding me back on that is that each move slows things down. However, maybe the answer is to do round-in-arrears with 3-board rounds, as Norway does, and then the slow pairs won't have such an effect on the overall time-keeping.

Yes, that may well be the answer; maybe 4-boards rounds would be worth considering also. This could be worth trying at an event like the Easter Festival of Bridge, in which there are not enough pairs to make it all-play-all. Although each between-round movement takes longer, you gain time back by not playing 2-board rounds.

[pran]

jallerton, on 2015-February-11, 13:23, said:

Each round is referred to as a "match" against a particular set of opponents.

In Swiss Teams, each "match" is played against another team.

In Swiss Pairs, each "match" is against another pair. In the UK, Swiss Teams and Swiss Pairs rounds tend to be of a similar length, typically of 7 or 8 boards per round.

What constitutes "a particular set of opponents" for awarding masterpoints when playing Swiss Pairs? Do they really hand out masterpoints in each round?

I do wonder if they (similarly) hand out masterpoints in each round in events for pairs when playing Round Robin, Howell or Mitchell movements as well?

This is the first time I ever have heard any indication that masterpoints can be earned in events for pairs for other than ending among the top ranked pairs after a completed event (or in some special cases after a completed session).

[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2015-February-11, 03:18, said:

I think a lot of people care about masterpoints, and about the concept of winning a match even when you're actually doing badly in the event as a whole.

The ability to win matches keeps up interest inthe event. Also VPS are cumulative, so you can never actually go backwards like you can if you were scored by an overall percentage. True, you can lose ground against the field, but for many people this would almost always happen anyway.

Quote

Edit: I suspect that another reason that people might prefer the current system is the randomness. You can get into the prizes without really deserving to, by having large wins against mediocre opponents in the last round or two.

Well, we are not all the player you are, Andy! Yes, I think that the possibility of winning or getting into the prizes when you are not one of the stronger pairs in the event adds to the appeal of Swiss Pairs and Teams.

gordontd, on 2015-February-11, 05:13, said:

The one Swiss Pairs scored by percentages we have run had 4-board rounds and gave match awards. I would expect to do the same if we ever ran one with even shorter rounds, but the thing holding me back on that is that each move slows things down. However, maybe the answer is to do round-in-arrears with 3-board rounds, as Norway does, and then the slow pairs won't have such an effect on the overall time-keeping.

This could be another type of event, but please do not consider replacing our usual format with it.