[Vampyr]

No need to get your knickers in a twist; it wasn't clear to me whether the earlier post referred to prize money or masterpoints. What I said was that whichever it was, crying about it seemed pretty extreme. I did not say that either money or masterpoints were bad.

Now, breathe deeply and try to relax.

[bidule5]

The number of rounds in a swiss should alway be less than half the numbers teams
(and more than the square root of it).

With 12 teams you can play either 4 rounds accelerated swiss (1 vs. 2 in first round)
or 5 rounds with last round danish (1 vs. 2, even if it is a rematch).

yvan

[Vampyr]

Obviously you can do more with a 3-day Swiss than with a 2-day. For three days you could:

1. Day 1: Have a normal Swiss teams (obviously you could do the same with Swiss Pairs)
2. Continue Swiss, with replays if necessary, with the field split into two:some number of the top field advancing to the A final, and a smaller number advancing to the B final, with the converse in the lower field.
3. Have 2 all-play-all finals, with the rest in a consolation event. This could consist of a multiple teams, or it could be done as I have often seen in Europe -- the field is split up into many mini-fields of the same number (according to rank), and these mini-fields play a Swiss. This way a winner will emerge from each mini-field, and everyone still has an interest in the event no matter how abysmally they played in the first two days.

Or do it the way it is done in England, which Andy described above -- this two-stage method can easily be adapted for the number of sessions desired.

[Mbodell]

Phil, on 2012-December-17, 09:58, said:

The Palm Springs regional has become the 2nd largest in the US behind Gatlinberg.

Is there a good place to get table count information? I've heard a couple of different tournaments claim this, but not sure how to look it up in one place at ACBL.

Quote

This year, the calendar included a 2 day "Super Swiss" on the final weekend. While the level of play was very strong, only 19 teams entered and 12 teams made the Sunday final.

Sounds like a fun event. I hope you at least were playing preduplicated hands even if no screens were in use. The 2-day championship swiss at the Sacramento regional gets more than enough teams for the second day to be no problem of over-swissing.

I agree with others that if you are almost at a RR you ought to play a RR (you could do 11 5 board rounds of a RR faster than 7 8 board matches; probably almost as fast as you could do 7 7 board matches since the RR has the next round posted immediately with no waiting). But if you can't I think it would make sense to do pairings more similar to how chess pairings get done in swiss matches (and ignore the carryover for pairing purposes at least at the start of day 2). In chess tournaments when everyone starts at 0 people are ranked by rating. But the 1 seed neither plays the 2 seed nor the bottom seed, instead the field is divided in 2 halves (top half and bottom half) and the top seed in the top half plays the top seed in the bottom half. In the second round same thing except there are now 4 halfs (ignoring ties for a minute) the top half of the winners, and the bottom half of the winners who are paired like the first round, and then the top half of the losers and the bottom half of the losers who are also paired like the first round. And so on. If you tried to do the same rough thing in your 12 team final you could imagine the first four rounds might be something like:

1 vs 7; 2 vs 8; 3 vs 9; 4 vs 10; 5 vs 11; 6 vs 12;

1 vs 4; 2 vs 5; 3 vs 6; 7 vs 10; 8 vs 11; 9 vs 12;

1 vs 3; 2 vs 4; 5 vs 7; 6 vs 8; 9 vs 11; 10 vs 12;

1 vs 2; 3 vs 4; 5 vs 6; 7 vs 8; 9 vs 10; 11 vs 12;

It doesn't totally stop the problem of the best teams still avoiding the bad teams, but it at least delays it a little where the 4th round is the normal 1st round of the swiss, and every team at least plays at least one team on the "other half" of the results early instead of late (you'd adjust who is 1 or 2 or 3 depending on results, so you might have to switch teams if an upset happens, but the point is the teams should stay in the same position for the first round because each favorite is "equally" favorite - then 4,5,6 should come back towards 7,8,9 because 4,5,6 go W then L while 7,8,9 go L then W assuming no upsets again).

With 12 teams you could also do a swiss into a KO where you swiss the 12 teams for 5 rounds and then do 3 4-way KO (1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3 for top 4 spots, 5 vs 8 and 6 vs 7 for middle 4 spots, etc.). Or do swiss for 4 rounds and then do 3 4 team RR (again top 4 teams for top 4 spots, next 4 for the next 4 spots, etc.).

[Cyberyeti]

I'd forget the swiss format and play a 7 team and 2 6 team all play alls on the first day (seeding if I could sensibly do so) with the top 2 from each group qualifying for the A final, the next 2 for the B final and the rest for the C final.

[Vampyr]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-December-18, 06:17, said:

I'd forget the swiss format and play a 7 team and 2 6 team all play alls on the first day (seeding if I could sensibly do so) with the top 2 from each group qualifying for the A final, the next 2 for the B final and the rest for the C final.

What format would the finals be? Multiple teams? All-play-all again? The latter sounds tedious, but perhaps you could introduce the Swiss format for the second day... you'd really have to seed well though. That is why I like qualifiers to do the seeding; they are reasonably accurate based upon not only past performance but form too. I find your suggested format kind of backwards.

[Phil]

Mbodell, on 2012-December-18, 06:13, said:

Is there a good place to get table count information? I've heard a couple of different tournaments claim this, but not sure how to look it up in one place at ACBL.

I don't know of a central location, but each tournament lists table count under the 'results' portion (roughly half way down the page and before the list of of individual masterpoint winners). This year the totals were:

(Revised - top 10)

1. Gatlinburg: 9114 tables. (3582 players).
2. Las Vegas 4066 tables (1956 players).
3. Palm Springs: 3963 tables (2222 players).
4. Orlando: 3356 / 1937
5. Palmetto, FL (3284 / 2099)
6. Atlanta (3218 / 1830)
7. Penticton: 3004 tables (1244 players).
8. Raleigh (2891 / 1489)
9. Virginia Beach (2609 / 1203)
10. Santa Clara (2577 / 1629)

Last year, Palm Springs and Las Vegas were 2 and 3 with 3,929 and 3,860 respectively.

[pigpenz]

Phil, on 2012-December-18, 09:45, said:

I don't know of a central location, but each tournament lists table count under the 'results' portion (roughly half way down the page and before the list of of individual masterpoint winners). This year the totals were:

1. Gatlinburg: 9114 tables. (3582 players).
2. Las Vegas 4066 tables (1956 players).
3. Palm Springs: 3963 tables (2222 players).
4. Penticton: 3004 tables (1244 players).

Last year, Palm Springs and Las Vegas were 2 and 3 with 3,929 and 3,860 respectively.

There may be others larger than Penticton, but I'm pretty sure these are the top 3.

it seems like the two day swiss championship for western conference draws a pretty big field for their four session event

[TimG]

For 2016 I found:

Gatlinburg 8323
Rancho Mirage 3931
Hilton Head 3567
Penticon 3156
Houston 3057
Sarasota 3056
Atlanta 3015
Monterey 2860
Orlando 2760
Raleigh 2602
Charlotte 2570
Santa Clara 2502
Las Vegas 2406
Myrtle Beach 2348

Phil, on 2012-December-18, 09:45, said:

I don't know of a central location, but each tournament lists table count under the 'results' portion (roughly half way down the page and before the list of of individual masterpoint winners). This year the totals were:

(Revised - top 10)

1. Gatlinburg: 9114 tables. (3582 players).
2. Las Vegas 4066 tables (1956 players).
3. Palm Springs: 3963 tables (2222 players).
4. Orlando: 3356 / 1937
5. Palmetto, FL (3284 / 2099)
6. Atlanta (3218 / 1830)
7. Penticton: 3004 tables (1244 players).
8. Raleigh (2891 / 1489)
9. Virginia Beach (2609 / 1203)
10. Santa Clara (2577 / 1629)

Last year, Palm Springs and Las Vegas were 2 and 3 with 3,929 and 3,860 respectively.

[nige1]

Phil, on 2012-December-17, 09:58, said:

This year, the calendar included a 2 day "Super Swiss" on the final weekend. While the level of play was very strong, only 19 teams entered and 12 teams made the Sunday final

IMO, the best Swiss format for about 20 teams would have been 5 or 6 BAM matches, each match as long as possible. With a large winning-bonus for each match. The effect is a KO with repêchage,

[Phil]

Thanks for the necro. Acbl obliterated 2 day swisses with a revised masterpoint formula. Last year for this event was either 14 or 15 and winners got 24 or so. Single day sunday Swiss in room next door paid 30+.

[TimG]

Phil, on 2017-April-12, 03:20, said:

Thanks for the necro. Acbl obliterated 2 day swisses with a revised masterpoint formula. Last year for this event was either 14 or 15 and winners got 24 or so. Single day sunday Swiss in room next door paid 30+.

ACBL ought to be using the masterpoint formula to encourage two-day premier events rather than discouraging them.

I recently noticed (because of an ad on Bridge Winners) that the Flying Pig regional in Cincinnati includes a two-day pair event. Even though I am not a contender in such an event, it is the sort of event that would increase my interest in a regional. The tournament flyer claimed something like "mid-west's only two-day pair event".

I looked around at regional schedules as a result and found them quite disappointing. Most have a bazillion events with no clear "premier" event on any given day. One regional cut through the messiness of scheduling by running the same events every day Tuesday through Saturday: A/B/C Pairs (open stratified); bracketed round robin teams; and Golden Opportunity Pairs (750 MP limit). It is strange to me that such a regional has any appeal.

[barmar]

TimG, on 2017-April-13, 06:34, said:

It is strange to me that such a regional has any appeal.

Why? There's plenty of opportunity to earn gold points, what more do most people expect from a regional?

[mycroft]

I miss open qualifiers and finals, and that's in the two-session format. But you can't hold a stratified qualifier, and that killed them stone dead.

The two-day events would be fun (even though I have enough trouble putting two good sessions in a row, so I'd never qualify); but there are logistical issues (have to be available for both, have to have a decent game to play in if/when I don't make it, oh, the strong players will be in that one, why should I pay to get beat up for a day to get proof that I didn't make it - or worse, I did make it to day 2, 30th of 32 qualifiers, and I get to get hammered on *even more* tomorrow with no hope of getting anything!) and the fact that we just can't beat the 4-session bracketed KO juggernaut, between the MP awards and the fact that teams are isolated from the ones they don't want to play (the ones they have to punish to get the VPs or the "great players that we have no hope against").

I, and most people commenting here, welcome the challenge (at least occasionally). Some are good enough that "winning the prestige event" is worth something more than "yeah, won another Regional Bracket 1 KO." Some of them think it's obvious that the "dead money" would want to inflate the size of that game to increase the prestige/cash award (showing that not only TDs have a blinkered inability to see the world through other players' eyes).