gentgiant

I set my most recent tournament (as vebu207596)for 18 boards in 9x2 board rounds. Tourney #85589. Used the string +howell+ +Rounds9+ in description. Had 7 full tables (14 pairs) and was somehat surprised to find we were playing 13x1 board rounds and not the 9x2. Was the upper case R the problem? If not then why default to a full Howell of only 13 boards?

|As soon as I reported, access regained :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

me four. Using Chromebook or iPad so workaround chaing ini file (described earlier in this thread) not possible.

Is anyone aware of the minimum numbers for a BBO Swiss Teams event. I've had it suggested to me that 15 teams is the lowest number for these.

Why are so many Pairs tourneys labelled 'Open' when they are clearly restricted to weblists/friends etc?

Paul, I'm not sure why this restriction should apply to you. Surely you are a vSBU club? I find it annoying as the supposed SIM security is full of holes any way and there are multiple ways the EBU could manage security without inconveniencing other clubs As for the time, it's always later than supposed.

Once again, results from vEBU Pairs events are being embargoed because on the same day the EBU are staging SIM pairs. The embargo is applied even to the non-SIM playing clubs. Yesterday my Club pairs was one of 123 clubs playing online event while seven (7) played in the SIM. Tonight there are three (3) clubs scheduled to play the EBU SIM and who knows how many others playing but not in the SIM. The embargo is a nuisance and the EBU seem indifferent to seeking a way of not imposing an embargo on non-SIM playing clubs. If they won't do anything, it's time BBO did.

Does anyone have any experience of creating an individual tournament fr their club players? Apart from restricting entries to a multiple of four, any guidance on number of boards, boards per round etc?

Use boards numbered 1-8 with sequential vulnerability correct. When the results are compiled using BBOtoXML and merging correctly it will renumber the second half to maintain correct vulnerablity.

Today, I ran a Swiss Pairs. 24 boards in 6x4 board rounds. Time per board set at a strict 7 minutes. If I see a table experice a prolonged disconnection through no fault of the player, I will normally add a little time to allow them to finish the last board. Seems hardly fair to penalise them for loss of connection. Did that today with 2 minutes or so of set time to go, I added 4 minutes and announced it to the tourney But unseen to me at another table, the players had not been allowed to start Board 4 with 2 minutes to go as they had not started bidding. Slow play all round. Now, with the added time, they would have had extra time to bid and play and not just wind down the clock but couldn't do anything. I have to say, I didn't have much sympathy as they'd taken 26 minutes of the orginally allocated 28 to play 3 boards. Anyone else seen this before? I can see that if time had been added earlier, then this might not have arisen, but I don't like doing that as it only encourages slow play elsewhere.

They all die if created too soon. About an hour. Just fix the bug!

+slow+?

Well, pre-set matches with +nokill+ and +private+ as well as with +noinvite+ seem to be surviving. But for how long? There's then the issue of seating players opposite opponents and not in teams, now likely to introduce errors. Match invitation refusals were always a nuisance but at least resending was once only one click away.

Max, worrks up to a point. Matches stay 'alive' waiting for substitutions to be made at each seat - a cumbersome process at best. But matches then time out after a few minutes. So not much help if trying to set up 4 matches, eac of two sessions.

Paul, thanks. But I don't see how using +nokill+ in the way you describe helps. There is no second Create a Team Match while one window is live. Close it and it dissolves, so can still only set up one at a time. If you have a routine that I can't work out, be pleased to hear it.