BAM teams

[mich-b]

When I played BAM teams in the US , it was played with sections , and mirror sections, so from a pair's perspective the movement was like in pairs.

 

Is there any reason why BAM teams can not be played as Swiss , with matches?

For example 8 matches of 6 boards.

 

I can see 2 advantages:

1. The best teams play more among themselves, and less against the weaker teams.

2. It is easier for a team of 6 to participate so that the boards played are split evenly.

 

What are the disadvantages? Does this format exist?

[Mbodell]

This format does exist. We used it for a local unit game last year. It was just swiss teams movement except with each match scored by BAM rather than the more usual IMP->VP.

 

Note that in the mirror BAM movements you are playing the same boards and same opponents as your teammates. Which is good for security reasons. It also means that you can think of the "pairs" movement as really just a teams RR.

 

I don't think this is too common though. Note that for teams of 6 8 matches of 6 boards would be two sessions, and that it is fine to have one pair sit out each session.

[helene_t]

In a short round of BAM there will be loads of ties in the beginning which means that the movement will be partly random (if the top three teams have the same score after two rounds, you will have to chose randomly which two teams to let play against each other).

[ArtK78]

The Philadelphia Unit ran BAM Swiss Teams for a year or two about 12 years ago.

 

It was a terrible format. Everyone entered the last round in a virtual tie. Assuming 7 board rounds, whoever had a 5-2 win the last round won the event.

[Jlall]

BAM can be knockouts also, imo this would be the best form of bridge (least luck element).

[gnasher]

BAM can be knockouts also, imo this would be the best form of bridge (least luck element).

Do they do that anywhere?

[Jlall]

BAM can be knockouts also, imo this would be the best form of bridge (least luck element).

Do they do that anywhere?

Not that I know of... I made a post on here a long time ago suggesting it and someone said that it was a sanctioned format in the ACBL or something so it's possible to run it here, but I have never actually heard of it happening.

[jjbrr]

I may be totally mistaken, but I believe I recall Hamman being a supporter of BAM KOs being introduced as an NABC event if it were ever seriously considered. Or at least BAM scoring with segments like the team games, though don't quote me.

 

I think it's a good idea myself.

[awm]

One can also ask the opposite question.

 

Swiss teams as played in the USA have a lot of problems. In particular, the strength of opposition is not very evenly spread (so one contending team may have played much weaker opponents than another). Boards are typically shuffled and dealt, which means that some teams may end up playing "flatter" boards than others, which can incur a substantial disadvantage. And of course, shuffled boards are typically less well-randomized than computer-dealt hands.

 

The latter problems are mostly removed in tournaments that use pre-dealt boards throughout (apparently some European tourneys do this) but that incurs other costs in terms of having very large numbers of pre-dealt boards.

 

The BAM format fixes all these problems, since everyone plays against everyone (equalizes strength of opposition) and pre-dealt hands are used. So maybe we should play IMP teams with a BAM movement? I've never seen this format in play either.

[ArtK78]

The BAM format fixes all these problems, since everyone plays against everyone (equalizes strength of opposition) and pre-dealt hands are used. So maybe we should play IMP teams with a BAM movement? I've never seen this format in play either.

I have played IMP scored team events using a BAM movement. Most often this was in the open flight of the Grand National Teams at the district level, as we had an odd number of teams. BAM movements in a single section work well with an odd number of teams. With an odd number of teams, if traditional head-to-head matches were played, at least one 3-way match would be required each round.

 

With an even number of teams, one runs a traditional round-robin team event.

 

The BAM movement facilitates a round robin, and the event was played in a double round robin - much like the way each group is handled on the first day of the GNT at the National finals. Half of each match (3-6 boards, depending on the number of teams) is played in the afternoon session, and the other half is played in the evening session.

[Mbodell]

The BAM movement facilitates a round robin, and the event was played in a double round robin - much like the way each group is handled on the first day of the GNT at the National finals. Half of each match (3-6 boards, depending on the number of teams) is played in the afternoon session, and the other half is played in the evening session.

Is that only the open GNT or only at some Nationals? In DC I'm pretty sure all the GNT flights were run as swiss on the first day to get down to the 16 teams for the KO (I'm sure GNT B was done this way).

[gnasher]

Swiss teams as played in the USA have a lot of problems. In particular, the strength of opposition is not very evenly spread (so one contending team may have played much weaker opponents than another). Boards are typically shuffled and dealt, which means that some teams may end up playing "flatter" boards than others, which can incur a substantial disadvantage. And of course, shuffled boards are typically less well-randomized than computer-dealt hands.

 

The latter problems are mostly removed in tournaments that use pre-dealt boards throughout (apparently some European tourneys do this) but that incurs other costs in terms of having very large numbers of pre-dealt boards.

All the major Swiss events in England have pre-dealt boards. That doesn't require many more boards than a round-robin with pre-dealt boards. You start with two boards on each table, and the players pass each board on to the next table after playing it. It goes slightly more smoothly if there is a spare set or two for dealing with bottlenecks.

 

The BAM format fixes all these problems, since everyone plays against everyone (equalizes strength of opposition) and pre-dealt hands are used. So maybe we should play IMP teams with a BAM movement? I've never seen this format in play either.

That is fairly common in small teams events here. I don't agree that it's better than Swiss, though.

 

A Swiss of reasonable length is much better at producing a winner than an all-play-all with short rounds, because success in the all-play-all format depends too much on whether the boards you play against the weaker opponents are sufficiently swingy. A Swiss is also more fun, because you get to talk to your teammates every seven or eight boards rather than once per session.

[mikegill]

I've been saying there should be board-a-match knockouts for a while now. C'mon it's the BAM KO, how can that not be epic?

[aguahombre]

BAM swiss was played in Southern California tourneys many years ago. A little variety, when "men's" and "women's" became politically incorrect and before all the knockouts took over.

 

It was 8 seven's (or 4 seven's for a single session event).

[ArtK78]

The BAM movement facilitates a round robin, and the event was played in a double round robin - much like the way each group is handled on the first day of the GNT at the National finals.  Half of each match (3-6 boards, depending on the number of teams) is played in the afternoon session, and the other half is played in the evening session.

Is that only the open GNT or only at some Nationals? In DC I'm pretty sure all the GNT flights were run as swiss on the first day to get down to the 16 teams for the KO (I'm sure GNT B was done this way).

The format of the GNT at the national level, at least in the Open and A flights (and I thought it was in all flights) is that the field is divided into 4 groups, with 5 or 6 teams in each group (the teams are ranked - I believe it is by masterpoints - and divided into four groups - group A has teams 1,8,9,16,17,24, group B has teams 2,7,10,15,18,23, group C has teams 3,6,11,14,19,22, and group D has teams 4,5,12,13,20,21. If the field has less than 24 teams, one or more of the groups will have only 5 teams). On the first day, a complete round robin is run to reduce each group to 3 teams. On the second day, there is a three-way match with one team eliminated in the afternoon and the two survivors playing heads-up in the evening, with full carryover from their half-match from the afternoon. On day 3 the four group winners play in two heads-up matches in the semi-finals, with the winners playing for the event on day 4.

 

As far as the district level competition, if I remember correctly, some of the format is fixed at the national level, but the individual districts have some flexibility. The district conditions of contest must be fixed well in advance of the event. The exact format depends on the number of teams competing in a particular flight. If there are a large number of teams in a given flight, a Swiss qualifying on the first day is certainly one option.

 

In my district, there are very few teams competing. In recent years the open flight has had no more than 7 or 8 teams in play, so a complete round robin is run on the first day to qualify 4 teams for the semifinals on the afternoon of the second day leading to the finals on the evening of the second day.

[Mbodell]

The BAM movement facilitates a round robin, and the event was played in a double round robin - much like the way each group is handled on the first day of the GNT at the National finals.  Half of each match (3-6 boards, depending on the number of teams) is played in the afternoon session, and the other half is played in the evening session.

Is that only the open GNT or only at some Nationals? In DC I'm pretty sure all the GNT flights were run as swiss on the first day to get down to the 16 teams for the KO (I'm sure GNT B was done this way).

The format of the GNT at the national level, at least in the Open and A flights (and I thought it was in all flights) is that the field is divided into 4 groups, with 5 or 6 teams in each group (the teams are ranked - I believe it is by masterpoints - and divided into four groups - group A has teams 1,8,9,16,17,24, group B has teams 2,7,10,15,18,23, group C has teams 3,6,11,14,19,22, and group D has teams 4,5,12,13,20,21. If the field has less than 24 teams, one or more of the groups will have only 5 teams). On the first day, a complete round robin is run to reduce each group to 3 teams. On the second day, there is a three-way match with one team eliminated in the afternoon and the two survivors playing heads-up in the evening, with full carryover from their half-match from the afternoon. On day 3 the four group winners play in two heads-up matches in the semi-finals, with the winners playing for the event on day 4.

That may have been the case in the past, but I'm like 99% sure it wasn't that most recently in DC. The pre-bulletin advertising the event talks about "All: Two-session Swiss qualifying, followed by all-day knockout matches." And I know all of us were in the long basement room with the swiss chart up on the wall in the first day, and we had full KO brackets from then on with 16 teams. The first bulletin with GNT results has the round of 8 up, but has an article talking about the champions being knocked out in the round of 16 by district 14 with "16 deals to play, won the fourth quarter".

 

Round robin might be more fair, but the Swiss is fun, and you can pick your opponents for the first KO round which is also kind of fun.

[ArtK78]

I based my response on my experience in the GNT. The most recent time I played in the National GNT was in Chicago in 2006. I was not aware that the format was changed.