Dead-Stop-Tourney

[hotShot]

The advantages and disadvantages of clocked an unclocked turneys have been discused at other threads.

What if there was a tourney typ that makes unclocked events more predictable?

One would have the advantages of the unclocked tourney and TD's an player could still plan their day.

 

Here is my suggestion how this could work. Instead of entering a number of rounds, the maximum play time for a tourney is given in minutes.

 

Let's take a look at such a 2 boards per round playtime 60 minutes tourney.

The fast players could do something like 6 Rounds/12 Boards, the slow players will finish 5 boards.

When less than 5 minutes of the tourney time are available no more board is started.

 

Players have a minimum waiting time between rounds, and at the end no more than 5 minutes till the result is shown.

 

TD's would not have to adjust boards as all boards have to be finished except the last. So while subbing and other calles are on, no adjusments are needed. At the time that adjustments are relevant, the tourney is finished, nothing else but adjustments to do.

 

To calculate the result, sections should be made depending on the number of finished boards.

e.g. section A 12 finished boards, section B 11 finished boards, ....

 

Since the tourney will take exactly 60 minutes players and director have full control over their time.

[paulhar]

Interesting - in a XIMP tourney where the winner is the player with the most net XIMPs, there is incentive to play fast! Unfortunately, there's also incentive to, when asking about an alert and getting no response, to just play on in hopes of getting that extra board in...

 

On the other hand, in a MP tourney where the highest percentage wins, I'd like to play as few hands as possible, especially if my first result is good...

[hotShot]

Interesting - in a XIMP tourney where the winner is the player with the most net XIMPs, there is incentive to play fast! Unfortunately, there's also incentive to, when asking about an alert and getting no response, to just play on in hopes of getting that extra board in...

 

On the other hand, in a MP tourney where the highest percentage wins, I'd like to play as few hands as possible, especially if my first result is good...

But you would win only the section of those playing the same number of boards, as you did.

[paulhar]

So the pair that played 15 boards in 60 minutes would come in first out of 1?

[hotShot]

So the pair that played 15 boards in 60 minutes would come in first out of 1?

I assumed (probably wrong) that there would have to be an even number in each section, so it might be 1 of 2. :)

[hotShot]

In an Mitchel tourney you have 2 winners, one on each axis. Here one would have winners in each section. If someone takes pride in winning in the 15boards/hours group it is fine with me.

[paulhar]

Might not be so fine with them as they might have a good game and would have won anyway but now they're not only first but also last.

 

Besides, if they have a bad game, I'm sure the leaderboard would show:

 

15 paulhar - goodpartner -38.2

13 inquriy - misho +39.2

12 hrothgar - Free +37.6

etc.

 

The ramifications of that score on top are obvious :)

 

I'm not disputing that you have a good idea, actually I kind of like it, but I have to play devil's advocate and piont out the downsides.

 

Those that play with me might point out that the above score is impossible, unless a fast player hijacked my userid :)

[etherwiz]

I do admitt that the idea is more interesting to me after read the posts.

 

However the tendancy for people who make a good board first and continued to make above adverage oe adverage boards only after that would then then tend to play slowly (perhaps not to the point of cheating, and may be not even conciouslly doing it) are great.

 

there would have to be some sort of adjustment made for the people's unfinished boards, A greater math mind then mine would have to write that - to be fair for for the prople who completed fewer boards but scored higher consistantly to win over them that scored just slightly above adverage consistantly over a larger number.

 

I dislike the boards played = sections as impractable. Perhaps a range of time (no new rounds started after say 10 minutes before a certain time) and everyone else must play untill one round less then the most rounds completed (leaving only two boards to adverage). This would still leave some adverageing in, but limit it, it would also not guarentee a stop time (but should come really close). It could be made even closer by not allowing ANYONE to play more then 2 rounds ahead (or 1 round) ahead of the second fastest players.

 

Does that make any sense ???

 

_*_Dave

[mink]

A tourney is a competition and determined to produce a winner. Conditions should be the same for all, and fair. This includes that there should be a predefined number of boards and a predefined time range. Missing a board should be the exception. A pair who is responsible for a board that could not be played should never benefit from that. And a pair that was not responsible should not have a disadvantage through that.

 

These are the conditions that traditionally rule face to face tourneys. There are no reasons why they should not hold online, and this proposal does not meet them. I consider it extremly unfair that you can be dragged into a group of slow pairs, and this way have to play significantly less than all boards. This is as undesirable as playing for a much too long time like in the current unclocked tourneys if you are unlucky.

 

Karl

[hotShot]

There are some differences between online directing an face2face directing.

 

At face 2 face directing:

1) the TD gives the signal 4 the round change, but unfinished hands can be finished.

 

2) the TD can give slow pairs that do not speed up a procedural penalty.

 

3) the TD can decide that a table that is behind, plays a board after the last round.

 

4) i can seat a slow pair, with a group of known fast players hoping that this will ensure avarage pace.

 

5) you rarely loose player (no need to sub)

 

None of 1-4 can be done online.

 

Now we have the choice between the "wait each round" and "wait at the end" tourneys.

 

Players want to know at what time the tourney is finished, and they want to play at their own speed.

 

In an fast clocked tourney, the director has a hard time just doing subbing and adjusting. And directors have the right to know when the tourney is finished too.

 

Scoring travellers with A+-=, have to be scored with correction factors etc. But this is still unfair, because it results in MP fractions. I don't know if this is done here, but it should be done. This is why the rules say that artificial scores should be avoided if possible.

 

Of cause my idea can be modified to define a maximum number of boards. But it is intended to bring a lot of people clearly defined time of fun.

[jtfanclub]

That works. So does my method for Two Hour Tourney...

 

1. Set the time to 6 minutes per board (four boards per round)

2. with two minutes to go, change it to 7 minutes per board.

3. Those who were so slow they got to start board 4 after the change go in and manually adjust to A==.

 

Those people who make it to board 4 in the first 21 minutes play 4 boards in the round. Those who don't play 3 boards and get an an a== on the fourth.

 

It would work better if those unplayed boards, rather than getting an average, were simply not included in the scoring. I can understand the issues with that, however.

[mink]

Hello Robert (hotshot)!

 

None of 1-4 can be done online

This is not true.

1) the TD gives the signal 4 the round change, but unfinished hands can be finished.

2) the TD can give slow pairs that do not speed up a procedural penalty.

These are just not yet implemented in BBO. Rather than implementing your proposal I would propose implementing this, and I already did for 1). I think 3) is never a good idea. And I doubt you gain anything with 4).

 

5) - the need of subbing - certainly exists. But this is a problem no matter what type of tourney you run.

 

Karl