Length of Tourneys

[skrshawk]

When answering this poll, please vote according to how long YOU would be willing to play bridge in one sitting. Expect every 2 boards to take 15 minutes without intermissions.

 

Thanks,

John

[QQSV]

I have replied that I like 24. But truthfully, I think different lengths at different times works just fine. I would enjoy the occasional 32 board marathon, actually! And the 8, 12, and 16 board lengths are OK too.

 

Maybe the number of boards should vary with time allowed per board. I could handle more boards if the format is speedball (say, 11 mins per two board round.)

 

--Q

[Gweny]

:) Ditto QQ,

 

Speedball is fun to play but when people who do not possess connection nor inclination to play/claim promptly join it is maybe very painful experience.

 

I like very much 10 boards at 7 min per board... this allow short break at end of rounds tee hee...

 

If playing 32 boards I refuse join if NOT CLOCKED - to play this much boards unclock - maybe very ugly.

[EarlPurple]

A long tourney might need substitution of directors, as directing a 24-board tourney would be far more stressful than playing in one.

 

Automatic substitutions would help, once this is properly implemented. Most of the time directors are called is to make substitutions.

[Free]

I like 24 or more boards (30 is still no marathon imo, but about the maximum for a normal tourney). If you play 8 boards, you can't make a good judgement of which players are the best at the moment. The more boards, the more representative the scores. 24 boards is still not too much imo, 30+ is too much for online bridge. 12-16 boards are also fine (half a real tourney), very nice to play a tourney AND get some result, but not enough boards to make a real conclusion.

 

Free

[hrothgar]

From my perspective, I am more interested in the type of movement rather than the length of the tournament. If I am playing in a pcikup tournament, I don't really care much about the number of boards, whatever.

 

However, if I am playing in a "real" / competitive event, I would like to play a fully meshed Howell if at all possible. If this is impractical, than a Mitchell is fine. In either case, the number of boards should be subordinate to the movement.

 

Please note: This may intrinsically require partioning a single large tournament into a series of simultaneous "small" tournies. From my perspective, this is much better than the randomization introduced by incomplete movements.

[TimC1982]

As can be seen by the wide variety of votes and huge distribution, the best option is to offer many tournaments of different lengths. BBO already does a good job of this.

[helium]

in real live no less than 32 boards but online 18 is a ok nr for me:)

[inquiry]

As can be seen by the wide variety of votes and huge distribution, the best option is to offer many tournaments of different lengths. BBO already does a good job of this.

Welcome to the BBF Tim,

 

When this poll was first posted, there were very few tournments on BBO indeed. And in fact, there were only a very few people who could start one. In the beginning, there was a separate secure webpage that approved TD's had to go to if they wanted to start a tournment. And it would be (was) easy to mess up someone elses tournment. There was uncertainty about how long to play per board, and how long people would be wiling to sit and play in a tournment. I think with the variety available now, this isn't so much an issue (I like 16/18 board ones). Today, I see 3 and 6 board events, and DrTodd (I think) has run a few marathon ones with like 48 boards.

 

But I believe replies here like heliums are still useful. If TD thought there would be a lot of interest in, say 24 board tournments, they would run more longer events.

 

Ben

[newmoon]

Automatic substitutions would help, once this is properly implemented. Most of the time directors are called is to make substitutions.

In a survivor Pairs event, if dummy (e.g.) goes red on the 2nd board, I will not sub. I prefer eliminating the pair when the move is called.

 

For this reason, I prefer TDs doing the subs, instead of automatically.

 

Newmoon

[spwdo]

hi,

 

how many bords is no importance(i belive there is plenty of diffenrence to choice from), players entering agreeing with the# of boards on that tourney is, i like evry format depending on the time i got as long as it is clocked so i have a genaral idea when its going to end

[Frosty]

These forums are so interesting ..... unlike Newmoon, I do exactly the opposite. Because I want the partner of a missing player to realize any chance to advance that the pair has earned, I shamelessly substitute for bad connections during the last few minutes of a round that will end in cuts. I also (if there is time) explain to the remaining partner that the substitution gives them a chance to advance that they do not have if missing a partner.

 

Its easier not to do this, but I like to think the player who gets an otherwise missed chance to advance will appreciate my effort and return to my games in the future :lol:

 

Frosty/Jan (still trying to shed my novice status)

[etherwiz]

There is a lot of talk about the longer tourneys. Very few seam to be supporters of the shorter length (8 or less).

 

Yes I know these do not get fair results, but what is fair is any one player has connection problems?

 

And on top of that there are quite a few members here who can not play in long tournaments, for one reason or another. This reason may be that they can not sit for that long (at a real Tournament they can complete a board before movement is called and walk around - perhaps even to the bathroom). ANother consideration is for thouse who do not smoke inside - they need a break every few hands.

 

There are a number of reasons a break would be needed. Perhaps if a round could be started only by the a TD's click then breaks could be flexiably allowed.

 

This would allow Timed Rounds the proper breaks - however would give the TD's another thing to do. It would also unify the unclocked rounds (much like increasing one round in a timed event to gice a break),

 

Unfortunately this not only complicates the programing but it complicates the TD's duties as well. Perhaps a break could be programed every (so many) boards for (so many) minutes.

 

In any case anything over 16 boards needs a break. ANyting over 32 boards would need at least one change of TD's (which by the way can be done with existing software).

[aisha759]

I prefer 8 boards, especially when i am entering an individual tournament, or playing with a partner chosen from the partnership desk, that way he/she does not need to suffer with me for too long :)

12 boards is ideal..... on a day where i feel i can concentrate i can handle 16 boards.....

 

We all play a lot more than 16 boards on any given day, but with breaks in between, and in different events, be it in the bridge club, team matches, or any other tournament.... so it's not really the amount of boards we play per day, but the amount of boards in one event, which can get very tiring, and one can lose concentration... well at least i do ;)

[slothy]

I have to agree with everyone and no one... the surest form of diplomacy...( you dont make many friends but you dont make any enemies ;)

 

Short tourneys are fine in the sense that one is not having to commit oneself for too long but as was mentioned by Free i think you get a couple of bad boards you are hoisted......and if it turns into a fiasco coz of more red on the screen than my bank statement the agony is limited...

 

Long tourneys are better in the sense that you can get a more balanced idea of how well you have done, i am talking subjectively now in the sense that Im more concerned with how well my p and I have played irrespective of our overall ranking...bad silly boards get diluted as well as lucky ones where opps have delusionally discovered they are playing with a 60 point pack....

 

And of course the long marathon tourneys are mainly spring-boarded at US time zones..

 

So and as a suggestion to Uday ( I might even re-post in appropriate forum ;) ) i second what edelweiss said: have long tourneys interrupted and sectioned out over a time period with breaks in between...some increased coding but not too much i imagine as can just temporarily dump scores...even perhaps giving people the option of playing in 2 of 4 outings say to overcome zonal problems [will even out discrepancies i am sure]

 

So prefer longer tourneys but one sitting (after all in real-life always got 30 min break in middle?) is too long to sit....even a hen don't brood all day :rolleyes:

[spwdo]

rofl

 

the hen lol:))

[EarlPurple]

In f2f bridge you travel to the club and pay your table money and therefore expect value for your money, i.e. a high enough number of boards.

 

Online bridge is different, as you can play a short tournament then play another one.

[cellist]

In longer tourneys (choose your own definition of 'longer'), I prefer a survivor format. If I've played very poorly :ph34r: for the first half of a long tourney, with little chance of finishing anyways near the top, it's a relief to be cut instead of having to spend another hour or more anguishing over my incompetence. Dropping out at that point is unfair and disruptive to the TD and the rest of the field, but an automatic cut does not bother anyone, except maybe the player who feels confident of a strong comeback :D

[xx1943]

I personally would prefer 24+ boards like a tourney in the local club in real life. But just as well I lke 4 boards in between for relaxing.

 

I think people are looking for tournaments of any length.

 

very short: If I create a 4x1x7 indy with 60 entries it takes 2 minutes till all seats are reserved.

 

medium: There are many very attractive tourneys with 8-12 boards with a lot of players in BBO.

 

As can be seen by the wide variety of votes and huge distribution, the best option is to offer many tournaments of different lengths.  BBO already does a good job of this.

 

Exactly that is my opinion: BBO is already doing a very good job of this and is an a very good way to improve further. :ph34r: :D

 

Al