One round in arrears

[gordontd]

Quite correct.

 

And the Bridgemate system includes a feature to make faster one round arrears possible: They name it 95% scoring, and it works by calculating the next round seatings as soon as 95% of all results in the current round are available. Seating informations for the next round are then distributed to all players while the last 5% of the boards in the round are still played.

 

To my knowledge this feature has never received any popularity in Norway.

It sounds like a feature of the scoring program, not of Bridgemates since they don't do the assigning. I would expect it's possible for most scoring programs to assign before all the scores are in. We occasionally do it when one or two tables are holding everyone up.

[pran]

It sounds like a feature of the scoring program, not of Bridgemates since they don't do the assigning. I would expect it's possible for most scoring programs to assign before all the scores are in. We occasionally do it when one or two tables are holding everyone up.

Yes, that is true - my mistake.

 

My only excuse is that we use Bridgemate and Ruter (Our standard scoring program) so consistently together that we (I?) often mix which feature is where.

 

And to ED: No, I do not know of anybody deliberately having used or using the 95% scoring feature in Norway. I know it has accidentally been activated by mistake, and then causing problems because routines must be changed slightly.

[blackshoe]

So not popular because never been used (except for mistakes) rather than not used because not popular. Not that it matters. ;)

[pran]

So not popular because never been used (except for mistakes) rather than not used because not popular. Not that it matters. ;)

Well, I can only speculate.

 

But players want their results handed out after each round as they are used to, and if in addition they shall have their seating information for the following round handed out before the current round ends that means an extra tour around the entire room with slips to each pair.

 

I believe most players and Directors feel that there is not sufficient advantage (if any at all) to justify such procedures.

 

As a matter of fact I have never received (nor heard about any other director receiving) negative feedback on our one round delay for seating calculations.

[gordontd]

we use Bridgemate and Ruter (Our standard scoring program) so consistently together that we (I?) often mix which feature is where.

It's easily done. It drives our Bridgemate rep (who is also an EBU TD) nuts that if there's ever a problem in the scoring the players always say "there's a problem with the Bridgemates".

[jallerton]

Swiss pairs with short rounds, as played in (at least) Norway and Iceland, is excellent. It's trivially better than a multi-section Mitchell event, because:

- Weak pairs have less influence on who wins.

- It largely eliminates the effect of random differences in strength between lines, sections and directions.

- By the end, the winners will usually have played all the other pairs who were in contention.

 

The longest English Swiss pairs events, like the 14-round Brighton Pairs, have similar benefits. The more common 7-round one-day Swiss format is quite random, because a lucky or unlucky draw has too big an influence on the result, and because there aren't enough rounds to differentiate the top pairs. But these events are also popular, and getting people to play is quite rightly one of the primary objectives of most bridge organisers.

 

All true, but given that the short round Swiss events format has rarely been used in England, what makes you think that such a format would not also be popular?

[jallerton]

Quite correct.

 

And the Bridgemate system includes a feature to make faster one round arrears possible: They name it 95% scoring, and it works by calculating the next round seatings as soon as 95% of all results in the current round are available. Seating informations for the next round are then distributed to all players while the last 5% of the boards in the round are still played.

 

To my knowledge this feature has never received any popularity in Norway.

 

 

Has it ever actually been used? B-)

 

I've played in an event in Sweden which in principle used current match assignments, except that assisgnments were made about 5 minutes before the end of the current round, based on whatever information was available at the time. This included all of the current round scores for the faster-played matches, and all but one (occasionally two) comparisons from the slower tables.

[Vampyr]

All true, but given that the short round Swiss events format has rarely been used in England, what makes you think that such a format would not also be popular?

 

I personally might like it as long as VPS were used rather than a running percentage, and I would be surprised if this was a minority view.

[gnasher]

All true, but given that the short round Swiss events format has rarely been used in England, what makes you think that such a format would not also be popular?

I think a lot of people care about masterpoints, and about the concept of winning a match even when you're actually doing badly in the event as a whole.

Perhaps it would be possible to replicate these supposed benefits by calling each two- or three-board round a "match", and giving masterpoints to anyone who scored above average in a round.

 

Edit: I suspect that another reason that people might prefer the current system is the randomness. You can get into the prizes without really deserving to, by having large wins against mediocre opponents in the last round or two.

Edited February 11, 2015 by gnasher

[gordontd]

Perhaps it would be possible to replicate these supposed benefits by calling each two- or three-board round a "match", and giving masterpoints to anyone who scored above average in a round.

The one Swiss Pairs scored by percentages we have run had 4-board rounds and gave match awards. I would expect to do the same if we ever ran one with even shorter rounds, but the thing holding me back on that is that each move slows things down. However, maybe the answer is to do round-in-arrears with 3-board rounds, as Norway does, and then the slow pairs won't have such an effect on the overall time-keeping.

[pran]

I begin to Wonder, and if I understand correct I am astonished about what happens elsewhere:

 

Swiss pairs in Norway are ordinary events for pairs played over several rounds, the special feature is that movements are not decided in advance but are based on the current ranking of the pairs as the event progresses.

 

Consequently, like in other events for pairs, no masterpoints are earned for results in any individual round, masterpoiints are given to the (so many) top ranked pairs at the end of the tournament.

 

Several posters have mentioned "matches" in Swiss pairs. We don't have "matches" in Swiss pairs no more than we have matches in events for pairs with Round Robin, Howell or (God forbid) Mitchell movements. So what do they actually mean when they write "match" here?

[jallerton]

Each round is referred to as a "match" against a particular set of opponents.

 

In Swiss Teams, each "match" is played against another team.

 

In Swiss Pairs, each "match" is against another pair. In the UK, Swiss Teams and Swiss Pairs rounds tend to be of a similar length, typically of 7 or 8 boards per round.

[jallerton]

The one Swiss Pairs scored by percentages we have run had 4-board rounds and gave match awards. I would expect to do the same if we ever ran one with even shorter rounds, but the thing holding me back on that is that each move slows things down. However, maybe the answer is to do round-in-arrears with 3-board rounds, as Norway does, and then the slow pairs won't have such an effect on the overall time-keeping.

 

Yes, that may well be the answer; maybe 4-boards rounds would be worth considering also. This could be worth trying at an event like the Easter Festival of Bridge, in which there are not enough pairs to make it all-play-all. Although each between-round movement takes longer, you gain time back by not playing 2-board rounds.

[pran]

Each round is referred to as a "match" against a particular set of opponents.

 

In Swiss Teams, each "match" is played against another team.

 

In Swiss Pairs, each "match" is against another pair. In the UK, Swiss Teams and Swiss Pairs rounds tend to be of a similar length, typically of 7 or 8 boards per round.

What constitutes "a particular set of opponents" for awarding masterpoints when playing Swiss Pairs? Do they really hand out masterpoints in each round?

 

I do wonder if they (similarly) hand out masterpoints in each round in events for pairs when playing Round Robin, Howell or Mitchell movements as well?

 

This is the first time I ever have heard any indication that masterpoints can be earned in events for pairs for other than ending among the top ranked pairs after a completed event (or in some special cases after a completed session).

[Vampyr]

I think a lot of people care about masterpoints, and about the concept of winning a match even when you're actually doing badly in the event as a whole.

 

The ability to win matches keeps up interest inthe event. Also VPS are cumulative, so you can never actually go backwards like you can if you were scored by an overall percentage. True, you can lose ground against the field, but for many people this would almost always happen anyway.

Edit: I suspect that another reason that people might prefer the current system is the randomness. You can get into the prizes without really deserving to, by having large wins against mediocre opponents in the last round or two.

 

Well, we are not all the player you are, Andy! Yes, I think that the possibility of winning or getting into the prizes when you are not one of the stronger pairs in the event adds to the appeal of Swiss Pairs and Teams.

 

The one Swiss Pairs scored by percentages we have run had 4-board rounds and gave match awards. I would expect to do the same if we ever ran one with even shorter rounds, but the thing holding me back on that is that each move slows things down. However, maybe the answer is to do round-in-arrears with 3-board rounds, as Norway does, and then the slow pairs won't have such an effect on the overall time-keeping.

 

This could be another type of event, but please do not consider replacing our usual format with it.

[Vampyr]

Yes, that may well be the answer; maybe 4-boards rounds would be worth considering also. This could be worth trying at an event like the Easter Festival of Bridge, in which there are not enough pairs to make it all-play-all. Although each between-round movement takes longer, you gain time back by not playing 2-board rounds.

 

The Easter Festival is one of the biggest events of the year. Changing the format would be risky, and maybe people will not care, but if they do I suspect that the majority would share my views.

 

And going back to one-round-in-arrears would be a real pity.

[Vampyr]

 

This is the first time I ever have heard any indication that masterpoints can be earned in events for pairs for other than ending among the top ranked pairs after a completed event (or in some special cases after a completed session).

 

In the EBU (small) masterpoints awards are given for winning matches in Swiss Pairs and Swiss Teams. Maybe for Multiple Teams too; I am not certain.

[Trinidad]

I personally might like it as long as VPS were used rather than a running percentage, and I would be surprised if this was a minority view.

Sorry, but you are getting me confused.

 

Earlier on I wrote something about IMP pairs and got a response that these events were MPs. Now you write about VPs.

 

Why (and how) would you use VPs in a MP event?

 

As an aside, I can understand that players want to perceive a round in a pairs event as a "match" but their desire to perceive it like that doesn't make it one. I also don't like the idea of awards for rounds. I used to play a lot of barometers with round awards. Though I think that the idea is nice to award the pair with the best round with a price, in practice, there are two possibilities:

• 
   
  
• Either the round award goes often to the pair that dominates the competition. That is fair and they deserve it, but there is not really a need to give the final winner of the event special recognition every second round. (I remember a tournament where my wife and I got round prices: each of us got a set of 6 glasses. We won 5 rounds and went home with 60 glasses, on top of the price money for winning the event. That is closer to embarrassing than to fun.)
  
• Or the round award goes to the pair that played against the worst pair in the field. I don't think it is particularly nice to see every other round that you got the worst score ... again.
  

So, I am not in favor of round awards.

 

Rik

[Vampyr]

Why (and how) would you use VPs in a MP event?

 

Same reason and method as for an IMP event.

 

As an aside, I can understand that players want to perceive a round in a pairs event as a "match" but their desire to perceive it like that doesn't make it one. I also don't like the idea of awards for rounds. I used to play a lot of barometers with round awards. Though I think that the idea is nice to award the pair with the best round with a price, in practice, there are two possibilities

 

And a third, which is the reality -- half the pairs get awards, because they won their match. Not prizes, just masterpoints.

[sfi]

Why do you think so? I like Swiss Pairs a lot. And it keeps interest in the event even if you are doing badly, because you can still have a moral victory (and matchpoints, if you care) when you win a match.

 

The big issue with the Swiss format is that the rounds don't contribute equally to the final placings. If you look at a 10 round event, I would estimate the first round has maybe 1% influence on the outcome (more than one person has told me I'm overestimating this), the last round around 30%, with an increasing percentage for each round in the middle.

 

Luck of the final round draw plays a huge role in the event, and the more seeds you play early in the event, the better your chances.

 

It may be a reasonable way to determine a winner, but Swiss is pretty dreadful at sorting out the rest of the field.

 

The reason so much Swiss Pairs is played in Australia is that everyone wins masterpoints, and that's what keeps people coming to the tournaments. So that's a good thing I suppose.

[sfi]

What constitutes "a particular set of opponents" for awarding masterpoints when playing Swiss Pairs? Do they really hand out masterpoints in each round?

 

I do wonder if they (similarly) hand out masterpoints in each round in events for pairs when playing Round Robin, Howell or Mitchell movements as well?

 

This is the first time I ever have heard any indication that masterpoints can be earned in events for pairs for other than ending among the top ranked pairs after a completed event (or in some special cases after a completed session).

 

Australia hands out masterpoints for each match (round) in a Swiss Pairs or for any match in a teams event (round robin, Swiss, etc.), as well as overall awards. For other pair events (or for the occasional Point-a-board), masterpoints are handed out per session in addition to the overalls.

 

One ramification is that everyone wins masterpoints in a Swiss, while in a Mitchell-movement event you may play the entire tournament and not win any. This is why matchpoint events are almost non-existent at a national level. We have one 5-session event and one other major Swiss Pairs which is MP converted to VP. Everything else is essentially Swiss Pairs and Teams.

 

With all the results computerised, this could be fixed by simply handing out 0.02 MP for each board where a pair scores above average in a Howell or Mitchell movement.

 

We also don't have the concept of stratified events in the masterpoint system. That is another way we may be able to fix the problems and increase diversity of events.

[gnasher]

Also VPS are cumulative, so you can never actually go backwards like you can if you were scored by an overall percentage. True, you can lose ground against the field, but for many people this would almost always happen anyway.

That problem is easily solved: make each pair's score the sum of their matchpoints on all the boards they've played, without dividing by the number of boards. Even if you're having a really bad day your numerical total will increase after each round.

[pran]

Sorry, but you are getting me confused.

 

Earlier on I wrote something about IMP pairs and got a response that these events were MPs. Now you write about VPs.

 

Why (and how) would you use VPs in a MP event?

 

As an aside, I can understand that players want to perceive a round in a pairs event as a "match" but their desire to perceive it like that doesn't make it one. I also don't like the idea of awards for rounds. I used to play a lot of barometers with round awards. Though I think that the idea is nice to award the pair with the best round with a price, in practice, there are two possibilities:

• 
   
  
• Either the round award goes often to the pair that dominates the competition. That is fair and they deserve it, but there is not really a need to give the final winner of the event special recognition every second round. (I remember a tournament where my wife and I got round prices: each of us got a set of 6 glasses. We won 5 rounds and went home with 60 glasses, on top of the price money for winning the event. That is closer to embarrassing than to fun.)
  
• Or the round award goes to the pair that played against the worst pair in the field. I don't think it is particularly nice to see every other round that you got the worst score ... again.
  

So, I am not in favor of round awards.

 

Rik

 

We sometimes spice events for pairs with round prizes (often in the form of chocolate bars or similar). One rule I then always use is that the same pair cannot win more than one round prize during the entire event.

[gordontd]

Why (and how) would you use VPs in a MP event?

You would use them in order to avoid a long mis-match having a disproportionate effect on the overall result. As such we typically use them in events with seven or more 7- or 8-board matches.

 

This is done by using the tables constructed for that purpose, whose aim is to make each award equally likely and so the range in match-points increases slightly the further away you get from average. Our tables are in section 3.1.7 of the White Book.

[gordontd]

What constitutes "a particular set of opponents" for awarding masterpoints when playing Swiss Pairs? Do they really hand out masterpoints in each round?

Yes. Small awards, and the overall ranking awards are correspondingly smaller.

 

I do wonder if they (similarly) hand out masterpoints in each round in events for pairs when playing Round Robin, Howell or Mitchell movements as well?

We do for the Ranked Master Pairs, which is scored by Cross-IMPs and in many categories has long rounds.

 

This is the first time I ever have heard any indication that masterpoints can be earned in events for pairs for other than ending among the top ranked pairs after a completed event (or in some special cases after a completed session).

So you don't know absolutely everything? :)