does software "seed" players

[phoenixmj]

Just curious if the software is programmed to "seed" people in tournaments? By that I mean, that if you do well in round one, are you then placed at a table where others also did well in round 1, or is it random? Lately it has felt to me that it is not random.

[Gerardo]

Swiss tournaments do exactlt that (match pairs based on their score). Survivor tournaments are swiss, so they do it too.

 

Other tournaments have fixed movements, NS stay, EW go one table up (wrapped in a section, so if they are in the last table in the section they go to the first table in the section instead, several tables down, then one up again in the next round).

 

Unclocked tournaments match pairs based on when did they finish their previous round.

Don't know about the matchup in individual tourneys.

[IGoHomeNow]

This is a horrible idea. A tournament is supposed to provide as equal as possible contest. This is a milder version of simply putting all A players in one section during an open event.

[DaveRolyat]

It is a bit odd, particularly in a short tournament with only 6 or 8 boards, in that the strong players continue to play each other and the weaker ones play each other.

 

That would be like Manchester City playing Liverpool every week, and only losing points if they didn't win by as many goals as Norwich did against Sheffield United (I know that's stretching the argument a little).

[barmar]

Don't know about the matchup in individual tourneys.

Individual movements have a fixed movement. I don't quite understand the details, but the player at Table 1 North is stationary, everyone else is put into a big list, and you simply follow the player ahead of you in the list (kind of like a Howell). It seems to be arranged so that you'll alternate between NS and EW each round, but this pattern is skipped if you would have to go to 1 North.

[barmar]

This is a horrible idea. A tournament is supposed to provide as equal as possible contest. This is a milder version of simply putting all A players in one section during an open event.

None of the tournaments that award points are unclocked, so this doesn't come up. They use either the Mitchell or Individual movements.

 

The whole point of unclocked tourneys is that you move as soon as possible, rather than waiting for the round to end at the same time for everyone. How can we do that and avoid pairing fast pairs against each other?

 

When I played on OKbridge (until around 15 years ago, I think), they used Swiss pairing among all the pairs that finished on time. But late tables were allowed to finish the hand, and then they were paired up in order that they finished. I remember being very suspicious of some pairs that were frequently late and also topped the leaderboards. It seemed like they may have been playing deliberately slow so that they would be paired against random slow pairs, rather than other good pairs that the Swiss movement would do.

[phoenixmj]

not a suggestion, but more of an observation. When I am playing well, it seems that my opps in the next round (and partner if an individual game) have more bbo points (based on the number next to their name). So, I wondered if it were coincidence or my imagination, or if there was some formula.

[barmar]

not a suggestion, but more of an observation. When I am playing well, it seems that my opps in the next round (and partner if an individual game) have more bbo points (based on the number next to their name). So, I wondered if it were coincidence or my imagination, or if there was some formula.

I see that you're playing in lots of free tournaments, not ACBL tourneys. I don't know offhand what movements they're using.