[zasanya]

In June our district association organizes a sponsored tournament.The aims of the sponsor are
1)A large number of pairs should compete.Skill level is not an issue.Last year there were 90 pairs.The field included natinal champions and LOLs.
2)Less experienced pairs should get an opportunity to play with more experienced ones.
3)In the end there must be an undisputed single champion pair and the result must be ready 15 mts after the last card is played.(Not a N/S 1st place and E/W 1st place).
The organizers' problems are
1)Experts do not like to play with rank beginners.
2)Duplication of predealt boards on such a large scale is not possible.It is possible to have 3 copies of the same set of boards but not more.
We do have computer software that can quicky compare scores and give the result.We have experimented in the past with Mixed Mitchell ,Arrowhead switches etc.Could you suggest a suitable format.

[Gerben42]

You can play in 2 groups on a voluntary basis. Pairs that do not want to play against the champs can then play in their own group.

Another way is since you will have multiple sessions is to play the final session in different groups depending of the result of the first session, for example the first 26 pairs play in the highest group.

Make sure you have an experienced (and paid!) director (preferably at least 2) for this event they will know what to do.

[mycroft]

I would actually have thought objection 3): not right beginners don't want to play against experts. That's at least the biggest problem here - and some of those people wanting protection from the sharks have 1500 ACBL masterpoints.

Most scoring programs with traveler pickup should have 45 tables in three sections out 5 minutes after the last result, with one person scoring. Might take a little more time if you have a less experienced person doing the scoring, who can't handle 45 tables; or if you only have one person scoring and directing (see Gerben's last point!)

I'm not the fastest scorer by any means (although I am a computer person by trade, so don't have program/typing issues), but I am confident I could handle competitor entry and scoring for 55 tables, provided I didn't have to direct or call time or make coffee or...

One thing that would be useful to know is how long the game is. If it's one session, then there are compromises you will have to make; if it's two or three (or four!), then you can get much closer to all-play-all.

With the numbers you give, and a one-session game, I would probably play 3x15 table sections (I know, but without a relay, you're stuck with 3 sections), seeded (I don't care what experts or people who want to avoid the experts want, it's only for one or two rounds, and it's not fair for a shark non-"expert" to get to fish 13 rounds and sail ahead of all the experts that have to fight it out in the shark tank), arrowswitched (last two rounds), 13x2 board movement.

Now, that's if it's a pair entry. Individuals would be worse.

What would be fun, but impossible without more sets of boards and unfeasible without the software, is Swiss Pairs. 5x6 (5 if you really have to) board matches, MP-scored, with next match opponents on the Swiss principle (1 plays 2, 3 plays 4,... on current results, provided they haven't played each other previously). That will seed out the sharks pretty quickly, and people get to play the last few rounds "in company".

Michael.

[mike777]

After reading your post, I am not sure what the real problem is.

Sounds like a typical Reg/Sectional open pairs event in many places in the USA. Just run it like any other 25 table pair event in India.

[zasanya]

mike777, on Mar 19 2007, 07:30 PM, said:

After reading your post, I am not sure what the real problem is.

Sounds like a typical Reg/Sectional open pairs event in many places in the USA. Just run it like any other 25 table pair event in India.

The issue is the sponsors obsession with "undisputed Champion Pair".The pairs event we run and the formats we have tried out in the past have not satisfied a majority of our players.
I think we will try Gerbens suggestion of multiple sessions and increase the TDs and volunteers.
Ty for the replies

[Echognome]

What about just a large swiss pairs event with round in arrears? The first two rounds are randomly assigned, so pairs will have the chance to play any other pair. After that the Swiss format kicks in so that there is an undisputed set of winners. Easy enough to score.

[mycroft]

If you want an *Undisputed* champion pair, then you arrange an all-play-all. This will take a while (89 rounds for 90 pairs). Swiss pairs are good for weeding out the "don't want to play against experts/rank beginners", but someone will gripe about the submarine tactic, especially if it works. A one-session game is a crapshoot with 45 tables, no matter what you do. Frankly, a two-session game is not much better - you've played against 24-26 of the 89 opponents, and with three sections, there will be pairs you will never score against (even with scoring across the field and arrow-switching). And you'll hear the "but they didn't have to play against/score against ExpertA and ExpertB, and we did. That's why they won."

The only way I'd feel comfortable with a two-session event being close to "undisputed-proof" is to run a first-session qualifier seeding a second, one-section final (and other sections consolation) with some carryover. The ACBL tries to avoid qualifiers that are <50%, because frankly, the difference between the 40th percentile and the 60th is pretty much a crapshoot (could be one unlucky board) and people hate being the first missout, and being the first missout with a 54% game will cause gripes. Three sessions?

There's a reason the Vanderbilt is a week long, and the Bermuda Bowl longer yet - for fewer competitors (note, not players)! Undisputed champion is a very high standard, especially for bridge players, who can dispute *everything*!

Michael.