[uday]

This sort of movement does routinely allow playbacks, tho it makes a bit of an effort ( not a big one ) to avoid them.

"Clocked" movements won't have playbacks unless the # rounds is greater than the # of tables in a section.

Every other movement - unclocked, swiss, survivor - allows playbacks. Unclocked tries to avoid them. Swiss/survivor don't try.

[pigpenz]

rigour6, on Aug 7 2008, 11:25 AM, said:

As a marketing tool, masterpoints are quite successful, and for this reason I think they are a good idea.
They add to enjoyment of the game, as we've all seen someone get motivated as a masterpoint milestone approaches.

Masterpoint rewards for online tournaments are imnsho ridiculously high, but that's part of a larger masterpoint inflation issue.

so it has to be working cause the majority of people who play online are willing to pay the $1 per game as oppossed to playing in free tournaments. So the question is what would it take to get people to play in free games?

[matmat]

rigour6, on Aug 7 2008, 11:25 AM, said:

As a marketing tool, masterpoints are quite successful, and for this reason I think they are a good idea.
They add to enjoyment of the game, as we've all seen someone get motivated as a masterpoint milestone approaches.

they also have the effect of turning the Dr Jekylls into Mr Hydes

[NickRW]

rigour6, on Aug 7 2008, 04:44 PM, said:

But it's one reason why I limit these tourneys to 3 rounds. On the 2 fastest tables:
1. A v B C V D
2. A V C B v D
3. A v D B v C

No duplication. Add a 4th round, and the two fastest tables must wait for at least 2 more before you can run another round without replaying the same pair.

You could of course fine tune the software to wait until for example, 3 tables finish Round 1 and then send them all on together, which would avoid this problem. But such nuances are beyond the ken of mere TDs like meself.

Its not that difficult.

AvB CvD EvF
AvC BvE DvF
AvD BvF CvE
AvE BvD CvF
AvF BvC DvE

That isn't very balanced. The pair movement for a 3 table howell is a little better.

Anyway, if you have an odd number of tables you won't avoid having a group of 3 somewhere along the line. (But your problem with doing it in groups of 3 is if the number of tables are not divisible by 3, then you need one or more fours).

Nick

[kenberg]

pigpenz, on Aug 7 2008, 05:47 PM, said:

rigour6, on Aug 7 2008, 11:25 AM, said:

As a marketing tool, masterpoints are quite successful, and for this reason I think they are a good idea.
They add to enjoyment of the game, as we've all seen someone get motivated as a masterpoint milestone approaches.

Masterpoint rewards for online tournaments are imnsho ridiculously high, but that's part of a larger masterpoint inflation issue.

so it has to be working cause the majority of people who play online are willing to pay the $1 per game as oppossed to playing in free tournaments. So the question is what would it take to get people to play in free games?

This is an interesting question. It's fair to say that the acbl games are at a somewhat casual level. The free tourneys are considerably more so. A recollection from when I first started playing on BBO: There was some director's ruling, I forget what, and I commented on the forum about it.. The general view was that if I play in a free tourney I need to accept that I get what I pay for. I replied that it was in an acbl tourney and there was general agreement that I then had a right to expect better. I also think that the level of play is higher and, not coincidentally, the level of politeness is higher. The buck a shot, or the acbl affiliation, or both, improves the game. Laugh if you like. I am not claiming this is high level play in any serious sense of the phrase. But players usually know what standard leads and carding are and they have at least a working knowledge of what constitutes an alertable bid. I'm more than happy to fork over some change to play in such an environment.

When I used to play in clubs, I felt the same about the special events that charged more dough and paid more masterpoints. It brought about a better game. I realize that if I want a really good game I have to get a regular partner, go over a system in detail, and generally improve my play. Before I moved, I played weekly in our unit game where, for example, Steve Robinson is a regular. Stevie supports bridge in may ways but his generosity does not extend to playing in online acbl games. There are limits! Now I live about an hour plus from the game, my regular partner moved to Florida, and I need to think this out. I had hopes for the regular online acbl games but these hopes are fading.

Anyway, that's my situation. No doubt I'll work it out.

[helene_t]

pigpenz, on Aug 7 2008, 11:47 PM, said:

rigour6, on Aug 7 2008, 11:25 AM, said:

As a marketing tool, masterpoints are quite successful, and for this reason I think they are a good idea.
They add to enjoyment of the game, as we've all seen someone get motivated as a masterpoint milestone approaches.

Masterpoint rewards for online tournaments are imnsho ridiculously high, but that's part of a larger masterpoint inflation issue.

so it has to be working cause the majority of people who play online are willing to pay the $1 per game as oppossed to playing in free tournaments. So the question is what would it take to get people to play in free games?

I play in ACBL games because they are better managed than most free tournaments and because often the free tournaments are full. Masterpoints and fees are minor concerns. A minor reason for me to avoid ACBL games is the GCC charter, but compared to all the weird "no-psyche" rules etc. in many free tournaments, GCC is just a minor nuisance. Another reason for me to avoid ACBL games is that sometimes the attendance is so small that they either get canceled or are played with so few pairs that one is bound to meet the same opps several times.

All in all I prefer ACBL to some random free tournament but would prefer a free tournament with a TD I know.

Only speaking for myself of course.

[rigour6]

NickRW, on Aug 7 2008, 09:37 PM, said:

Anyway, if you have an odd number of tables you won't avoid having a group of 3 somewhere along the line. (But your problem with doing it in groups of 3 is if the number of tables are not divisible by 3, then you need one or more fours).

Nick

That's actually an interesting part. When you have an odd number of tables, it's the slowest 3 which move together, not the fastest.

[rigour6]

kenberg, on Aug 8 2008, 07:29 AM, said:

Now I live about an hour plus from the game, my regular partner moved to Florida, and I need to think this out. I had hopes for the regular online acbl games but these hopes are fading.

Anyway, that's my situation. No doubt I'll work it out.

Consider posting in the "Find a Partner" thread.

Also, I agree with you about "special games", they tend to draw more serious players and everyone tries to play their best game, so the experience is, if slightly tenser, usually better bridge.

[Old York]

I have experimented with running an occasional small Serious Challenge Tourney alongside my Social Tourneys, and have compiled a custom list of High Scorers. This means that I can restrict entry to the Serious Tournaments while simultaneously running my normal Games. This worked extremely well, but I was forced to extend entry to all Advance/Expert/World Class in order to fill the seats and for subbing.

Now, if all players were honest about their level there would be no problem, but it is all to easy for a novice to display "Expert" on his profile.....

I hope other TD's might follow this idea, many bbo members want a true challenge occasionally, while still having the option to play in fun games. These players typically do not care for masterpoints, numbers next to their names or cash prizes, and like to have a reasonable amount of thinking-time available.

I am fairly sure that clocked, Swiss MP% Pairs is the most popular event, but would welcome feedback.

Tony (Duke of York) Dukebox@live.se

[jillybean]

Hi Tony,

How does this list of High Scorers work? Are they pairs who have BBO or ACBL points or winners from your other tournaments?

ty

[Old York]

At the moment I can only include high scorers from my own Tournies.

I realise that OP was ACBL oriented, but think that most masterpoint players honestly prefer Speedball, so slowball may be doomed as pay tournies. (Market forces etc) Also the restrictions on Systems cannot help promote ACBL.

My original idea was to compile a Roll of Honour for all players who scored over 70% in Duke of York Tournaments, this was originally featured on my websites as The Over Seventies Club.

I have used this list as the Custom List in Dukebox Challenge Tournies.
As I said, I think it worked well, but it is impossible to advertise a small monthly tourney.

Larger Clubs (like Hornets etc) might like to expand on this idea, creating challenge tournies for Fun Points winners etc.
I would also love to have Duke's versus Hornet's Challenge Matches or something along those lines

I think the possibilities are endless

Tony (Duke of York)