[Hanoi5]

At the last round of a Swiss Event the leading team is so far ahead that even losing 25-0 in the last match they would still win the tournament. Is it correct to have that first team play the first team which cannot possibly finish in the prize-winning zone? Is it fair to have the normal pairing 1st vs 2nd and so on? The Gibsonizing thing comes from Scrabble tourneys, is there such a figure in Bridge or other sports? Any links related to bridge?

[FrancesHinden]

To some extent it doesn't matter, because the winner has already been determined and the main purpose of a Swiss event is to ensure that the best team (on the day) wins.

But I guess you are are asking what the 'fairest' thing to do is for determining the other prizes.

There is no right answer to this.

If you have the normal pairings 1st v 2nd and so on, other teams may think that the 2nd team is having an "easy ride" because the team that have won have lost interest and won't bother giving them a proper match.

If you effectively exclude the team that has won from the swiss match-ups, it's still "not fair". 2nd plays 3rd and loses 12-13, but still comes second overall because they were 2 in the lead. The 3rd team now say this isn't fair, because they were beaten heavily earlier in the event by the team that won, whilst the team that came second never had to play the top team.

The highest placed team that has not yet played the winners has an advantage before the last match, and there is nothing you can do with the assignments to solve this. IMO the best solution is to have the normal pairings and hope that the winners take this match (reasonably) seriously.

[Hanoi5]

What if the first already played the second, the third, the fourth and the fifth? Would this make a difference? What if 2nd and 3rd were 1 VP away from each other? I really want to know if this has been done before in bridge swiss tournaments before.

[shintaro]

We do reassign if the 'Field' is a small one thus on the last round 1st May Play 2nd even if they have played them previously;

We call it 'danish' over here in blighty

But we warn small fields that it 'MAY' be necessary at the start of the event

Hope this helps

[brianshark]

Swiss fields are designed to find the best team (and the worst team). They are not accurate at placing the intermediate teams, no matter what jiggery-pokery you do on the last round.

[TylerE]

Hanoi5, on Mar 19 2009, 05:53 AM, said:

What if the first already played the second, the third, the fourth and the fifth? Would this make a difference? What if 2nd and 3rd were 1 VP away from each other? I really want to know if this has been done before in bridge swiss tournaments before.

Given that 1st is far enough ahead of the field, I consider that somewhat unlikely, since you basically have to blitz every match to have a lead that big...and it's hard to be that high in a reasonably sized swiss after getting blitzed even once.

[keylime]

I think the 30 VP scale, with 8 board matches, is the ONLY fair form of Swiss, due to balancing of vulnerability, the rewarding of successful play, and I think a fairer test for intermediate teams in the middle of the field.

[paulg]

The big difference in Scrabble tournaments is that matches are win/loss, with points difference typically being used to split ties. So they are very happy to gibsonize players as they then play a meaningful match and understand what they need to do win a prize.

The difference in a bridge tournament is that this is not true. You can win a match narrowly and get overtaken by a lower team having a big win, so you never actually know where you stand.

This randomising suggests (to me) that gibsonizing has less value.

Scrabble congresses are very similar to bridge tournaments except that they tend to have more prize money on offer. Conversations between Scrabble players always start with "You hold ...."

Paul

[TimG]

TylerE, on Mar 19 2009, 08:39 AM, said:

Hanoi5, on Mar 19 2009, 05:53 AM, said:

What if the first already played the second, the third, the fourth and the fifth? Would this make a difference? What if 2nd and 3rd were 1 VP away from each other? I really want to know if this has been done before in bridge swiss tournaments before.

Given that 1st is far enough ahead of the field, I consider that somewhat unlikely, since you basically have to blitz every match to have a lead that big...and it's hard to be that high in a reasonably sized swiss after getting blitzed even once.

Perhaps you are right about this in a large field. But, in a smaller field I think it is common for the leaders to have played most of the other high finishers.

I recently placed 3rd in a 22 team, eight match Swiss. During the course of the day, we played 6 of the 7 other teams that were in the money, including 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and one of the teams tied for 7th/8th. That included a near blitz loss to the 2nd place team. In my experience, this is rather typical.