[awm]

In the recent LA regional, we had a couple four-session events. I don't really get how the masterpoint awards worked for these. In particular we had:

Farell Four-Session Pairs. Initially 31 tables (62 pairs) with 14 tables (28 pairs) advancing to the second day. Overall award for the winners was 23.92 gold.

Miles Four-Session Swiss. Initially 22 tables (22 teams) with 9 tables (9 teams) advancing to the second day. Overall award for the winners was 30.33 gold.

I'm aware of the potential issue with ACBL masterpoints in pairs events, that the total points awarded are less than teams because it's based on table count and not "number of competing entities" count (the top award goes to two players instead of four etc). But this seems different, in that a team event with fewer tables actually awarded more masterpoints to the overall winner. Anyone understand this?

(( In case anyone cares, I have no personal interest in this. I didn't make the overalls of the Farell Pairs and did not play in the Miles Swiss. ))

[TimG]

awm, on Jul 12 2009, 08:38 PM, said:

In the recent LA regional, we had a couple four-session events. I don't really get how the masterpoint awards worked for these. In particular we had:

Farell Four-Session Pairs. Initially 31 tables (62 pairs) with 14 tables (28 pairs) advancing to the second day. Overall award for the winners was 23.92 gold.

Miles Four-Session Swiss. Initially 22 tables (22 teams) with 9 tables (9 teams) advancing to the second day. Overall award for the winners was 30.33 gold.

I'm aware of the potential issue with ACBL masterpoints in pairs events, that the total points awarded are less than teams because it's based on table count and not "number of competing entities" count (the top award goes to two players instead of four etc). But this seems different, in that a team event with fewer tables actually awarded more masterpoints to the overall winner. Anyone understand this?

(( In case anyone cares, I have no personal interest in this. I didn't make the overalls of the Farell Pairs and did not play in the Miles Swiss. ))

When a 14 table Flight A pair event runs concurrently with a 14 table Flight B event, the masterpoint award for the Flight A event is not based upon 14 tables, but rather something between 14 and 28 (or maybe on 28). The awards for the four session events are also dependent upon not only the number of entries in the 4-session event, but the number of entries in the "secondary" events that start at the same time as the 4-session events.

So, my guess is that the concurrent pair game was smaller than the concurrent team event.

[mike777]

awm, on Jul 12 2009, 08:38 PM, said:

In the recent LA regional, we had a couple four-session events. I don't really get how the masterpoint awards worked for these. In particular we had:

Farell Four-Session Pairs. Initially 31 tables (62 pairs) with 14 tables (28 pairs) advancing to the second day. Overall award for the winners was 23.92 gold.

Miles Four-Session Swiss. Initially 22 tables (22 teams) with 9 tables (9 teams) advancing to the second day. Overall award for the winners was 30.33 gold.

I'm aware of the potential issue with ACBL masterpoints in pairs events, that the total points awarded are less than teams because it's based on table count and not "number of competing entities" count (the top award goes to two players instead of four etc). But this seems different, in that a team event with fewer tables actually awarded more masterpoints to the overall winner. Anyone understand this?

(( In case anyone cares, I have no personal interest in this. I didn't make the overalls of the Farell Pairs and did not play in the Miles Swiss. ))

My first thought was WoW: these seem like tiny events with no one playing. Where are the bridge players?
1) two day pairs only 31 tables start?
2) two day swiss only 22 tables start?

I mean we get 50 tables online often.

why object to online regionals if no one shows up f2f?

[Jlall]

mike777, on Jul 12 2009, 09:46 PM, said:

why object to online regionals if no one shows up f2f?

lol

[TimG]

mike777, on Jul 12 2009, 09:46 PM, said:

My first thought was WoW: these seem like tiny events with no one playing. Where are the bridge players?
1) two day pairs only 31 tables start?
2) two day swiss only 22 tables start?

I mean we get 50 tables online often.

why object to online regionals if no one shows up f2f?

Where are these 50 table two-day online events?

[matmat]

TimG, on Jul 12 2009, 10:34 PM, said:

mike777, on Jul 12 2009, 09:46 PM, said:

My first thought was WoW: these seem like tiny events with no one playing. Where are the bridge players?
1) two day pairs only 31 tables start?
2) two day swiss only 22 tables start?

I mean we get 50 tables online often.

why object to online regionals if no one shows up f2f?

Where are these 50 table two-day online events?

there was one just yesterday.

[TimG]

MARSHALL MILES SWISS TMS - 9 Tables / Based on 42 Tables

MARY JANE FARELL OPEN PRS - 14.0 Tables / Based on 31 Tables

The Swiss was a smaller event, but based upon more tables.

[awm]

Hmm it seems the directors forgot to count the concurrent side pairs and 299er events when computing the awards for the Mary Jane Farell four-session pairs. They counted only the tables actually in the event.

On the other hand, they clearly counted some other tables for the swiss.

[karlson]

Quote

Hmm it seems the directors forgot to count the concurrent side pairs and 299er events when computing the awards for the Mary Jane Farell four-session pairs.

Man. Even when I win, I lose.

[JoAnneM]

There were actually three Regionals going on during that time period, and LA was the largest with 1783 tables, Chicago 1097 and King of Prussia, PA 1713. The events are small because there are so many events going on at the same time. It's not like in the "good old days" when one day was all open pairs, and another day was all swiss teams, and you had 200-300 pairs in one event. Yes, I am a MP player who doesn't like Knockouts, but I like the table count they bring.

The NABC starts the 23rd, that keeps players away from tournaments starting around the month before.

[Elianna]

JoAnneM, on Jul 17 2009, 05:05 PM, said:

There were actually three Regionals going on during that time period, and LA was the largest with 1783 tables, Chicago 1097 and King of Prussia, PA 1713. The events are small because there are so many events going on at the same time. It's not like in the "good old days" when one day was all open pairs, and another day was all swiss teams, and you had 200-300 pairs in one event. Yes, I am a MP player who doesn't like Knockouts, but I like the table count they bring.

The NABC starts the 23rd, that keeps players away from tournaments starting around the month before.

The LA regional was 10 days. Where those also ten days, or seven? (The longer regional SHOULD have more tables.)

[jjbrr]

lol...

[JoAnneM]

Makes one wonder what's the point of a tournament that averages 170 tables a day. The director expenses must be staggering, or maybe they all live right there.

[jmc]

I heard that the Omaha regional last year had more than 2000 tables. How does the Omaha regional have that many when L.A. has only 1700 and some. Can those numbers be right? Omaha metro is like seven hundren thousand and L.A. is like seven million.

Omaha is Monday night through Sunday afternoon.

jmc

[Mbodell]

FWIW there is also a huge sectional (for a sectional) in northern clalifornia (palo alto/santa clara) that was Wed through Sunday, but only 2 sessions a day. I think the Fire Cracker sectional is the 2nd biggest non-STAC sectional in the ACBL. For the 5 days of 2 sessions a day they got 1050 tables.

So no doubt that effected the draw somewhat of a southern California regional that partially overlaps.

[TimG]

Greenville, SC had 2517 tables last month (Monday to Sunday).

[barmar]

jmc, on Jul 20 2009, 12:00 AM, said:

I heard that the Omaha regional last year had more than 2000 tables. How does the Omaha regional have that many when L.A. has only 1700 and some. Can those numbers be right? Omaha metro is like seven hundren thousand and L.A. is like seven million.

Regionals get lots of out-of-towners, and I'll bet hotel rates in Omaha are much lower than LA.

How many people live in the Gatlinburg "metro" area?

[awm]

Omaha is in a very large (geographically) district. There are a lot of players in Nebraska, Kansas, etc. for whom this is one of only a few regionals per year within driving distance of home. So the "metro area" is expanded to a range of several hundred miles.

On the other hand, we did not have many pairs driving from San Diego or even Anaheim (to name two very near-to-LA cities) for the LA regional, because Los Angeles is a tiny district right on the border with two others, and people from these places have their own regular regionals to attend.

It may be worth noting though that the LA regional is roughly the "normal" size for a regional. Apparently the average table count is about 1400 for an ACBL regional tournament. Of course, one would expect this to be a bit higher for ten day regionals and lower for seven day ones, so LA's count of approximately 1800 over ten days is nothing special.

[jjbrr]

TimG, on Jul 20 2009, 09:12 AM, said:

Greenville, SC had 2517 tables last month (Monday to Sunday).

the hospitality at the greenville regional is exceptional.

just out of curiosity, why do you have these 4 session events?

and why are your regionals 10 days, especially if they're small and conflict with sectionals?

[Jlall]

jjbrr, on Jul 20 2009, 12:19 PM, said:

TimG, on Jul 20 2009, 09:12 AM, said:

Greenville, SC had 2517 tables last month (Monday to Sunday).

the hospitality at the greenville regional is exceptional.

just out of curiosity, why do you have these 4 session events?

and why are your regionals 10 days, especially if they're small and conflict with sectionals?

I believe this was the Bridge Week regional, it has a big historical background in terms of bridge, used to be the nuts. Even when I played in LA it was nothing special anymore though. Maybe they should update it to become one of the many endless KO regionals without special events in order to maximize attendance, but keeping something special like BW has its perks too.

NY has a lot of events that used to be great also that are simply a joke now, but they keep them anyways. Bridge isn't what it used to be I guess.