[mlawson3]

We run mostly Open Pairs and Team Events at the local club.

I would like to run an individual event. Easier said then done when you look at ACBLscore. Has any had in success in running individual events?

Has anyone heard of an event call "Calcutta"? How about one called a "Cup" run in England?

We can offline the conversation if that works better for you

[awm]

Los Angeles (ACBL District 23) holds a Calcutta every year at the summer regional. People are allowed to "buy" the various pairs (via an auction) and then we play a session of IMP pairs. The people who bought the top pairs receive a cash prize which is a percentage of the total money spent at the auction. It's often the case that "ownership" of pairs is divided up fractionally, and pairs are required to purchase some fraction of themselves (to reduce opportunity for dumping and such). The field is also typically seeded by the amount the pairs sold for at auction.

The Cavendish is a more prestigious example of a Calcutta, although it's by invitation only.

[blackshoe]

I ran a small indie at a local club a while back. Only done it once, but I don't recall any problems with ACBLScore.

[barmar]

Our club runs one or two individuals a year, and our district runs them in the Keohane Individual Regional every January, so I'm pretty sure ACBLScore can handle them.

[mrdct]

My local club ran an individual last month as part of the annual Christmas Party using ScoreBridge and BridgePads and it worked perfectly - even when we decided to truncate the movement by a couple of rounds when the catering arrived a bit earlier than we had ordered. Previous attempts to run and score individuals at the club manually had always been a major hassle with questionable accuracy; but with the electronic scoring units it's really easy.

We are now looking at adding some Swiss Pairs events to the calendar. To that end, say we have 16 pairs and want to play 4 matches of 7 boards (the minimum in Australia to issue masterpoints for match wins in addition to placing) with a reasonably well-seeded field would there be merit in starting with 1v2, 3v4, 5v6, etc? My thinking is that by starting with the top seeds playing each other, we are more likely to have everyone playing opps of comparable standard for all four matches; but in every seeded swiss pairs or swiss teams event that I've played in the draw for round 1 has always been 1 v 1+n/2, etc.

[mgoetze]

I think cross pairing (1 vs 1+n/2 etc.) is definitely better for a serious tournament - you will tend to get all the better teams into the top half, so noone has to play catch-up, and the 1 vs 2 match is delayed a bit, which keeps things interesting longer. But for a club evening 1vs2 etc. may be a reasonable alternative. I just hope #1 don't mind if they have to play #n-1 in the 2nd round.

[Vampyr]

I don't like the idea of seeding for Swiss Pairs. But in any case, for 16 pairs playing 4 rounds, there is no need for it.

[Bbradley62]

Vampyr, on 2011-January-06, 02:30, said:

I don't like the idea of seeding for Swiss Pairs. But in any case, for 16 pairs playing 4 rounds, there is no need for it.

I agree with this. But, if you want to seed, I think it's best to simply seed the top 1/4 (or 1/2) of the field and let the pairings be random draw.

mrdct, on 2011-January-03, 20:13, said:

... would there be merit in starting with 1v2, 3v4, 5v6, etc? My thinking is that by starting with the top seeds playing each other, we are more likely to have everyone playing opps of comparable standard for all four matches...

This would yield exactly the opposite result from the one you want. You should want the two top pairs playing each other at the end (hopefully for the championship) but this makes them play each other first, thus guaranteeing that one of them is in the bottom half when assignments are made for the second round. Similarly, one of 3v4 will also be in the bottom half. If they happen to draw each other in the second round, you are guaranteed that one of your top four pairs is in the bottom half for round 3. This will almost certainly lead to a lopsided match. Conversely, if 13v14 and 15v16 in the first round, you are guaranteeing that two of the bottom four pairs are in the top half for second round pairings, and maybe one of them get to the third round with a record of 2-0, where they are likely to get slaughtered. Basically, if you're playing Swiss there's going to be some competitive matches and some not, and you should want the latter (to the extent it exists) to be in the earlier rounds.

mgoetze, on 2011-January-04, 04:39, said:

I think cross pairing (1 vs 1+n/2 etc.) is definitely better for a serious tournament - you will tend to get all the better teams into the top half, so noone has to play catch-up, and the 1 vs 2 match is delayed a bit, which keeps things interesting longer. But for a club evening 1vs2 etc. may be a reasonable alternative. I just hope #1 don't mind if they have to play #n-1 in the 2nd round.

This seems to be a popular method, but it puzzles me. Why are we screwing pairs #9 and 10 of 16 in the first round while giving pairs #7 and 8 easy matches? x vs n+1-x at least gives similar pairs similar assignments, and is likely to leave them in similar positions. Of course, in a club game it may be rude to pre-ordain that #1 plays #16, which brings us back to seeding the top 1/4 or 1/2 and doing random draw after that...

[mgoetze]

Bbradley62, on 2011-January-06, 11:07, said:

This seems to be a popular method, but it puzzles me. Why are we screwing pairs #9 and 10 of 16 in the first round while giving pairs #7 and 8 easy matches?

Because we want the probability that Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 all have a 1-1 score after 2 rounds to be as high as possible.

[Vampyr]

mgoetze, on 2011-January-06, 11:22, said:

Because we want the probability that Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 all have a 1-1 score after 2 rounds to be as high as possible.

Are you using Victory Points? If so, 1-1 could be 11 or 29 (on a 20-point scale).

I believe that converting to Victory points is best, because a match won by collecting 51% of the available matchpoints and one won by collecting 70% are not the same. Also it prevents pairs who are losing a match from doing very silly things to try to generate swings and pull ahead.