[jprest]

Movements are more equitable when we play more opponents. SYC typically runs as 6 rounds of 3 in sections of up to 15 tables. Scores depend, to some extent, on which 6 of the 15 pairs one plays. It'd be more fair to play 9 rounds of 2.

[TylerE]

Yes, but then the ACBL couldn't turn money into monsterpoints quite as rapidly, which is all they and BBO care about.

[mycroft]

It would be even more fair if they played 18 rounds of 1. And either it would take 20 more minutes, or the TDs would be adjusting 20% of the boards every round.

So they don't. The problem is that 9 rounds of 2 has a very similar issue. How much more fair is 9x2 than 6x3 depends mostly on how many killer pairs (or 25% pairs) there are out there (1 each way is bad, 2 or more each way is almost always a wash, unless they're really back-to-back), and how many "4♠= across the room" hands there are.

But it is slower, and it is more work for the TDs, which is their job, but also can end up requiring another TD, therefore more cost to the ACBL, therefore (eventually) more cost to players.

I noticed in the RAH a couple weeks ago that Flight A played 9x2 and everyone else played 6x3. But of course, it was also scored across many sections, so 6 of 42 vs 9 of 42...

[mycroft]

I will note that I have played in a couple games in Bengaluru, and kibitzed a few more. They *do* play 1-board rounds (including one I really enjoyed; 20 tables, therefore 20 1-board rounds, with a skip and a revenge round). Because the game runner knew I was a TD, he asked me what we did about slow players. I had to admit that since we always played at least 2 boards a round, there was always at least one board to pass...