05-10-2016, 03:36 AM

This is some work, to be sure, but it might be a good idea.

The basic tournament structure is total scoring, with rounds of 4 hands. This allows all rounds to be played in the same time frame, and allows players/partnerships to play against a wide variety of opponents. The total points scored over all the rounds is used to determine the winner.

For PAIRS, partnership play:

After each round, each pair is ranked based on total score so far. The highest scoring pair plays against the 2nd highest scoring pair *that they have not yet played.* And this pattern gets repeated for all pairs. This is what's commonly called Swiss format. Note that win/loss doesn't matter; if pair A gets a double run on one hand, and pair B gets double aces on another, they're both in line for high total scores for the round. So be it. The overall winner isn't based on win/loss, so there's no reason to base the matchups on win/loss.

So...say there's 32 pairs...there will be 16 tables in play. In a typical Swiss format with win/loss scoring, 5 rounds would amount to a straight single elimination. Swiss usually adds an additional round to avoid that...it's kinda like a double elimination. If we postulate 20 minutes per round and a 5 minute break between rounds...5 rounds would be over 2 hours. Might be unwise to go much longer than that.

These are the basics, largely following NPA, but also very similar to ACBL teams play. NOW, the somewhat messy parts. This is based on ACBL pairs tournaments.

a) A massive flaw in total scoring is the sickening luck factor of the random deal. Eliminate this: in each round, every table plays the SAME 4 hands.

b) If you implement a), then you can also implement a more complex, but MUCH more comprehensive, scoring system, as is done in duplicate bridge...matchpointing. In matchpointing, your result is compared against all the other pairs that had your hands. You get points for each pair who fared less well.

Note that this makes good play *essential*...and bidding to get the hand directed properly is critical.

A quick example of how it works. 4 tables. On the first hand:

Table 1: E/W 90 N/S 22 E/W +68

Table 2: E/W 87 N/S 0 E/W +87

Table 3: E/W 86 N/S 0 E/W +86

Table 4: E/W 91 N/S 21 E/W +70

E/W at table 2 had the best result; they get 3 points. Table 3 E/W gets 2, Table 4 gets 1, and Table 1 E/W gets 0. The N/S pairs are the converse; here, it's the *least negative* that did the best.

(BTW: the difference? Say E/W's best trump suit is a NON run. They pull considerably more...enough to deny N/S 20.

A final potential refinement: Tables 2 and 3 might be considered a tie; each N/S and E/W would get 1/2 for each tie. Let's face it: the meld scores will generally be the same. Is 1 or 2 points in the play...UNLESS we're talking save/no save or make/set...significant? That is something for discussion WAY down the line.

At the end of each round, pairs move. With not too many pairs, the movement is arranged such that each pair plays against each other pair at the table...and tries to balance out how often each pair compares against the other pairs...so pair A and pair B sit E/W or N/S about the same number of times as pair 9 and pair 11 do so. This isn't entirely simple...but it's also been worked out LONG since.

Oh, and as a side note: you don't necessarily play 4 hands per round. You can play 2 hands per round just fine. Probably even 3 hands per round, for a small tournament.

So...with 8 pairs, you would have 7 rounds. IIRC, there might be *one* pair that stays in one pair of seats throughout; this is the 'anchor' around which the movement works. I'd go with 3 hands per round...a total of 21 hands. If you have a much larger field, like 18 pairs...9 tables...you won't have time to do a full 'round robin.' The most common notion is that the E/W pairs always sit E/W (and move from table to table) while the N/S pairs always sit N/S (and don't move.) So you have 2 winners, one for each group. This works best when the event actually comprises 2 full *sessions* like this...because you redistribute the N/S and E/W pairs for the second session.

I know of NO online site that runs tournaments like this...particularly if you implement "duplicate pinochle." And you'd have a good, solid ladder system based on tournament results. That would mean a LOT more to me than the BS rankings systems.

Nuff said, it's late and I'm going to bed. This is pretty dense, I'll grant, and for me it's largely second nature...I played tournament bridge for many years, and directed at our local club semi-regularly. This *sounds* complex...but it's really not that bad. Doing everything on a computer would make things actually a WHOLE lot easier.

The basic tournament structure is total scoring, with rounds of 4 hands. This allows all rounds to be played in the same time frame, and allows players/partnerships to play against a wide variety of opponents. The total points scored over all the rounds is used to determine the winner.

For PAIRS, partnership play:

After each round, each pair is ranked based on total score so far. The highest scoring pair plays against the 2nd highest scoring pair *that they have not yet played.* And this pattern gets repeated for all pairs. This is what's commonly called Swiss format. Note that win/loss doesn't matter; if pair A gets a double run on one hand, and pair B gets double aces on another, they're both in line for high total scores for the round. So be it. The overall winner isn't based on win/loss, so there's no reason to base the matchups on win/loss.

So...say there's 32 pairs...there will be 16 tables in play. In a typical Swiss format with win/loss scoring, 5 rounds would amount to a straight single elimination. Swiss usually adds an additional round to avoid that...it's kinda like a double elimination. If we postulate 20 minutes per round and a 5 minute break between rounds...5 rounds would be over 2 hours. Might be unwise to go much longer than that.

These are the basics, largely following NPA, but also very similar to ACBL teams play. NOW, the somewhat messy parts. This is based on ACBL pairs tournaments.

a) A massive flaw in total scoring is the sickening luck factor of the random deal. Eliminate this: in each round, every table plays the SAME 4 hands.

b) If you implement a), then you can also implement a more complex, but MUCH more comprehensive, scoring system, as is done in duplicate bridge...matchpointing. In matchpointing, your result is compared against all the other pairs that had your hands. You get points for each pair who fared less well.

Note that this makes good play *essential*...and bidding to get the hand directed properly is critical.

A quick example of how it works. 4 tables. On the first hand:

Table 1: E/W 90 N/S 22 E/W +68

Table 2: E/W 87 N/S 0 E/W +87

Table 3: E/W 86 N/S 0 E/W +86

Table 4: E/W 91 N/S 21 E/W +70

E/W at table 2 had the best result; they get 3 points. Table 3 E/W gets 2, Table 4 gets 1, and Table 1 E/W gets 0. The N/S pairs are the converse; here, it's the *least negative* that did the best.

(BTW: the difference? Say E/W's best trump suit is a NON run. They pull considerably more...enough to deny N/S 20.

A final potential refinement: Tables 2 and 3 might be considered a tie; each N/S and E/W would get 1/2 for each tie. Let's face it: the meld scores will generally be the same. Is 1 or 2 points in the play...UNLESS we're talking save/no save or make/set...significant? That is something for discussion WAY down the line.

At the end of each round, pairs move. With not too many pairs, the movement is arranged such that each pair plays against each other pair at the table...and tries to balance out how often each pair compares against the other pairs...so pair A and pair B sit E/W or N/S about the same number of times as pair 9 and pair 11 do so. This isn't entirely simple...but it's also been worked out LONG since.

Oh, and as a side note: you don't necessarily play 4 hands per round. You can play 2 hands per round just fine. Probably even 3 hands per round, for a small tournament.

So...with 8 pairs, you would have 7 rounds. IIRC, there might be *one* pair that stays in one pair of seats throughout; this is the 'anchor' around which the movement works. I'd go with 3 hands per round...a total of 21 hands. If you have a much larger field, like 18 pairs...9 tables...you won't have time to do a full 'round robin.' The most common notion is that the E/W pairs always sit E/W (and move from table to table) while the N/S pairs always sit N/S (and don't move.) So you have 2 winners, one for each group. This works best when the event actually comprises 2 full *sessions* like this...because you redistribute the N/S and E/W pairs for the second session.

I know of NO online site that runs tournaments like this...particularly if you implement "duplicate pinochle." And you'd have a good, solid ladder system based on tournament results. That would mean a LOT more to me than the BS rankings systems.

Nuff said, it's late and I'm going to bed. This is pretty dense, I'll grant, and for me it's largely second nature...I played tournament bridge for many years, and directed at our local club semi-regularly. This *sounds* complex...but it's really not that bad. Doing everything on a computer would make things actually a WHOLE lot easier.