[tony stack]

I currently direct Goulash Tournies on bbo, ranging from 6 to 101 tables in attendence. I have come up with an idea that my tournies might be more fun to the particapants, and more managible to direct if I split them into seperate, smaller size tournies, starting at nearly the same time (ex: rather than one tournament running with 44 tables playing, four tournaments running with 11 tables playing in each). I have thought up of some pros and cons to running my tournaments in this way and I would be grateful if you TD's/admin members could tell me if I missed any .
Pros: 1. Players playing in the tournament would get their board results compared only against the people that are in thier section (BBO automatically places a tourney that has many tables into sections, but a players board result is determined by how everyone in the tournament played the board, not just the people in thier section of the tourney.). 2. TD's could be set up to run the tournament, with the ability to direct for only a certain number of sections/tables (just as bbo allows now, you can choose who you want to help TD your tournament for you, But the software does not allow you to specify what sections in the tourney, that a director can direct, a director can get calls from anywhere in the tourney).
Cons: 1. TD's directing multiple sections (multiple tourneys in other words) would have to run from tournament to tornament subbing and adjusting scores for both tournies (running from tournament to tournament will take time to do and would drop the number of tables a TD could otherwise manage). 2. Players may get frustrated because your first tourney (section) is full and may not signup for your second (third, forth,etc...) linked tourney.

Thanks in advance to the admin team, for your time in reading and thinking about both this, and all other issues we write on the forums.

Tone Stack.

[Gerben42]

Quote

Pros: 1. Players playing in the tournament would get their board results compared only against the people that are in thier section (BBO automatically places a tourney that has many tables into sections, but a players board result is determined by how everyone in the tournament played the board, not just the people in thier section of the tourney.)

Why is this a pro? More comparisons = fairer. I would list this under cons.

[tony stack]

The reason why I made fewer score compariosons a pro was becuase you would be playing more of the pairs that you are being compared against. My plan when I run an 11 table section (tourney) is to have 5 or 6 rounds, that way a pair will play nearly half of the people in their opposing direction, as opposed to a tourney having 30+ tables, where they would play only 1 out of 6 of their opposing pairs. But I can now see how it could be as a con as well. If a board has an unusual result (say 3ntxx-2) , everyone else who played that board in the field may get a good/bad score, espicially if the scoring format is imps (the effect is not so bad in matchpoint scoring).
Thanks for your response Gerban .

[blackshoe]

In an ideal duplicate, every contestant plays every other contestant the same number of times. That is rarely practical. Every practical movement attempts to meet this ideal as best it can. Some are more successful at it than others.

Curtailing a movement, while it can often be done without creating major headaches for the TD or scorer (and often cannot, as well) moves away from meeting the ideal, so I try, when I'm directing, not to do that if at all possible.

Choosing a movement is a balance between trying to achieve the ideal and trying to give the players what they want. Sometimes the two goals are mutually antagonistic.