An idea - Teams of 2

[Curls77]

This was what we do back in spades while we simulated bridge duplicated.

So Teams of 2 require ONLY 2 tables. 3 rounds of 6 or 8 or whatever number of hands. In each round your pair will be teamed with different pair. Each pair gets raw sum of boards played and the one with most total points makes a winner.
Do you think this could pick up within IAC?
I can set it as trny limited to 8 people or 3 team matches (pre-registered) - and still need to check if TD can deal  to team matches or needs 2 teaching tables - but its doable one way or another.

Monster points given in those events could increase interest.

[OliverC]

I'm not sure you can pre-deal hands for TMs. I've only ever done that for Teaching Tables.


Not sure about issuing Monster-points for a Total Points event (which is largely going to be a matter of luck)

[kenberg]

Organizing it might be a challenge.

A question: Are there four pairs out there who would be willing to commit a block of time to playing a session of three team matches? I don't have a regular partner but maybe I could get someone. If we played three matches of seven boards each that's twenty-one boards. Of course you cannot expect the two tables to finish simultaneously, so a little patience would be needed.  I haven't played Swiss matches for quite a while but when I did I just chatted with others as we waited for the next match to start. Online, if there is a wait I could make coffee and chat with Becky, no problem for me,  but I have found that online players often get a little antsy. Seven minutes a board seemed to exceed their patience in the tourneys.

The toughest part, I think, would be getting people to  commit to this large block of time. The matches could be six boards  rather than seven, but fewer than six would seem strange.  A match would start and then end with barely the time to settle in.

I'm not sure I see a need for pre-dealt hands or a director,  four pairs could simply agree to do this. Players could add up their imps from the three matches if they wished. If the idea caught on then a more formal setting could be devised, if desired.

Organizational worries aside, I am up for finding a partner and trying this if others are.  I see this as requiring about a three hour commitment, although it might well finish in about two and a half. Getting eight busy people to agree on  the times could be tough. It usually is.

Reading this, it sounds pessimistic. I don't mean it to be, but I do think it will be a challenge.

[onoway]

Well, the Total Points club seems to manage to get people to wait, although they do have a limit on the time people are allowed to take for each segment. they also have someone running sessions though to monitor and keep everything moving smoothly. However, only the people moving on have to wait, they use a knockout system after each round.

I  like the idea of a system which doesn't require a lot of tracking and "paperwork" as unless there is  good participation it's just a lot of work and time that someone has to do for not much gratification.

My experience with the team matches strongly suggests that a time needs to be set, whatever time that might be. If players have to organize 8 people starting from scratch every time it will fail, it's just too much hassle for people to bother with for long. It's late when I'm writing this and I confess I don't have a clear idea of what you intend.. a sort of Total Points tourney? On the download version that's already an option, so that wouldn't be a problem to set up at all, at least until they pull  the rug out.

[kenberg]

I have always assumed that Total Points is simply a scoring option, the scoring is as in rubber bridge.  In which case whatever works in TP should work in imps.

I understand about setting a time rather than just hoping eight stray cats can come together. This occurred to me also. I think it will be tough.

[Curls77]

I just checked and yes, TD can deal predefined hands to team matches. One obstacle less. Not that in this format that would be needed, as only 1 Team Match is running at the time.
       When we run trnys, 12 boards are done within more or less 1 hour. So, 3 times 8 boards would take around 2 hours, with reseats and all. But, imho, 3 times 6 boards is just fine too. (funny to mention that back in spades we'd run 3 times 8 boards in 50 mins approx).
       Also, when I said total points, it could be IMP's sum, or total, does not matter. All but MP or Bam as they assure ties. I don’t think this idea is based on pure luck. Lemme give an example with pairs signed up in ladder. So: Pair A = nekthen & Friizi  //  Pair B = thornbury & jojah45  //  Pair C= southuist & slamgoing  //  Pair D= Kusum_P & ruth_p . Please see the scheme at: 
http://tinypic.com/r/28wpi6s/9

       That way, every pair will be exactly once in team with each other pair, and have other 2 as opposition. I'd think luck factor is pretty much minimized here. And since Monster Points are worth nothing, why not give them to any kind of competitive play within club if that would add salt and pepper and attract players?
       I only suggested it to be Team Match as I am unsure if we can set trny with this kind of rotation. Also, I must admit I share your concern of having 8 (what a huge number) of people commit to be there. And I agree with Pam that it would have to be some pre-set time, for example sundays noon eastern, while Team Series is on hold.
Anyways, this was just an idea to fill as it seems pretty empty schedule IAC will offer over summer.

[kenberg]

12 boards in an hour is five minutes a board on average. I know people like this but it it just isn't my style. I played f2f today and we played  24 boards in three hours. That's more my style. A little slower and more relaxed would be fine, but 24 in three hours is acceptable. Faster? No, not for me.
 
I understand many people like these faster games, I hope it works.

[Curls77]

That was just a self-intended joke Ken to myself and couple of other ex-spaders
Back then when we played spades, we mistakengly believed it was somehow similar to bridge. Having just 1 round of bidding, not seeing dummy, spades always being a trump that one can't lead unless already broken, etc etc - gives you so few data that you'd need time to think about. That's why board in that game rarely overpasses 2 and half minutes.

But why you think 5 min average is too few? Sure we all need 8+ mins for tough ones, but don't forget so many that are 1h-4h, lead and claim; takes less then a min, just as an example.

But, as you all don't see this idea viable, we can just forget about it, and eventually will find something better to have it hapening in IAC during long summer months.

[kenberg]

I rarely run into time problems at events that run on a "standard" schedule. I don't hassle people that are running a bit slow unless the reason is that after each hand one or the other of them, or both, feel the need to discuss just who should have done what when. But, for me, fifteen minutes for three boards just isn't enough. A while back I posted a hand from an acbl speedball where we got a very good result. My RHO simply played too fast. This should make me happy? It doesn't, not really. Bridge is often said to be a game of errors. Everyone makes them, the pair that makes the fewest wins. I think the game is more interesting, and just more fun,  when we all make fewer. This requires a format that allows time for thought. Bridge isn't chess, but it's not crazy eights either.

At the f2f pairs game yesterday, I turned a top into a bottom. I thought about my unfortunate discard before I made it,  but I got it wrong. Maybe more thought would have steered me right, but there are limits. With five minute hands there is rarely time to think at all.

I recognize that I am not only in a minority, it's a small minority  so you meed not worry about this. Almost all acbl games are speedballs, so clearly this is what people want.  Myself,  I don't get it.  Sometimes my time is tight. I then either don't play at all, or I just play pick up and announce that I will only be able to play until dinner or whatever.  I would rather play 8 relaxed hands than 12 fast hands. Definitely a minority view.

The scheduling of what you have in mind seems difficult but not impossible and it might well work.

[onoway]

There are some plans afoot for the fall, as summer in much of North America  at least tends to be short and people have a  lot of other claims on their time. The thought is that trying again in the fall to get anything new started would have a slightly better chance of success.

[onoway]

another thought was that catering to the 5 minute a hand crowd is not useful over the long run. People SAID they wanted speedballs, so we offered them, that lasted about three weeks, Even the people that said they wanted them weren't showing up.  Same with shortened tourneys, the 10 board tourneys were in response to a request for shorter tourneys. We have an ongoing request from one member for 5 board 5 minute a board tourneys. I am strongly opposed to making IAC a promoter of quickie bridge. Experts can indeed play two cards and claim, that's decidedly not the case for probably 99% of our semi active members. Even if some could, they'd likely be playing vs people who couldn't see how the claim worked and I think I MAY have once seen the planned play of the hand described in the claim, as BBO rules say it must be.

Often it is as fast to play it out as to plod through the process of claiming and then wait for the opps to work it out.

We cannot and never will be able to compete with robot tourneys or the systems BBO offers  for playing with 3 robots, always available to play exactly how many hands at the exact time and at the precise pace wanted. So we may as well try to focus on promoting good bridge as far as we are able.