Masterpoints and Sit-Outs
Tonight we ran a 4.5 table full Howell of 9 2-board rounds. Each pair effectively plays 16 boards but the Masterpoints Handbook is clear in saying (3.9.2) "The point of reference for the duration of an event is the number of boards scheduled to be played, including boards due to be sat out (e.g. in the case of half tables in a pairs event). Thus, for example, an event comprising nine 2-board rounds should be considered to be an 18-board event, even if some competitors sit out and therefore only play 16 boards."
In this situation, I would therefore consider this an 18 board event and therefore awards should go to the top three pairs. The White Book adds to this argument (2.4.2) by saying "An all-play-all event is one that is advertised as such in the Conditions of Contest. An event that is not so advertised is not treated as all-play-all just because the number of entrants makes it possible for all contestants to play each other." Therefore, the fact that it so happens that all players have a sit-out is irrelevant since the event is scheduled to have 18 boards given the right number of competitors.
The Masterpoints Handbook does have an exemption that relates to teams matches where all teams sit out a round, but this is not the case for pairs.
Therefore, my question is why does EBUScore and RealBridge give awards only to the top 2 pairs? I've manually changed the awards in the XML file but it seems like an anomaly between the rules and the programs.
Comments
I think there is a difference between the situation where all pairs are scheduled to play a certain number of boards and when "some competitors sit out".
Thank you Gordon for your reply. I take your point although I would disagree on the basis that this is a special case and shouldn't be negatively affected just because it happens to have exactly this number of pairs.
Taking all 18-board movements,
Therefore, it is only a 4.5 table 9 2-board round movement (which I imagine is the current online recommended movement for 5 tables at all clubs as most seem to prefer 18 boards at the moment) which results in this particular problem. "Some" technically includes "all," and again the White Book is clear in highlighting that a movement that so happens to be all-play-all based on the actual number of competitors isn't considered "all-play-all" for any White Book matters. It would follow then, using similar logic, that this specific movement should be credited as 18 boards even with the half-table, although I can see it being open for interpretation.
You have 9 pairs playing all 8 other pairs in 2 board rounds. That is 16 Boards. Why do you want to credit them for 18?
I'm only interested in following what the handbook says, although my view is that waiting around for the duration of 2 boards means that they have been "in attendance" for an 18-board session anyway (and I think that's how it was designed to be interpreted). The wording is designed such that masterpoints are awarded according to the number of boards that would be played if there was no half table (obviously the appropriate scale depends on the full number of tables), hence why I'm highlighting this anomaly.
There is a bigger problem regarding recommended movements if this isn't considered an 18+ board movement. The next "perfect" movement would be 27 boards long, not suitable to most clubs; Equally, six 3-board rounds would be classed as an 18 board movement for masterpoint purposes as you've interpreted it, whereas the nine 2-board round version wouldn't be, and yet the 6 3-board round version is a poorer movement both in terms of pairs faced and its equity. While most clubs have more than 5 tables, those that regularly get about 9 pairs value each extra masterpoint (as there are very few on offer!), value playing everyone and value a fair game.
Ultimately it's a small point for an uncommon situation, but if the consensus is that it shouldn't be credited as 18 boards then the handbook probably needs refining (especially since the example is specific to nine 2-board rounds).
Thank you to Robin and the team for the updating of the handbook and, in particular, noting the above anomaly and removing the issue with possible different interpretations. I also agree with @Jerseybean in that this makes the handbook more consistent with regard to what constitutes an 18-board event.
Obviously the cost of consistency is this particular 4.5 table movement as explicitly listed in the handbook, so I'd again be interested in any thoughts people might have. Especially in the age of online bridge where 18 boards is becoming the norm, does anyone have any suggestions as to the best movement to use? A natural solution would be a 3-board movement at the cost of not playing all competitors, or alternatively playing only 16 boards at the cost of losing out on masterpoints. A rather uncommon but possible approach might be a mix of 2- and 3-board rounds (especially as all events are barometer these days), or possibly a ten-round event with a revenge round, though neither of those seems particularly ideal.
In the revised handbook it seemed best to follow what the scoring programs were doing*: the example of the 4 1/2 table complete pairs movement follows from the more general statement on all-play-all head-to-head teams with a sit-out.
I think you have found the possible solutions and draw backs. Nothing is ideal.
(* For a time, master points and EBU score were in the hands of the same person, so some of our knowledge base on master points has been written into EBUScore; and is retrieved by setting up example events.)