If there are too few teams and/or too many rounds there is a problem with assigning in later
rounds, and the top few teams may be ranked against considerably lower teams.
Possible solutions are:
(a) a ‘Danish’ tournament, where the teams are assigned 1v2, 3v4, 5v6, … even if this
involves re-matches;
(b) longer matches, and therefore fewer rounds;
(c) allow teams to play each other twice, but no more;
(d) allow re-matches in different sessions;
(e) allow re-matches from a certain number of matches or more earlier.
In the Isle of Man tournament in later years (d) was applied: in the third session teams could
play against teams they had already played in the first two sessions.
Option (b) is unpopular generally. Teams really dislike playing each other again soon, so (a) and
(c) are unpopular. Thus (d) or (e) is advised.
Example A club Swiss teams has twelve teams playing seven matches, four before the break.
It is advised either
(a) to allow teams to play each other in the last three matches even if they
have met in the first four; or
(b) to allow teams to play each other even if they have met three matches or
more earlier.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In principle six rounds of Swiss should be for 33-64 teams and having two rounds of Danish instead (starting with four rounds of Swiss) would cater for only having 9-16 teams.
In practice Swiss events are often run with smaller numbers of teams, especially if there are even numbers, because it is such a popular format.
Comments
The White Book says:
3.6.3 Over-swissing
If there are too few teams and/or too many rounds there is a problem with assigning in later
rounds, and the top few teams may be ranked against considerably lower teams.
Possible solutions are:
(a) a ‘Danish’ tournament, where the teams are assigned 1v2, 3v4, 5v6, … even if this
involves re-matches;
(b) longer matches, and therefore fewer rounds;
(c) allow teams to play each other twice, but no more;
(d) allow re-matches in different sessions;
(e) allow re-matches from a certain number of matches or more earlier.
In the Isle of Man tournament in later years (d) was applied: in the third session teams could
play against teams they had already played in the first two sessions.
Option (b) is unpopular generally. Teams really dislike playing each other again soon, so (a) and
(c) are unpopular. Thus (d) or (e) is advised.
Example A club Swiss teams has twelve teams playing seven matches, four before the break.
It is advised either
(a) to allow teams to play each other in the last three matches even if they
have met in the first four; or
(b) to allow teams to play each other even if they have met three matches or
more earlier.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In principle six rounds of Swiss should be for 33-64 teams and having two rounds of Danish instead (starting with four rounds of Swiss) would cater for only having 9-16 teams.
In practice Swiss events are often run with smaller numbers of teams, especially if there are even numbers, because it is such a popular format.
I had a discussion with a TD this evening, suggesting 12 teams playing 5 rounds of Swiss, and the last round danish, was feasible.