Forum Archive :
Tournaments
Could somebody please tell me or point me in the direction of articles
that explain exactly and fully how the following formats work and
should be run:
A Repechage format
A Double Knockout format
A Progressive Consolation format
MikeMadMonk
http://www.backpacker-backgammon.com
|
|
Michael Crane writes:
This takes me back to my fencing days when I took fullest advantage of
this format :-)
Repechage (REP-eh-shazh) - A tournament format that allows fencers who
lose a direct elimination bout to contine through a table of other
losers in order to get back into the winner's bracket. (From the
French for "This is your last chance, don't blow it!")
This site goes into more detail:
http://www.rtpnet.org/ncusfa/repechage_explained.html
Michael
|
|
Nardy Pillards writes:
Double Elimination:
You are not out of the tournament, until you lost twice. As long as
you win, you stay in the upper bracket (just a single elimination
bracket that is). If you keep on winning, you will finish to play the
final of the tournament.
After your first lost, you go 'down' to the lower bracket (where all
first losers meet). The round you lost your match in upper bracket
will decide in what round you 'drop' into the lower bracket. To keep
it easy: the more matches you win in upper bracket, the more advanced
you drop into the lower bracket when you lose your first match there.
(When you lose a second match, you are out of the tournament.)
The final of the Double Elimination is played between the winner of
the upper bracket (until now, this person did not lose yet) and the
winner of the lower bracket (lost one match, but won the others).
When the winner of the upper bracket wins that final match, he/she is
the winner of the tournament. _But_ when the winner of the upper
bracket loses that final match, there is a rematch to decide who
finally will win the tournament (remember: you are not out of the
tournament, until you lose twice).
(Progressive) consolation:
The concept is a bit like DE (Double Elimination). But the brackets
(upper or 'main' and lower or 'consolation') are _seperated_.
As long as you win, you stay in the main bracket. After your first
loss, you drop to the consolation bracket (and can't win the main
event anymore). After your second loss, you are out of the tournament
(unless.... third chance bracket).
The brackets are seperated. Once you drop to consolation, you can not
go back to the main bracket anymore (that is reserved for the overall
winner). But you can win the consolation.
Nardy
|
|
Adam Stocks writes:
The term 'progressive' refers to the fact that the point at which you
drop out of the Main event determines the point at which you enter the
Consolation event, as you described in the DE case. Likewise, in a
Non-Progressive Consolation event, all Main event losers (except the
players who won prize money, usually) enter the Consolation in it's
first round.
Adam
|
|
|
|
Tournaments
- Adjusting to face-to-face play (Paul Epstein+, Feb 2006)
- Adjusting to face-to-face play (Daniel Murphy, June 1999)
- Avoiding disputes (Kit Woolsey+, Oct 2007)
- Baffle box to roll dice (Ken Bame, Mar 2012)
- Calcutta auctions (David Moeser, Nov 2001)
- Calcutta auctions (Roland Scheicher+, Dec 1998)
- Calcutta auctions (Anthony R Wuersch, Oct 1994)
- Calcutta problems (Marty Storer, Dec 2002)
- Clock ethics (Patrick Gibson+, Mar 2009)
- Clock rules--Digital clocks (Chuck Bower+, Oct 2003)
- Clock rules--End of turn (Carlo Melzi+, July 2001)
- Clock rules--How do they work? (Gregg Cattanach, Oct 2002)
- Clock rules--Illegal move (Brendan Burgess+, Feb 2000)
- Clock rules--Why forfeit instead of penalty points? (neilkaz, Sept 2010)
- Clocks and older players (Stick+, July 2010)
- Clocks--Arguments against them (Timothy Chow, Jan 2011)
- Clocks--Common arguments against (Chuck Bower, Feb 2006)
- Clocks--Losing on time (Jason Lee+, Mar 2004)
- Clocks--Pros and cons (Michael Strato+, Jan 2004)
- Clocks--Should they be part of the game? (Kit Woolsey, June 1995)
- Clocks--Why use them (Stick, Jan 2011)
- Compensating for byes (Hank Youngerman+, Dec 1998)
- Factors that affect attendance (Stick, Oct 2009)
- "Fighter's bracket" (Chuck Bower+, Sept 2010)
- First backgammon tournament (Mislav Radica+, May 2007)
- First backgammon tournament (Ed Collins+, Dec 2006)
- Hedging (Jason Lee+, Apr 2009)
- Hedging (Marv Porten+, Feb 2009)
- Hedging (Tad Bright+, Jan 2003)
- Hitting clock instead of rolling (Bob Glass+, Mar 2010)
- Keeping score during a match (Gregg Cattanach, June 2007)
- Links to tournament rules (Daniel Murphy, Oct 2009)
- Major tournament attendance 1998-2008 (Daniel Murphy, July 2008)
- Making notes during play (Randy Pals+, Aug 2008)
- Manually recording a match (Kevin P+, Apr 2007)
- Manually recording a match (gammonus+, Feb 2006)
- Manually recording a match (Daniel Murphy, Aug 1999)
- New U.S. Rules (Gregg Cattanach+, Dec 2007)
- Newbie questions (Donald Kahn, Oct 1999)
- Playing at Monte Carlo (Achim, July 2007)
- Playing-off 3 remaining players (Gregg Cattanach+, Apr 2007)
- Recording matches (Robert Maier, May 2009)
- Recording matches (Chuck Bower+, Sept 2003)
- Recording matches (Sean Dakin+, Aug 1999)
- Round robins (Hank Youngerman, Nov 2001)
- Rules for doubles play (with a partner) (steve+, May 2012)
- Seeding (Roland Scheicher+, Dec 1998)
- Skill level (Kirk J. Rupnik+, Nov 1998)
- Skill levels (Leonardo Jerkovic, Aug 2012)
- "Stop pots" (Chuck Bower+, Sept 2010)
- Swiss format (Osman Guner+, May 2001)
- Swiss format (Osman Guner, Oct 1998)
- Swiss format (Hank Youngerman+, Mar 1998)
- Tournament formats (MikeMadMonk+, May 2003)
- Tournament rules (Daniel Murphy, Apr 2001)
- Tournament rules links (Daniel Murphy, Oct 2009)
- Types of events (Daniel Murphy, Nov 1997)
- Uniform rules and procedures? (Michael Crane+, Mar 2003)
- Variable side pools (Art Grater+, July 2011)
- Vegas trip report (fall 2004) (Gregg Cattanach, Nov 2004)
- Vegas trip report (spring 2005) (Gregg Cattanach, May 2005)
- Videotaping matches (André Nicoulin+, Nov 2000)
- What is a "Monrad format"? (Daniel Murphy, Sept 2000)
- What is a "side pool"? (Daniel Murphy, Nov 1997)
From GammOnLine
Long message
Recommended reading
Recent addition
|
| |
|