Tournament organization primer

[edew]

Here's a primer on how to run small to medium sized tournaments (multiple events or even a single event).

Please check and critique for accuracy and other items.

http://www.thebaycup.org/DOCS/tourna...ganization.pdf

Thanks.

[telkanuru]

The amount of time DEs and pools take really depends on the refs. One should really be able to estimate which pool will go the slowest and which refs direct the quickest in order to maximize efficiancy.

This might have been in there and I missed it, but one should also have (depending on the age of equipment being used) at least 1 spare reel and floor cord for every 4 strips. If you're using grounded strips, it is also a good idea to remember to bring and attach grounding wires (you'd be surprised). Also make sure you have enough tape if you're using the copper kind (at least 2 rolls/strip).

[edew]

This guide is really aimed at the local tournament organizer, not those who are running national or sectional level competitions. Those folks should (better should, or else!) know well enough to bring in spare parts and such.

Basically, a lot of local tournaments, especially in the Bay Cup, are run by volunteers who haven't the experience of those who have run major events.

Still, I'll include your suggestions as well.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Also--- if the area is not yours (borrowing it from a school, etc)--- talk to them early and often, especially about what type of tape you're allowed to use.

this year at The Big One, Smith made us use tape that neither worked nor avoided leaving marks on their floor, so NO ONE won. they were kinda annoyed, and we had to use about 4 rolls of the tape to get the grounded strips to kinda stay for part of the day.

now, if you're running a smaller tournament, there will be different problems... but i've run smaller tournaments, and communication is still important.


i think that the computer vs noncomputer is a generational thing. i've fully run bout committee all by myself (well, it was a small tourny, and actually the wonderful adam blake came over and made sure i didn't f.... mess things up too much on a regular basis) without a computer, but it only took me a few minutes to figure out en garde.... which is probably because i could work DOS before i could fully read.

if someone is very computer enabled, running a tourny with a computer can be easier.....


PS, were you a math major? i ask only because your notation is very math-y. which is all homey to me, and maybe more confusing to the non-math-y??

[edew]

As I said, computer is fine if you know what to do. If not, it's GIGO. It's also very hard to see all the pools, so it's hard to see how one might flip fencers due to club conflicts.

When seeding fencers, the information that fencers provide aren't always consistent. Some fencers might use HFC for Halberstadt Fencers Club. Another might use Halb. Yet another might use HalbFC. If they're entered as such, they would be considered as three different clubs and any auto-flipping in the program might miss that club affiliations. A novice BC person might also not realize that and let things go.

[dberke]

I think this is a great guide for someone unfamiliar with running a tournament, but I respectfully disagree with your caution against using a computer to run the events. Granted, I'm speaking as the author of the Fencing Time software, so while I have some bias, I think there are objectively more benefits to using software than drawbacks.

I do agree that everyone should have experience running a tournament on paper before using a computer. Doing that will give people the "big picture" experience you refer to, and it will also make them realize how useful a computer would be...

Your primary reason for not using a computer is so that a novice organizer can catch errors early, especially in the seeding of the pools. I would argue that a novice organizer should get their feet wet at a small lower-level event (such as a small D & under event) - where seeding is simple and you don't have to worry too much about the relative strength of the fencers within each rating. I don't think a novice organizer should be running a tournament with 30+ people unassisted.

Also, using software to run the tournament removes many more opportunities to make mistakes later in the event, especially when doing the math to seed the DE. (I've often seen people mess up V/B calculations.) Other benefits to software would be no need to coin-flip for ties coming out of the pools, no mistakes setting up the DE table, no need to hand-print the DE table, and, best of all, you can start the DEs 2 minutes after the final pool sheet is turned in!

So, overall I think a computer will make a tournament run smoother. As with every method, there is room for errors, but with a computer I think they can be corrected faster and with less hassle.

Plus, you don't need to worry about a strong breeze blowing all of your seeding cards across the room...

Dan

[edew]

This is how I deal with ties coming out of the pools: at the first tie I encounter, the first person I write down has the higher seed. At the second tie I encounter, the last person I write down has the higher seed.

So if Joe from pool 4 finished earlier than Bill from pool 6 who finished earlier than Mike from pool 2 and they all have the same record from the pools, then Joe is seeded above Bill who is seeded above Mike. If this is the second instance of a tie, then Mike is seeded above Bill who is seeded above Joe.

It's about as random as a coin flip (as if you can prove otherwise...)

[edew]

[...]
So, overall I think a computer will make a tournament run smoother. As with every method, there is room for errors, but with a computer I think they can be corrected faster and with less hassle.
[...]

The problem is that people don't think the computer made any errors. And they're not well-versed on the program to know how to correct the error. Usually, if there's any errors seen, it's after the bouts have started and it's virtually impossible to stop and re-do the seeding.

Again, a competent, knowledgeable tournament organizer will not let that happen in the first place, whether it's using a computer or using fingers to count off.

By my personal experience, I've seen way too many people who use computers at local competitions do the following:

1) Take an inordinate amount of time (like 2 hours) to seed the pools
2) Mis-seed the pools putting two or three teammates into the same pools
3) Will not acknowledge that there's an error in the process.

Again, do the process manually until it's ingrained in your blood. Then, realize that a computer will alleviate all the drudgery portion, and that's when a computer will be useful for everyone. Otherwise, GIGO.

[noodle]

The problem is that people don't think the computer made any errors. And they're not well-versed on the program to know how to correct the error. Usually, if there's any errors seen, it's after the bouts have started and it's virtually impossible to stop and re-do the seeding.

Again, a competent, knowledgeable tournament organizer will not let that happen in the first place, whether it's using a computer or using fingers to count off.

By my personal experience, I've seen way too many people who use computers at local competitions do the following:

1) Take an inordinate amount of time (like 2 hours) to seed the pools
2) Mis-seed the pools putting two or three teammates into the same pools
3) Will not acknowledge that there's an error in the process.

Again, do the process manually until it's ingrained in your blood. Then, realize that a computer will alleviate all the drudgery portion, and that's when a computer will be useful for everyone. Otherwise, GIGO.

i think most of the problems with the software come from the fact that the people using the software aren't exactly computer geniuses, eh?

i ran my first tournament off of engarde, and it was quick and easy. but there were some errors and problems that came up that, had i not been a computer dude, might have delayed the tournament.

i'd say the software needs to be practiced a few times beforehand by running mock tournament or two beforehand, etc.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

the pools end first end first for a reason. (a couple very dominant fencers, better director, whatever...) --- generally people will either get screwed twice by your plan or benifit twice.... but whatever.


no matter how well you know any computer program, mistakes get made. Boston Fencing Club has been doing it for a very long time, the most recent tournament there took a couple different versions of pools to get right (they blatently forgot people, in the seeding list-- they didn't even have the person who won the tournament, iirc)

that's why you post it, and have other people double check it for you.


PS- regarding club abbreviations, there really has to be something we can do about the BS... i fenced for a club for 4 years and still don't know which abbreviation is more accepted, part of the problem was in he mailed divisional results, it would be abbreviated one way one place and another elsewhere. gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! rediculous.

[bernard c]

I assume you'll be adding a section on layout guidelines for non-dedicated venues. Among the questions, for which the answers include both optimum and required dimensions:

1. How much room in front of the strip for the director, when what's behind him is:
a. another strip
b. another director
c. a wall
d. spectators
e. something we didn't think of (how about a koi pond?)
The official Rules are silent on this, AFAIK.

2. Which of the official dimensions can be fudged, and by how much?

3. If laying out strips end-to-end, how much space is between them?

4. Does there have to be uniformity among all the strips?

[Teme]

A single most important thing to keep the comp on schedule we've found out is a "Referee Liaison Officer", a dedicated person tagging referees as they come in. RLO is supposed to be like a mother goose or some such: every ref around knows RLO is the one to turn to in case of problem, RLO makes sure every ref gets a break (and lunch, if possible), RLO allocates refs to pools/bouts and RLO puts the pressure on refs to get the pools to stay in schedule.
And that's all she/he does.

Other extremely helpful thing is getting the bout committee office behind closed doors and "Fencer Liason Officer" standing outside that door. If and only if FLO can't help a fencer or coach, she/he will call somebody from the committee office outside for consulting. 95% of the usual hassle will remain unknown to the bout committee.

[Dee EffEll]

By my personal experience, I've seen way too many people who use computers at local competitions do the following:

1) Take an inordinate amount of time (like 2 hours) to seed the pools
2) Mis-seed the pools putting two or three teammates into the same pools
3) Will not acknowledge that there's an error in the process.

Again, do the process manually until it's ingrained in your blood. Then, realize that a computer will alleviate all the drudgery portion, and that's when a computer will be useful for everyone. Otherwise, GIGO.

Assuming the same level of competence by the BC, the computer is *always* the way to go. I have seen far more errors made on paper, and far more incidences of the 3 cited examples when using paper.

I beleive the problems with club abbreviations can be avoided if all the entrants sign up on askfred.net. And really, I think it a rather foolish waste of time to insist on "teammate" pool bout order for a local tournament.

One thing that might be a good additon for FT is to include a "tutorial" where a hypothetical tourament is presented, and the steps needed to run it are presented. The BC can then "practice" for 15 minutes (all it should take) before they run the real thing.

If a BC can't figure out how to run FT to run a simple local tournament, something is seriously wrong. If there is something ambiguous or in error in FT, a quick email to the author will result in a quick fix.

[mfp]

Basically, a lot of local tournaments, especially in the Bay Cup, are run by volunteers who haven't the experience of those who have run major events.

The primer is a good introduction and reference for those who'd bother to read it. However the operation and consistency of many local tournaments also might be greatly improved if there were a standard checklist to be used that follows the life-cycle of a tournament.

The use of a standard checklist would assist organizers who don't have all the knowledge or experience needed or desired. The point of the checklist really isn't to add to the burden of organizers, but rather to help ensure that the smooth planning, execution and followup occurs with tournaments and to set standard goals for "service delivery".

Furthermore, it would help push clubs/organizers who should know and run things better to improve their operation of tournaments and help bring up the general standards and efficiency of tournaments in the local area.

The steps would be ...

1) create the checklist

2) set the expectation with the clubs, fencers, parents, et al that the checklist be used.

The first way might be to not pay the club reimbursements unless they use and turn in the checklist.

Then there's peer pressure. Right now when the planning or execution of an event goes astray, fencers typically get told 1 of three things: "We didn't know about that", or "We don't do things that way" or "Too bad". If the expectation is that organizers have and use the checklist and fencers or parents can point to it, then there is incentive for clubs to meet the standards or risk looking incompetent or intransigent. Having checklist and standards and tracking who meets them and who doesn't also can be an input on where events are scheduled for the next season.

3) Use the experience and feedback gained over the season to rate the checklist, standards and clubs with the goal to help improve each.

4) Rinse and repeat.

[mrbiggs]

Here's a primer on how to run small to medium sized tournaments (multiple events or even a single event).

Please check and critique for accuracy and other items.

http://www.thebaycup.org/DOCS/tourna...ganization.pdf

Thanks.

Thanks for making the tournament guide. There are few things worse than a badly run tournament. Some of the information there is very handy for fencers as well.

(By the way, an 8 person epee pool is very doable, and can be completed in reasonable time with a little luck. But as you said, it's not a good idea if the number of people in the tournament is not 8.)

[edew]

I assume you'll be adding a section on layout guidelines for non-dedicated venues. Among the questions, for which the answers include both optimum and required dimensions:

1. How much room in front of the strip for the director, when what's behind him is:
a. another strip
b. another director
c. a wall
d. spectators
e. something we didn't think of (how about a koi pond?)
The official Rules are silent on this, AFAIK.

2. Which of the official dimensions can be fudged, and by how much?

3. If laying out strips end-to-end, how much space is between them?

4. Does there have to be uniformity among all the strips?

Those information are actually available online somewhere. I'm making this information up for the Pacific RYCs. As for end to end, you need to give 1.5-2 meters of run off space, so that's 4 meters max between two end-to-end.

If you ever go to a NAC, you will see that there is no uniformity among the widths of fencing strips. The lengths are uniformly 14m.

[edew]

Bernie, the rules do not specify the space around the strip for the referees and such.

However, the guidelines are generally, 3 feet from table to inner edge of strip (the table is where the scoring machine sits). Given that most tables are around 2.5 feet or so in width, that's about 8 feet between adjacent strips. The referee area is about 16 feet, so a unit consisting of two adjacent strips with the scoring machines situated between them will have dimensions of 60ft long (length of strip plus run off) by 36 (8 + 6 + 8 + 6 + 8).

It makes little sense to put the strip so that the referee is backed up against the wall. Generally, you'll put the strip so that one edge is near the wall, or the koi pond or the spectators or whatever. Then, the referee has essentially infinite back space.

As for fudging tolerances, if you keep the on-guard-to-center-to-on-guard distance as 6.5 and 6.5 feet (for 13 feet), you can perhaps make the rest of the distances in yards instead of feet. People generally don't notice the 3" difference between a yard and a foot. At least not at local competitions. You do want the on-guard-to-on-guard distance correct because a lot of the simultaneous and such fighting goes on at that level and people are more accustomed to a specific distance there. But once people start moving back or forth, they're not going to wonder why it's three inches shorter here or there.

For local competitions, many strips are also 4 ft wide (1.2m) or even sometimes 3 ft wide. There were suggestions that the fencing strip be narrowed to 1.2-1.5m and 4 feet is plenty. You can even fence on 2-foot wide strips. There's no real need to move sideways in foil.

The "official" dimensions for the strip and run-off can't be fudged (except as explained in the above paragraph), but the amount of space for the referees and such can be and are frequently fudged, as you might know from attending various local competitions.

Finally, for all who say that the computer is the better way to go. I don't deny that using the computer is faster and easier. But only after one has a good grip on how to RUN THE TOURNAMENT. Again, until people know what to do, it's Garbage In, Garbage Out. And having garbage nicely printed up in 12 point times roman doesn't make it any better.

[foildad]

I absolutely agree that one should be able to competently run a tournament manually before using a computer. I also suggest that one's first computer run tournament be run as a hybrid with index cards and a computer program; the index cards are great for setting up pools and the computer speeds things along.

[edew]

Rather than focusing too much on whether a computer is better or not, can anyone give feedback on the remaining portion? What about the quiz at the end? What about the procedure? Am I missing any steps? Are the financial figures complete? Are the sizes realistic (requirements not so large that no host can meet it, or too low that bad operations abound)?

[nahouw]

Excellent job! You've covered everything, and taken info that I would just take for granted as common sense and laid it out in table and example format so that somebody coming on board new would be able to organize a competition if they were able to work through your quiz.

The quiz is the best part -- you cover the whole crossection of variations, so by taking the quiz, you put into practice everything you have discussed -- best way I can say it in IT terms is that your quiz is a comprehensive UAT.

You are right about not using the computer -- you need to learn it by the cards first to get the understanding. Having somebody come in and look at the seeding is especially important -- in NJ where we have a large HS program, there are sometimes HS team conflicts to take into account in addition to the club conflicts. The extra set of eyes helps to avoid having to re-seed an event.

Rather than focusing too much on whether a computer is better or not, can anyone give feedback on the remaining portion? What about the quiz at the end? What about the procedure? Am I missing any steps? Are the financial figures complete? Are the sizes realistic (requirements not so large that no host can meet it, or too low that bad operations abound)?