Holder: Andy Evason
The Prebendal is our Club’s annual, internal AC Handicap competition.
It will be played initially as a balanced Swiss format event, leading to semi-finals and final.
The cut off date for playing your four games will be the 26th August.
Semifinals and finals will be held on the 19th September.
Game Format
All matches except the Final should be played as 18pt games (1 and 3-back variation – as per AC rule 51.2.3) with a 2.5 hour time-limit. The Final will be contested as a 26pt game with a longer limit (e.g 3 or 3.5 hrs, dependent on the playing conditions on the day).
Games will be handicap, set against a base of 9:
In games involving at least one player of handicap less than 9, normal bisque allocations apply, subject to the standard reduction for 18 point games. e.g. player A with a handicap of 16, playing against B with a handicap of 4 is allocated 12 bisques reduced to 8.5 for an 18 point game.
If both players have a handicap of 9 or more, each player gets the number of bisques equal to their handicap minus 9, subject to the standard reduction for 18 point games.
E.g. Player C with a handicap of 11 vs. Player D with a handicap 14: Player C is allocated 2 bisques reduced to 1.5 and Player D is allocated 5 bisques reduced to 3.5
Competition format
All your games are predefined in a way that should give all competitors roughly the same strength opposing them.
You need to win a number of games to enter the knockout stage.
Note that you do not play everybody, but that everybody has the same number of opponents
You can play your preselected opponents in any order you wish. After you enter the score your latest opponent will disappear from your list of people to play.
More information on the format is below
Sorry, you must be logged in to enter a result.Results so far
| Brian Jamieson | 2 |
| Peter Allan | 2 |
| Deirdre Cochrane | 2 |
| Steve Fisher | 1 |
| Andrew Petit | 1 |
| Joe King | 1 |
| David Long | 1 |
| Edmund Shirley | 0 |
| Andy Evason | 0 |
| Avril Rangoni-Machiavelli | 0 |
| Nigel Cox | 0 |
| Paul Wolff | 0 |
| Andrew C Robertson | 0 |
| Carol Jamieson | 0 |
| John Harrison | 0 |
| Claire King | 0 |
Competition format – details
We are trying a new format this year, which we believe will provide the fairest possible chance for all entrants whatever their handicap (as it will be based on recent form), a chance to play at least 4 games as part of the opening stages, and greater flexibility as to when the matches are played
Swiss phase:
Each player has been allocated 4 games (opponents in the selection tool above) so they know who they need to play from the outset and can move through those games at the pace they want. There will be no waiting around for rounds to be completed. We will expect at least a game a month from every participant.
Qualification to the knock-out is based on achieving 3 wins (or more) from your 4 games
The target is for at least 4 players to qualify. If more than 4 qualify there will be quarterfinals with some players possibly receiving byes. If less than 4 qualify then those on 2 wins may need a playoff.
Knock-out phase
Semifinal and finals will be conducted on a knock-out basis
These will be arranged with reference to the performance in the Swiss phase, and by lot to resolved tie breaks
Some History
Deciding on the optimal format for a season long handicap competition can be quite difficult when there is an odd number of players or a number that does not neatly lend itself to being arranged for block play with equal sized blocks.
Various approaches can be used such as:
Blocks – need to be determined carefully to avoid ‘bandits’ marring the competition for everyone else, especially if there is only one qualifier per block
Uneven blocks – which can disadvantage players from larger bocks, or blocks were some games are left incomplete
Swiss format – requires rounds to complete before the next one is decided
Double elimination (or draw and process) – can leave some players with two few games and other with too many
Flexible Swiss – Needs to avoid players at the top of the tree not playing each other and can also have significant delays between fixtures
As a club we have used each of these in the past few years and none have been entirely satisfactory.
An new approach
With reference to the Tournament Regulations published by CqE and the discussion at the AC tournament Committee (ACTC, of which Joe is a member), there is no obviously better solution.
In Advanced play this has been addressed by the concept of the Burridge Swiss has been documented and is used in several prestige events. This seeks to even out the strength of opponents each participant meets. It uses as the proxy for ‘strength of opponent’ the DG (dynamic grade) of the entrants.
Handicap per se is not a fair proxy for our need, as in a handicap game both payers should have an equal chance of winning. However there is an approach we’d like to try, and this could also provide valuable information back to the ACTC.
It works like this:
A player has a handicap of N, with trigger point T and handicap index on their card of I
Players who are improving or are in form will likely be above their trigger point, or I > T
Players who are not doing so well will likely be below their trigger point, or I < T
The difference between I and T, DH = I-T, is therefore a measure of their current strength.
If player one with an DH of +45 plays an opponent with DH of -45 we’d expect the first player to prevail more often than not, regardless of the actual handicaps
Therefore the proxy to a players strength is the value of DH.
The basis of the Burridge Swiss is to pre-draw 4 or 5 rounds of opponents, so that the average of the DH values each opponent faces is balanced and is as nearly equal as possible. Or everyone has an equal number of stronger and weaker players in their draw.
This will be the model for this year
