Three scoring stations (for players to enter their scores) and two projectors were used. Players entered their own scores into the scoring station. All results and assignments were displayed on projectors. BS+ did all the matching and table assignments.
Each session was four matches. Each match was 7 boards. Each round should be completed in 56 minutes per ACBL (8 minutes/board). This includes shuffling, comparing, reporting. Running under ACBLscore, the average round time is between 65-70 minutes for large Swiss. The values below are the times. The sessions started at 1pm and 7.30pm.
| Round | First match | Last match | First score | Last score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1:00 | 1:00 | 1:42 | 2:06 |
| 2 | 1:49 | 2:10 | 2:41 | 3:12 |
| 3 | 3:02 | 3:12 | 3:53 | 4:18 |
| 4 | 3:56 | 4:18 | 4:53 | 5:28 |
| 5 | 7:30 | 7:30 | 8:10 | 8:29 |
| 6 | 8:15 | 8:30 | 9:04 | 9:31 |
| 7 | 9:23 | 9:36 | 10:12 | 10:40 |
| 8 | 10:22 | 10:41 | 11:09 | n/a |
For the first session, the software was new for the players and the TDs. I have always stated that we can train the TDs but only educate the players. There were no late plays issued in the first session. The data to look at is the second session (rounds 5-8). Look at the time for the last score being reported. The rounds, from last score in one round to the last score in the next round, were approximately 1 hour.
With BS+ we know exactly when the team entered their scores. For example, for round 5, the first round in the second session. Everyone is supposed to start play at 7:30pm. The rounds are 56 minutes long - 7 boards, 8 minutes each. The time includes the time to shuffle, play, compare scores and report. 18 matches - 36 teams - out of 108 were late in reporting their results for round 5. Either players need to be given more time, or late plays enforced.
How bad is the problem? Late reporting was turned off for rounds 2, 3 and 8, so only five rounds were reported. 2 teams were late in 5 rounds, 9 additional teams were late in 4 rounds, 21 additional teams were late in 3 rounds. About 1/3 of the teams were late in 3 or more of the five rounds that were recorded.
The decision to enforce late plays is up to the DIC and TDs. Unofficially, because this event was using "new" technology, there were going to be no late plays. Using BS+, we can actually document the scale of the problem with late plays.
Bridgescore+ can run with Bridgemates. If we run NABC Swiss events with Bridgescore+ and Bridgemates then we can track the time taken for each board for each match. TDs have an early warning if a table is behind and can give them a warning.
One of the reasons that you won't see late plays is ACBL board members. Some were playing in this event. Nearly all players believe that they are fast. Nearly all late teams blame their opponents for the delays. Even if they are late for all rounds - always their opponents. If late plays are to be avoided, then either we need to increase the amount of time per board, or we publish the late plays and the team numbers associated with the late plays. Players will quickly understand time management much better. This MUST be done somehow in a positive manner. Most slow players do not realize that they are slow. A slow event affects all players.
For Atlanta, ACBL provided some equipment. One of the laptops did not connect properly to a printer. An ACBL TD spent most of the morning session trying to fix this. This was bad - it gives a bad perception to the software. Everything should be tested beforehand, and not tried to be installed/fixed/rebooted/debugged/software updates installed during a session.
There are a set of procedures that are followed when running BS+. I liken it to an airplane. BS+ has printed checklists, printed forms to follow. This was a big event; some of the ACBL TDs were not familiar with BS+ and didn't follow procedure. This, unfortunately, is to be expected in a first event. We had several stationary tables - this is after all the senior Swiss. There were 15 stationary tables from 108 teams. In round 1, the selling TDs assigned at least two stationary teams to play against other (it may have been 4 or 6 teams, I cannot tell from the remaining log data, but it was at least 1 match and I think from memory as many as 3 matches). Each team was promised they were stationary. Well.... that's not going to work for round 2! This was a problem during selling. During later investigation there was miscommunication between the selling directors. Two separate directors both sold stationary tables to teams. The problem here is the way that stationaries are sold. The Senior Swiss is going to have the most number of stationaries. The correct way is to have a known set of tables that are good for stationary tables. These need to be close to the door, or electrical outlet as needed. As a stationary table is sold, its companion table can be added to the mix of tables that are sold. You only sell stationary tables to teams that request a stationary table. Yes... this means that two stationary teams do not play against each other in round 1, but there is tradeoff in running Swiss events at Bridge tournaments, this is one of them.
There is a BS+ form to complete when selling to indicate the stationary teams and tables. This was not fully completed. When the form was turned in, all stationary teams were entered in round 1, there were some missing stationary tables - only the software did not know that. When round 2 assignments were up, there were some problems. Some teams that had been promised stationary tables had not been properly recorded, the software assigned them new tables - they were not happy, and rightly so. This was a breakdown in procedure.
This problem was not discovered until all round 2 assignments were posted. Everyone dutifully moved. The stationary teams were all given stationary tables for round 3. However, with this many stationary teams, it was the luck of the draw that in round 2, before all the known stationary teams had been properly entered, a stationary team was playing against another stationary teams. So... we had the same problem for round 3. But at least we knew in advance. This meant that there was at least one team that had to move three times for the first three rounds. They were not happy. I was not happy. The software will get the blame, but this was a break down in procedures. Two stationary teams should never have been assigned to play against each other in round 1 - this is not the fault of the software. Additional steps have been added to the check list to prevent this happening in the future.
For the evening session, it was possible to identify all the stationary teams. During the break, and working with a TD, we identified the best set of tables for stationary teams - close to the door, close to an aisle. This is how stationary tables should be managed. There were no complaints in the second session. I tried to go round the group of stationary tables to apologize for what happened in the first session. It doesn't matter the reason; the players were upset. For this report, it is very important to understand that this was nothing to do with the software - the software worked as it was supposed to.