[ehhh]

I believe it is a given that if you are going to score across the field in multi-sectional games by combining the sections that: 1st each section needs to be playing the same boards and 2nd that the strats in each sections need be balanced to some degree.

A lot of clubs around here lack the means to generate hand records for duplication. This is the main reason combined scoring is rarely done. Even in special events, when hand records are provided, clubs shy away from combining sections.

I'd like opinions on the merit of combined scoring vs just eventing a game to obtain an overall rankings. In paticular the impact it has on the novice/intermediate players.

[mycroft]

If you play different boards, it's a different event, as far as I'm concerned. It's bad enough that we play sometimes 26 of 36 boards and get compared to pairs that have played all 10 you didn't and didn't play 10 you did, so you have comparisons on only 16.

At that point, obviously you can't score across the field - they're different boards. I don't think it's fair to event across the field either - again, they're different boards. Two events. If you want a one-event game (for the extra monsterpoints), do the extra work. (at this point I start hearing the UK contingent, who make comments about "if there's no arrow-switch how can you have one winner" and the like).

Yes, I believe if you're going to score across the field, you should balance the events. That's why if you have an A field and a C field, even playing the same boards, you score it as two separate events.

As far as N/I goes, provided the sections are balanced (basically) and the boards are duplicated, the only difference is that you have to explain why the top is 17 or 26, or 25 or 37 instead of their regular numbers. Their 7 on a 12 top will be almost certainly 10-15 on a 25 top, and their 2/12 will be 3- to 5/25.

It's odd - when I lived in Waterloo, ON, and went to tournaments, they were always duplicated boards, and they were scored across sections unless (as was more common) the game was stratiflighted. Maybe I'm reading wrong.

If it's clubs with 20 tables, probably the big reason behind not combining across sections (besides not having duplicated hands) is that the directors aren't familiar with how. It's simple, but if you don't know, "it's too hard". Or, possibly, there are too many "reserved seats" to seed out enough experienced players into section B.

[blackshoe]

One of the local clubs here has typically around 25-30 tables, in 3 or 4 sections. The other day, they had a Life Master party for one of the players. 44 1/2 tables, in four sections, labelled A, C, B and D (the order of that is significant). The "best" players were, as usual, in sections A (stratified A, X, and B) and C (also stratified A, X, and B). The weaker players, most of whom seem to be afraid to play in A/C, were in sections B and D (stratified B and C). Why the odd order of Section labels? I don't know, but I suspect the club owner/director is afraid changing the (current) "B" label to some other (probably C) on the first weaker section would confuse the players she calls her "babies". Most of them have been playing in that section, or the "C" section, for at least ten years. If I were them, I'd resent being called a "baby". Maybe that's just me, though. Two events, I think. Overall scores across sections A and C and sections B and D. 11 and 10 1/2 tables in A/C, 11 and 12 in B/D. Eight three board rounds in each section*. Everyone played everyone in their section, save for the sitouts in C, but everyone did not play the same boards, even though each section had its own set of preduplicated boards. I've given up trying to discuss a better way with this director, because she doesn't want to hear it.

* Part of this was due to a need to be out of the venue ASAP after 3 hours of play, because they had another event for which to prepare.

BTW, there's only two pairs who typically reserve seats, both in the A section. One of the players (she usually takes table 1) has a physical disability. Oh, and one player who tries from time to time to "steal" table one.