[Fluffy]

The only team tournaments in Spain are held on round robin format.

Most of the time I feel like I could anticipate which two teams would fght for the final win with a high degree of accuracy.

I feel like it is a bit sad that those teams play their common match early, and if one of them wins bigly then it is almost over.

Would it be fair if there was a seeding method to make last matches ot be the 2 strongest teams?, would it be desirably? what about the other rounds?

[Trinidad]

The only thing that I think is desirable is that "befriended teams" meet as early as possible.

While I can see that it may be nice to see a "final" between the two strongest teams, having two different matches to see which of the two strong teams can beat the weaker team by the largest margin also has its charms.

Rik

[gwnn]

Yes if you can demonstrate that there are friendly teams (from the same city, or club, or maybe if there's some family relation between some players of two opposing teams), you should have them play as early as possible. Otherwise, I don't think it's too important to have top teams play towards the end. There's plenty of upsets in bridge. Plus, a "pursuit story" can be quite exciting too (catching them one VP a round).

[gwnn]

It's true, though, that opponents in the last round could be less interested in playing well if they're clearly out of contention (imagine teams A, B, and C who are good but no other good teams- if team A beats team C early on and then it's neck and neck between AB, team C might lose to team B in the last round easily through lack of concentration). But that's just the way round robin works, you'll always have that in a round robin (as opposed to KO or to some extent Swiss/Danish systems).

[barmar]

In a round robin, everyone plays everyone. Does it really matter what order they play?

If the top 2 teams play each other early, and one of them loses, all they have to do is blitz against one of the weaker teams and they'll be back in contention. The team that won that match will probably play more conservatively, to avoid giving up their lead.

[Fluffy]

In large round robins such as european championship used to be, it was better to play bad teams first for 2 reasons: you grow up your morale, and bad teams tend to play better in the end when they finally get their agreements straight.

[Phil]

As long as you don't publish results too early a RR is fine. I think the USBC sequesters teams with about three matches to go to avoid dumping.

[cherdano]

 Fluffy, on 2015-December-18, 11:09, said:

In large round robins such as european championship used to be, it was better to play bad teams first for 2 reasons: you grow up your morale, and bad teams tend to play better in the end when they finally get their agreements straight.

That's not my experience - usually part of the reason bad teams are bad is they can't focus as well as good teams, and that shows up more towards the end when everyone is getting tired. Plus the difference between the B game of a good team and the B game of a bad team is bigger (in IMPs/board) than the difference between the A game of a good team and the A game of a bad team.

[mgoetze]

 barmar, on 2015-December-18, 10:00, said:

In a round robin, everyone plays everyone. Does it really matter what order they play?

Here's another way it might matter: if you are playing with more than 4 players, you might prefer to alternate strong and weak opponents, so that you can play your top lineup against the strong opponents and rest some of your best players against weaker opponents. A team that faces a string of strong opponents could feel disadvantaged.

[barmar]

 mgoetze, on 2015-December-18, 16:56, said:

Here's another way it might matter: if you are playing with more than 4 players, you might prefer to alternate strong and weak opponents, so that you can play your top lineup against the strong opponents and rest some of your best players against weaker opponents. A team that faces a string of strong opponents could feel disadvantaged.

If the event is seeded so that the contenders play at the end, then you're likely to face a string of strong opponents at the end, when players are tired. And you'll face the toughest opponents in the last round.

If it's random, the tough opponents are more likely to be spread out during the competition. Yes, it would be possible for them to all be in a row, but not as likely as with seeding.

[NickRW]

If Spain has two good teams and the rest are not likely to challenge for the top spot, then surely the optimum is to have a final after the RR. That way the ability to beat up fish by large margins plays little part.