[Rain]

How many tables are you comfortable directing by yourself? If you have a partner to work with, does the number increase?
ie
1 = 20 tables
2 = 50 tables
3 = 100 tables

Do other factors, like whether BBO has been crashing influence your decision?

Will you open your tourneys to more people if people plead with you to do so?

[Mr. Dodgy]

start small, but I'm comfortable with 40 - particularly as I am able to view all the tables at once with this number. Yes, I'll increase the limit if I have a co-TD, or perhaps if it's a Survivor or Unclocked (but usually not). And Yes, I'll take into account any apparent problems with BBO stability. I usually decline to increase this limit unless one of the afore-mentioned conditions are met AND I'm in a good mood.

[hrothgar]

When I started directing tournaments, I limited them to 10 tables. As I've gotten a bit more experience, I now feel comfortable supporting 15-20.

I limit tournament size based on two criteria.

1. The number of tables that I think that I can support
2. My desire to preserve a reasonable relationship between the number of boards and the number of participants

[jillybean]

Table numbers vary depending on the type of tournament...

unclocked indy - unlimited (only dependant on #players available)

6min/pairs/making adjustments - 30 tables absolute maximum, better 20-25

8min/pairs/making adjustments - 40max

If there is a 2nd TD numbers can increase but not 2-fold.

Yes I add tables for reliable players

BBO does not crash often enough to influence tourney size, if there is a network outage the cause is easily recognizable (you’ve just lost 10 players at once) and can manage that by adding time and telling players there will be a delay bla bla.

Tourneys are easier to run when an enemy list is kept up to date, less disruption from players who desert bad boards.

jb

[mr1303]

I much prefer to do pairs tournaments. For some reason, people seem less likely to desert playing with the same partner for all the boards, rather than a different partner for each one.

Anyway, if I've got a decent broadband connection on a relatively new computer and I'm feeling in a good mood, I can cope with up to 40 tables. I don't start off opening the tournament to this many, however, since I prefer not to do this many if I can help it.

[pigpenz]

i think i have had 60 tables at most, only thing i didnt like was not having a screen that could show all 60 tables at once

[candybar]

I routinely set up for 120 pairs (60 tables), and open to 140 (70 tables) if the limit is reached. I don't go above that.

But I know the Laws and I know how to handle alert failures, people who won't explain, zero tolerance, and such problems fairly well. I have a system for tracking adjustments, which jilly's suggestion in another thread made even easier.

Most of the time, I play solitaire during the tourney, coming back to the BBO window whenever summoned.

As Jilly says, I keep my exclusion list up to date and I find most people are very well behaved if they know you are serious about good behavior. Those that aren't simply don't get to play again.

Only once did I get into trouble with more simultaneous calls than I could handle alone. Don't know if it was BBO instability or just an unlucky day.

One thing that I often see in tournaments that seriously decreases the number of tables a non-playing TD can handle (I won't even lower myself to discuss playing TDs) is open chat. By having open chat, the TDs time is wasted in several ways, including simply reading it, and more so by replying.

In addition to that, even if the chat is not open to players, some TDs waste a huge amount of their time with a running commentary on whatever they are doing, how they think things are going, and who is winning. This is useless at best (anyone who wants to know the nationality of the leaders can click the Tables link and look), and annoying and distracting to the players, but worst of all, takes the TD time and attention away from what s/he needs to be doing.

So I keep an efficient environment for myself, and then I am able to handle a sizeable number of tables without much trouble.

Pigpenz, a Tournament Management Window that includes a full list of the tables and players is one of the items I put into the TD Wish List, something that I desperately hope that Fred is taking seriously and will eventually implement!

I wish every TD would read that thread again and help lobby for it's implementation. I believe that if the TD Wish List were implemented, that most TDs could handle double the number of tables that they can today.

[KiwiBridge]

I usually run 5 board unclocked individuals. Without time constraints to worry about the players relax and enjoy. 200 is a comfortable number, but I have had up to 240 without problems. Sometimes there is a rash of red players in the first round but after that it seems to settle. Enjoy Every Sandwich.

KiwiBridge

[guggie]

wow I am a softie, i have a maximum of 17 tables. I got to that number by accident and I like it, I can view all tables at once, I can adjust, I can give every player my time, and I do not get crazy myself. I admit I could handle 20 now comfortably. I started with 8 tables.
I increase only for very special friends
I have no enemy exlusion list so I have regularly blackies, I keep my notes on them in their profile but most of the time they behave now, I only do not want to play with them myself. Suspected cheaters will have me kibitzing all of the time;-).
This way I feel comfortable directing.
I obliged Ege123 by codirecting while playing, I feel very unhappy, and both the playing and the directing suffers by it

[Rain]

Seeing 40 tables at once will be really useful. Can you share you do that Mrdodgy? Unless it involves buying a really expensive and huge LCD monitor of course.

[Mr. Dodgy]

Rain, on Oct 20 2005, 04:40 PM, said:

Seeing 40 tables at once will be really useful. Can you share you do that Mrdodgy? Unless it involves buying a really expensive and huge LCD monitor of course.

go to main bridge club and change 'view' until each table is a little square - this setting is retained in tourney view. my monitor is 15" *sigh*

[Dwingo]

I have not had any problems with 50 tables and normally take a co-TD when I open it for more than 50 tables. If the Internt is behaving well, I think I can push the limits to 70 tables or so.

But then I use productivity tools like OKScript to make life easier while directing.

I make adjustments for unfinished boards..So with this high number, I have never been able to bring the Time per board to less than 8min/board.

Godwin

[uday]

One prob with large Ts with a single Td is that if the TD gets knocked off, tablesX4 players will get stranded.

[sceptic]

I think 30 is a good number to manage on your own, I have run larger tourneys and they can be easy to manage, BUT, when you get connection problems or quite a few deserters, 1 person running 50 or 60 tables will get a sweat on and probably get a bad name for themselves.

I think if you had someone dealing with rulings etc (see my suggestion for software) . one person could manage a max 100 tables with out a lot of problems

[chicken]

20 tables is ok i think, however even with 20 u might start sweating when something unexpected happens. yesterday i had 15 out of 80 players disconnected or leaving within 30sec.
i am no movementspecialist but does it make sense to have 200 pairs play less than 5% of their opponents in an 8 board tourney? usually i combine bigger tourneys with more boards. i think

tables/2 = rounds to play

is a good ratio and keeps a minimum of comparability (does that word exist? i just made it up.)

[rigour6]

17 is a nice number for the screen resolution -c an see them all at once, and it does some nice things in terms of groups with an indy.

In Pairs, I've gone as high as 50. The type of tourney is of course a key factor. As a general rule, most of my tourneys are unclocked. I address slow play through adjustments (the slower group will skip a board, I A== them when they move) and, of course, Mr. Blacklist.