>>"The same sorts of thing happened in the Northeast yesterday and I'm certainly not blaming the tournament staff. 40 minutes is a lot more realistic. So if future schedules are made up for 45-minute rounds, tournaments can actually be finished ahead of time, scary thought that this may be."<< Another way to alleviate the problem is to have more concise bonus parts. This seems to be a frequent problem in both ACF and (especially) mACF events, including the recent Terrier Tussle (which used rounds from JCV, Cardinal Classic, and one other source). For instance, some of the individual bonus parts used in TT were taking 20 seconds for Ahmed to read, which is way too damn long, regardless of whether it's a timed or untimed tournament. So if you're writing a packet, don't write bonus parts that go as long as tossups. A couple of clues should suffice -- 3-part bonuses with 6 clues per part will wear down both moderators and players by the later rounds, not to mention extending the length of each round by several minutes. As someone mentioned, this is also one of the many aspects of CBI questions which is ... er, in need of improvement. I doubt it would have any effect on CBI to say it, but the combination of long bonus intros and 7-minute halves is ill-advised. This is one area (conciseness) where NAQT seems to do a significantly better job than either CBI or most ACF-ish tournaments. --Raj Dhuwalia P.S. I wasn't able to attend ACF Regionals this weekend, so I'm not referring to the Regionals, just to a general trend.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:45 AM EST EST