As a rule, tabroom's paneling of judges with MPJ is great. There are a couple of things, though.
First of all, make sure you're looking at the gestalt of the panels. If one side has a 1-1-4 and the other has a 1-2-3, they may both add up to 6 but the 1-1-4 side looks seriously advantaged. Having a higher total count but closer mutuality seems like a better approach. Tabroom, of course, will offer the lowest total count. So, double-check that.
And a process point. We were having a real go of assignments for one particular pairing last weekend at Columbia. We'd let tabroom do the assignments, and then we'd start moving people around until our heads were spinning. Then we had the bright idea to dump all the panels and do the problem panel ourselves by hand. We came up with a decent panel, made a note of it, did an auto assignment, went back in and reverted the problem panel to the one we had come up with, and had easy fixes of the couple we had scavenged from. This is the sort of thing that will probably only happen with tight panels, but it's good to know a way around it. I've put in a request for tabroom to be able to leave pairings with judges and only auto-assign the unassigned rounds, although I don't know if this is possible. It's certainly not an urgent need, just a nicety.
No comments:
Post a Comment