[Phil]

Are they using screens for the final day?

[Gerben42]

You mean they didn't before? In Verona they used screens for all tournaments.

[Phil]

Gerben42, on Oct 4 2010, 09:48 AM, said:

You mean they didn't before? In Verona they used screens for all tournaments.

I didn't imply they weren't using them for the first two days - I didn't know.

Helluva lotta screens for 400+ pairs though heh.

[Gerben42]

Yep, but I think WBF tournaments always have them. This must be one of the major logistic headaches (other than boards).

Here's a picture of Kit Woolsey from 2006 - you can see the endless rows of screens in the back (about as much is on front, back, left and right of the picture...)


© Swangames I guess

[JanM]

All of the events in the World Bridge Series will be played with screens.

[mrdct]

The front page of Bulletin #2 has a nice photo of all the screened tables.

Interestingly, the organisers chose not to "box" the tables (basically rotating every second table by 90 degrees so that a player catching a glimpse of cards at another table will only be able to see his own hand) but I guess they can squeeze more tables into the playing area if they orientate them all the same way.

The screens look fairly new and, if I'm not mistaken, are Biasov screens from Poland who are a BBO advertiser. I look forward to having a closer look at them when I arrive in Philly on Friday.

I wonder if these screens will become the property of the ACBL and/or USBF at the end of the event; which would leave a great legacy of bridge infrastucture for major North American events.

[JLOGIC]

All WBF events I've ever seen have used screens, maybe some dont but it would be very rare ime.

The screens/tables here are very nice.

[gordontd]

mrdct, on Oct 5 2010, 12:21 AM, said:

Interestingly, the organisers chose not to "box" the tables (basically rotating every second table by 90 degrees so that a player catching a glimpse of cards at another table will only be able to see his own hand) but I guess they can squeeze more tables into the playing area if they orientate them all the same way.

How does that work?

[mrdct]

gordontd, on Oct 5 2010, 05:45 PM, said:

mrdct, on Oct 5 2010, 12:21 AM, said:

Interestingly, the organisers chose not to "box" the tables (basically rotating every second table by 90 degrees so that a player catching a glimpse of cards at another table will only be able to see his own hand) but I guess they can squeeze more tables into the playing area if they orientate them all the same way.

How does that work?

You have the norths back-to-back with the easts and the souths back-to-back with the wests. The screens themselves have the compass positions labled so there is no need for the tables to be orientated the same way. It is certainly best practice to box the tables, unless you have each table in its own visually obscured area. Boxing often cuts down on noise as each cluster of four tables is "boxed-in" by the diagonal screens of the four tables.

I would be moderately surprised if the WBF doesn't have the tables boxed for the Rosenblum and Youth Teams events, so I'll try to take a photo that illustrates the arrangement.

[gordontd]

I understand boxing in. My question meant "how does it save space to rotate some tables so that they are not boxed in?"

[awm]

Having just finished playing in the mixed pairs, I can confirm that screens were used for all six sessions. We really enjoyed playing in the event (ended a respectable 81st out of about 430 pairs, although certainly we could've done better). The screens seem to cut down on the after-hand chatter as well as preventing UI, after all you can always close the screen on partner when (s)he starts yelling.

We got to play against Fred and Sheri, and a number of other famous players/pairs.

[Gerben42]

Hi Adam, I am glad you liked the experience, I sure did 4 years ago. Maybe next time I'll participate again

81st is a good result - see how many champs are behind you!

[hanp]

Yeah I also like the screens for the same reasons Adam, it's pleasant playing with them.

[mrdct]

gordontd, on Oct 5 2010, 06:56 PM, said:

I understand boxing in. My question meant "how does it save space to rotate some tables so that they are not boxed in?"

Screens generally extend about a foot (30cm) from the NW and SE corners of the table so if tables are boxed, in order to maintain the same width walking coridors, you need to have the tables spaced to a larger footprint. So by applying a bit of Pytharagous, with 30cm extensions boxed tables will need to be 42.4cm further apart to maintain the same walking coridors.

From the look of the photo from Bulletin 4, space doesn't really seem to be much of an issue so perhaps they decided to not box the tables to make moving around the room easier and to reduce the chance of the movement being fouled by people with a poor sense of direction. imho, however, boxing the tables is best practice and should also be employed where practical.

I like screens so much I have one permanently set up in my living room and play all of my home games with screens.

[gordontd]

mrdct, on Oct 6 2010, 07:55 AM, said:

Screens generally extend about a foot (30cm) from the NW and SE corners of the table so if tables are boxed, in order to maintain the same width walking coridors, you need to have the tables spaced to a larger footprint.

That's the explanation - our screens don't extend past the corners, which is why it didn't make sense for me. Thanks!

[jeremy69]

Quote

I like screens so much I have one permanently set up in my living room

Does it cut down on conversation at meal times?

[mrdct]

jeremy69, on Oct 6 2010, 06:38 PM, said:

Quote

I like screens so much I have one permanently set up in my living room

Does it cut down on conversation at meal times?

Nah, it's a pretty big room and the bridge table sits in the corner out of the way.

[Phil]

mrdct, on Oct 6 2010, 01:55 AM, said:

I like screens so much I have one permanently set up in my living room and play all of my home games with screens.

Great idea!

I think I'll set this up for when my in-laws come over (who don't play bridge).

[AlexOgan]

Anybody know what happened to the Kranyaks, who led after qualifying session #2 but don't seem to have played in session 3?

http://www.worldbridge.org/tourn/Philadelp...no=2&qroundno=2

http://www.worldbridge.org/tourn/Philadelp...no=2&qroundno=3

[hrothgar]

I believe that Mrs. Kraynak was too ill to be able to participate