[NickRW]

Assuming 24 boards are required, then 12 rounds of the possible 14 in Blackpool style are acceptable and I've never yet had a problem with relays (but I'm a playing director sitting at table 1 and, at the start, I make a point of speaking quickly to NS at both tables 6 and 7 to make sure they got it).

However a double weave mitchell is not difficult and so much better - everyone plays all the boards!

The Blackpool movement comes into its own if you're a 27 board club - then you can play 13 rounds - but it only really works for 12 full tables as a pair has to sit out twice if you're playing 13 rounds if it is 11.5 tables - so then you're probably doing an appendix mitchell - least ways that is what I do.

Nick

[bluejak]

11.5 is a share across the end movement: 10 board sets, N/S play all the boards except one which is acceptable. I can never remember the proper name for the movement - is it Bowman or Ewing? It is a movement that went out of fashion because of excessive board sharing but it works for half tables only since the extra sharing does not happen. Of course, these days with machines, an extra set of boards makes board sharing much easier: you give one table their own set of boards!

If I was running 12 tables in a 26/27 board club I would probably do a Hesitation. But my clubs are not scared of arrow-switches, which you have to do with a Hesitation.

[gordontd]

It's a Bowman. If you have a spare set of boards and Bridgemates they work fine with a full number of tables too. I use them for 10 tables with 24 boards or 11 tables with 27 boards.

[bluejak]

I thought it might be Bowman: if so, it is Ewing as well, because I knew those were two different names for the same movement. In effect Bowman is good for n tables when you want to play n-2 rounds.

[gordontd]

bluejak, on 2011-March-14, 08:06, said:

I thought it might be Bowman: if so, it is Ewing as well, because I knew those were two different names for the same movement. In effect Bowman is good for n tables when you want to play n-2 rounds.

...and for movement nerds, an odd-table Bowman is identical to the Web movement for the same number of tables

[NickRW]

Not only is Bowman the same thing as Ewing, but in the half table case, it is the same as the 1.5 table appendix mitchell. Which, as has been noted, is really just a special case of the web mitchell family that I've recently learnt about.

27 board clubs, having two sets of boards, could think of 12 tables done as a web mitchell playing 9x3 rounds - it does mean that you only play 9 of the 12 pairs sat in the opposite direction which is on the low side. But on the plus side everyone plays all the boards and it is exactly the right number of boards.

[tciacio]

gordontd, on 2011-March-14, 09:29, said:

...and for movement nerds, an odd-table Bowman is identical to the Web movement for the same number of tables

Actually, a Bowman is special case of a Super Bowman, rather than a Web movement.

Web movements are structurally quite different. I run them several times a month. The Bowman-Ewings essentially add two appendix-tables to a base movement and use whatever number of boards the base movement would. In comparison, Web movements split the field down the middle, and use a fixed number of boards (typically 26 or 27) no matter what the size. A Bowman for 12 tables would be based on a 10-table segment and a 2-table segment. The Web movement for 12 tables would have two 6-table segments. Bowmans will follow the same skip, if any, that the base movement has, but Web movements for 26 or 27 boards will not have a skip.

In addition, Web movements are designed for an even number of tables. If you want a Web for an odd number of tables, you would end up using the Web movement for one table less then adding a rover and displacement table to it - not pretty. Half tables can always be accommodated by rounding up or down to an even number of tables and using a phantom or a rover. In the U.S., ACBLscore can handle phantoms, but has no clue about rovers in a Web movement. You need external movements files for those for the rover movements.

Tom

[gordontd]

tciacio, on 2011-March-19, 17:05, said:

In addition, Web movements are designed for an even number of tables. If you want a Web for an odd number of tables, you would end up using the Web movement for one table less then adding a rover and displacement table to it - not pretty.

May I direct you to my recent article about Web Movements at http://www.ebu.co.uk...rs/?id=7&page=8 where you will see that there is a "proper" solution to running web movements for odd numbers of tables, and that a Bowman is indeed a special case of this.

[tciacio]

gordontd, on 2011-March-20, 05:48, said:

May I direct you to my recent article about Web Movements at http://www.ebu.co.uk...rs/?id=7&page=8 where you will see that there is a "proper" solution to running web movements for odd numbers of tables, and that a Bowman is indeed a special case of this.

Thanks for that. I had not seen that particular one before. Neat solution, but, personally, it seems a rather large difference to call it a mere variation. The example you gave of a 19-table movement seems to me like a 13-table Mitchell with a 6-table Web grafted on on the high end. I think we agree on the concepts, but I am a bit uncomfortable still calling it a Web or minor variation.

[gordontd]

tciacio, on 2011-March-20, 11:48, said:

Thanks for that. I had not seen that particular one before. Neat solution, but, personally, it seems a rather large difference to call it a mere variation. The example you gave of a 19-table movement seems to me like a 13-table Mitchell with a 6-table Web grafted on on the high end. I think we agree on the concepts, but I am a bit uncomfortable still calling it a Web or minor variation.

Well, most movements vary a bit between the even-table & odd-table form, and this one doesn't seem to really change its character: from a player's perspective web movements have a standard player progression, but the high-numbered tables play board-sets in reverse order. All that differs between the odd-table & even-table variants is where that division needs to be.

The alternative would be to say that webs only exist as even-table movements, except for the possibility of the addition of a rover table which you have already noted is not very elegant - although it does allow you to take in a couple of late pairs if necessary.

[McBruce]

This Double Weave movement might work for my short 20-22 board Wednesday evening game, which is often 10 tables. However, I want to get the movement typed into ACBLScore first. Meanwhile...

--last Wednesday, with 10 tables at gametime -- actually, 10 tables + one unpartnered and very bad player (VBP) and a second fill-in (SFI) who had had the VBP experience previously and was not inclined to take a second bite of that apple but was willing to play two rounds with VBP until I could take over -- I had one missing player who was scheduled to arrive a bit late, and one player who walked in (WI) not expecting to play who played the first board for the latecomer. I set up the fastest consecutive N-S pairs as the relay, put out 2 boards per table, and set up the byestand in the correct spot. Then a pair walked in (they'd called earlier, I forgot) with the latecomer. Solution: put latecomer with SFI at 11NS (after privately convincing SFI to stay with the upgrade), set up latecomer's partner with WI permanently, and fall upon my sword and play with VBP myself. (I now completely understand SFI's position, but that's a story--actually several stories--for another day.) Also required: stop the relay from happening (got to this just in time), add the boards from the byestand table, and get ready for questions, because boards 5 and 15 are followed by boards 6 and 16. Fun times for all. (Hey, give me some credit, VBP enjoyed himself. I managed to be polite despite the fact that our opponents had a better combined score than the winners.)

--last night (the following Wednesday), I am about to be a playing director at 10NS in an IMP Pairs with another single, against club owner and partner, when it is discovered ten minutes in that one player's partner has not arrived. Club manager is unable to find a 40th player after ten minutes of trying and withdraws to avoid a sitout, but this time it's far too late to save the relay from happening and I'm not even going to try to describe my 'solution' because everyone will have a better one. Suffice it to say that "average" was about +1.5 IMPs thanks to Law 12's 'in no way at fault' clause, and had I listed myself among the 18 pairs alongside a negative score to balance the scales I would only have finished fourth-last!

Such, such are the joys of 7pm starts, where sometimes the club is virtually empty at 6:40 and three dozen players arrive in the last ten minutes (two-thirds of them wanting to sit North-South).

In both cases, had I set up a double weave, most of the problems would be easily solved. Any time I think I have ten tables, I'll just set up ten normal tables, and if it becomes 11 or 9 there's no need to break up a relay or add boards from a byestand at odd spots. I have no doubt in my ability to describe the movement properly to the players, assuming I can get them to listen. I do think the idea of E-W moving the boards is best, at least for our group: the instructions therefore reducing to:

--If your E-W pair number is even, go down one table every round all evening.
--If your E-W pair number is odd, go up one table every round all evening.
--E-W should move the completed boards one table in the opposite direction as they leave.
--During round five I'll let each table know individually where the boards go for round six.

The one thing that concerns me is the fact that E-W pairs, instead of moving all in the same direction along a great loop, are moving against one another all night. Isn't this clashing a bit scary, especially in clubs where space is a bit tight?

[gordontd]

McBruce, on 2011-March-31, 05:36, said:

This Double Weave movement might work for my short 20-22 board Wednesday evening game, which is often 10 tables.

I think you've missed the important point that a Double-Weave requires a multiple of four tables, so eight & twelve are fine but ten is not.

You could do a 7-round Web Mitchell for 10 tables though (3-board rounds mean the board sharing is less of a problem), or an 11-round Hesitation Mitchell (but that requires sharing two-board sets at Tables 1 & 10).

[Vampyr]

McBruce, on 2011-March-31, 05:36, said:

The one thing that concerns me is the fact that E-W pairs, instead of moving all in the same direction along a great loop, are moving against one another all night. Isn't this clashing a bit scary, especially in clubs where space is a bit tight?

It might help if you had a strict rule that both pairs are responsible for checking the Bridgemate and making sure that they are playing the right pair and the right boards. Movement and/or table cards could be an additional safety measure.

[McBruce]

Vampyr, on 2011-March-31, 06:26, said:

It might help if you had a strict rule that both pairs are responsible for checking the Bridgemate and making sure that they are playing the right pair and the right boards. Movement and/or table cards could be an additional safety measure.

Bridgemates have not arrived on these shores yet, except for one local director who has such a full slate of games that he decided to make the purchase to save the wear and tear on his legs. In the few games I've played with them I find them space-consuming, distracting (I actually asked to sit E-W), and certainly no faster than the tried and true travelers plus last round pickups. But I have to admit that these are the same types of complaints people had about bid-boxes when they first arrived.

[McBruce]

gordontd, on 2011-March-31, 06:07, said:

I think you've missed the important point that a Double-Weave requires a multiple of four tables, so eight & twelve are fine but ten is not.

I had a vague feeling that this was the case, which is why I wanted to make sure I had set up the movement in ACBLScore first. Oh well. Back to the drawing board...

[Vampyr]

McBruce, on 2011-April-01, 18:44, said:

Bridgemates have not arrived on these shores yet, except for one local director who has such a full slate of games that he decided to make the purchase to save the wear and tear on his legs. In the few games I've played with them I find them space-consuming, distracting (I actually asked to sit E-W), and certainly no faster than the tried and true travelers plus last round pickups. But I have to admit that these are the same types of complaints people had about bid-boxes when they first arrived.

It is like bidding boxes; once you get used to them you find it difficult to imagine how you managed before. Around here, even once-a-week clubs have managed to purchase Bridgemates and duplicate machines. I guess it depends on whether a club can afford to operate at a surplus.

[blackshoe]

There are only two clubs around here that might be able to afford to buy Bridgemates or a Duplimate machine. The owner of one is a technophobe, the owner of the other is, well, "tight fisted" is an underbid. In fact, the Rochester Area Bridge Association (RABA) did buy a Duplimate machine, but practical broke themselves to do it. RABA makes pre-duplicated boards and printed hand records available to clubs for $4 a set, which is not going to build up their finances any time soon. All the clubs are using the service, but only because the players are now insisting on it. The afore-mentioned two club owners (particularly the technophobe) hate it.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2011-April-04, 11:12, said:

There are only two clubs around here that might be able to afford to buy Bridgemates or a Duplimate machine. The owner of one is a technophobe, the owner of the other is, well, "tight fisted" is an underbid. In fact, the Rochester Area Bridge Association (RABA) did buy a Duplimate machine, but practical broke themselves to do it. RABA makes pre-duplicated boards and printed hand records available to clubs for $4 a set, which is not going to build up their finances any time soon. All the clubs are using the service, but only because the players are now insisting on it. The afore-mentioned two club owners (particularly the technophobe) hate it.

It sounds as if you have an unusually large proportion of proprietary clubs in your area. Perhaps if they had more competition from membership clubs they would have to invest in order to compete.

It also sounds as if the RABA should be charging a lot more for their duplicating service.

[blackshoe]

All the clubs in this area are proprietary. This is, I think, the norm in North America (an impression, not something I can back up with data).

RABA is afraid that if they raise the fees, the club owners will scream bloody murder, and refuse to pay.

[NickRW]

Four bucks for a set of duplicated boards is, imo, a big underbid. There is a club near me that provides duplicated boards to another club for nine pounds sterling - which seemed to my club when we were recently considering whether to get our own machine or use the same service to be a big overbid.

There is a fourth nearby club who might in the future buy duplicated sets from us now that we've got out own machine - we'd probably be asking 5 or 6 pounds sterling - which seems to me to be about right - given that they buy two sets of boards - bring us a used one and take the other set made up - and not demand that the boards are duplicated on the spot for them.

Nick