[Sir John D]

I must admit, my brain is still trying to work it out but there may be someone who can make sense of it:

The English Bridge Union have some information about web movements - the use of the word web does not refer to being online:

https://www.ebu.co.u...ment-16t12r.pdf

It gives details of how to work out the tables and boards for 16 tables (ie 32 pairs).

If someone knows someone who has an interest in computers and writing programmes, and yes, it may well be a three year old, then I am sure they have plenty of time on their hands at the moment to jot something down. I have already sent details to BBO about Howell Movements for small tournaments of between two and six tables. So, perhaps, during these strange times, there will be something positive to come out of all this.

maya angelou's quote to "be a rainbow in someone else's cloud" seems quite apposite in today's World.

Keep safe

[gordontd]

It's not clear to me what you are asking for, but Web movements pre-date the World Wide Web by a couple of decades and are named after Spider Harris.

[patr1cks]

And given that every table plays the boards in order, web mitchells are irrelevant.

[zenbiddist]

Sir John D, on 2020-April-24, 14:56, said:

...web movements

I'm a big fan of using Web movements, especially when running larger sessions in clubs. Super simple for the players - everyone plays the same boards, and movies in a straight-forward fashion. Once you've wrapped your head around them, they work for any large number of tables.

I even use them for Supervised sessions that play 15, (18) or 21 boards. It's easy to build a Web movement around an odd number of rounds, ie 5 rounds of 3 boards, 7 rounds of 3 (cut a round off if you need) or 9 rounds of 3.

Whilst not mathematically perfect, Webs are incredibly practical, and the players can focus on the game without the interruptions of a weird movement...

[mycroft]

Please note, I agree that any time you can play "all tables play the same boards at the same time" as you can almost always do online, you should prefer that to any "movement" designed to ensure no board replay. The choice of whether to score it barometer or wait until the end is a discussion that I will not wade into here (or anywhere, probably).

I love web movements. There are several ACBL TDs and more than one Club owner who will, even today, facepalm with "oh, yes, Mycroft." when the subject comes up. But the goal is to get everyone to play the same boards, not to enjoy the player and board dance; and dropping 1 and 2 on each table in the first round, 3 and 4 in the second, is much easier than fiddling with movements. If I had access to 19 sets of boards for my 19 table club game, (and someone else made them all) you bet I'd be doing that and not faffing around with web movements. But I don't. On BBO, I have as many sets of boards as I want.

How to arrange plays and playfields is a whole other story. Swiss is fun, and means that you have to beat the best on the day to be the best, rather than being the best at bunny-bashing and getting lucky in your draws. Makes intermediate results kind of random, of course. Straight Mitchell, while it has the issue of creating two fields, is simple (and has the benefit of allowing people to create "sections" if beneficial for Masterpoint generation (as in the ACBL)). Frankly, picking pairs at random, and having a rollback system to avoid playbacks, would be a just fine movement, provided there were enough degrees of freedom that it would be "impossible" to create a "require playback" scenario.

Frankly, in BBO's history, they haven't had to worry about 3, 4, 5, 6 table games much. And even with 6-table games, most tournaments would be 4x3 or 6x3, so there really hasn't been a need for anything other than straight Mitchell to avoid playbacks. There are those who would prefer 9x2 in a 5-table game (and I'm one of them, I love all-play-all); compared to the people who want to get their 18 boards in in 90 minutes, and scream blue murder when their current opponents are slow, never mind having to wait 2 minutes each of 8 rounds rather than 3 minutes every 5 rounds, means that until now, at least, those people have been in the ignorable minority. Getting to "all play all" is a pipe dream when there are 42 tables in your average club game.

[Sir John D]

I suppose my point is that I would like to play a game of bridge where I meet the rest of the field.

So, although it has taken me ages to work out what the BBO computer does, I have "proved" to myself that I can set up a tournament for different numbers of pairs.

For example, I now have the facility to organise a Howell Movement. I personally would only use them for small groups of 2 to (and including) 5 tables. With 6 tables, it would become an 11 round comp and that doesn't work well for me when deciding on the number of boards. I like to aim for 12 to 18 boards, and I can manage that with the Howell Movement that uses 2, 3, 4 or 5 tables.

When the tournament is CLOCKED, then I have discovered that the BBO computer will create a Mitchell-styled Movement. Again, when considering the boards, it works OK up to and including 9 tables. With 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 or 15 tables, the boards would have to be one board per round and that is then 10 to 15 boards. Players seem to dislike one board per round movements. I don't blame them. A comp that is 20 to 30 boards would be too much.

However, I have found that once this CLOCKED tournament gets to 16 boards, the BBO computer automatically creates two sections of 8 tables. So, that means I only have to consider 8 rounds. Therefore, I can get away with 2 boards a round and 16 boards in total. But for me, as I have chosen to create tournaments for locals who cannot get to their local clubs, I restrict to a Custom List. So, numbers are not that great. A struggle to get 16 tables. Difficult to tell people they can't join if I have enough for 9 tables.

I personally don't want to play 8 boards as quickly as possible. Nor do I want to play the same players again and again.

But, when I see tournaments with 200 pairs, then I don't understand how it works. How can that many just play 8 boards or just play 12 boards? I know I am not good with super math's and I am not a computer whizz kid, but it just seems bonkers. How can it be a fair score to play against a massive field? I did write to some of the Hosts/Directors of such tournaments but suspect that they are new and have no idea. I don't know if the BBO splits them in to sections but certainly can't be 8 tables in each section.

I am missing something. But, I thought if I could find a movement that would suit these massive comps, then surely we would all benefit.

I admit that I have no idea what I am talking about with regard to computers and systems but this web movement idea would surely give a better concept of having a "good game".

Keep safe