12 table movement

[Vampyr]

Well, try going to web.mit.edu where, at the top, will be a search box. Make sure the "mit google" button is selected (that seems to be the default) and put "double weave mitchell" in the box. Click search. That's how I got the link I put up, anyway.

OK. The file that is apparently the table cards is not one my computer recognises. I would really like to get these!

[blackshoe]

It's a postscript file, so you need something that can read such. I don't know what that might be under windows.

[Cascade]

There are also pdf files on the webpage which are more easily read.

[aguahombre]

Is ACBL Score able to cope? If so, I will bring this movement to our directors' attention.

[shintaro]

Also it is a good idea to make sure each table checks the pair and board numbers on the Bridgemates before starting to play.

 

 

That'll be the day :rolleyes:

[shintaro]

Oh come you lot

 

Use WORD set up a table 15 rows by 4 Columns

 

Row one for DETAILS eg 12 Table Double Weave 24 Boards

Next 6 for Round Number N/S E/W Boards

next for Half way movement instructions for Pairs and Boards

Next 6 for Round Number N/S E/W Boards

1 card for each table of course numbered 1 to 12

 

If you cant manage that Give our Jim a bell he will write the movement out in longhand for you

 

:D

[shintaro]

Not sure where you need to share.

 

 

Wayne normally between Lowest and Highest numbered tables :rolleyes:

[Cascade]

Wayne normally between Lowest and Highest numbered tables :rolleyes:

 

The description of double weave Mitchell in Hallen, Hanner and Jannersten (English version Rigal) says explicitly "It has the advantage of the Relay Mitchell that there is neither board sharing nor idle boards."

 

Certainly my understanding of the double weave Mitchell is that there is precisely one unshared board set at every table on every round.

[Cascade]

Maybe there is a Scissors movement that requires board sharing.

[gordontd]

Certainly my understanding of the double weave Mitchell is that there is precisely one unshared board set at every table on every round.

Indeed so, but you asked your question of my post which talked about Share-and-Relay Mitchells.

[blackshoe]

Is ACBL Score able to cope? If so, I will bring this movement to our directors' attention.

 

Yes. I don't think the double weaves are in the program by default (at least, not all of them), but they can be manually entered with EDMOV. An easier way might be to use some software available from the MIT site — I think there was something there that could produce ACBLScore movement files.

[barmar]

The MIT web site has some downloadable .MOV files, including the one for this movement.

[Cascade]

Indeed so, but you asked your question of my post which talked about Share-and-Relay Mitchells.

 

Oh i misread sorry.

[shevek]

Furthermore, it is one of the simplest movements in the book, the only problem is getting the players to believe you. Once they do, it is easily within their capabilities. There is no problem for a playing TD.

 

• Odd E/W: move up one table every round.
  
• Even E/W: move down one table every round.
  
• N/S: at end of each round move the boards the opposite way to the players.
  

It is far easier for the players than a Howell, Rover, Hesitation or Blackpool.

 

 

Surely the "pairs up, boards back" of Blackpool is easiest for everyone, remembering we are curtailing to 12 out of 14 possible Blackpool rounds. Admittedly not the best contest.

[bluejak]

Surely the "pairs up, boards back" of Blackpool is easiest for everyone, remembering we are curtailing to 12 out of 14 possible Blackpool rounds. Admittedly not the best contest.

We do not run events where you curtail by two rounds. And if we did, there are relays, notorious causes of trouble. It is more likely that Blackpool will be got wrong by the players than a Double Weave.

[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]

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 :D

[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]

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

 

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]

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/newsletters/?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]

May I direct you to my recent article about Web Movements at http://www.ebu.co.uk/newsletters/?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]

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.