Seating at matchpoints

[nigel_k]

Fairly competitive club game, hopefully the questions are self-explanatory.

[barmar]

Here's what Law 5A says regarding seating:

The Director assigns an initial position to each contestant (individual, pair or team) at the start of a session. Unless otherwise directed, the members of each pair or team may select seats among those assigned to them by mutual agreement.

However, in many clubs the director lets pairs pick their own seats -- they're essentially delegating the above responsibility to the players themselves. We do that at our club, but before the game starts the director looks around to make sure one direction is not too skewed, and moves pairs around to even things out.

[keylime]

I think seating at MPs isn't as important as cross-matchpointing multiple sections.

[Cthulhu D]

I'm a yes voter for option one, but I might just be rationalising my own behaviour. If it's just some random club night with nothing at stake, I'd rather play against the strongest pairs because that is more likely to generate interesting lessons for the washup.

[RMB1]

I assume this is a two-winner movement? (Mitchell or similar with no arrow switch)

[barmar]

I think seating at MPs isn't as important as cross-matchpointing multiple sections.

That assumes you have a large enough game to have multiple sections.

[TimG]

I'm assuming a local club with a mix of social and competitive players.

 

I would prefer to sit N/S if the E/W pairs were stronger and E/W if the N/S pairs were stronger. Not because I think that will help my score, but because I think it will be a more enjoyable bridge experience to play at tables with better opponents. I would not think less of someone who thought along similar lines. I might think less of someone if they chose to sit in the weaker direction because they think their result/award will be better/larger.

 

I think the director ought to select movements that do not include "revenge" rounds so playing an opponent twice shouldn't be an issue. I would think less of someone who made an effort to figure out when the skip would be and positioned themselves to skip a strong pair.

 

I used to place a fast pair adjacent to a slow pair because it would help move the game along. I think a pair that volunteers to be in that position should be thanked rather than thought less of.

 

In my opinion, the director ought to take a look at the field before play and make adjustments when an imbalance is present rather than leaving it to the players to unravel by themselves.

[keylime]

Often there are multiple sections where I play at, but admittedly, across ACBL land that is likely the minority.

[Heron]

I'm a yes voter for option one, but I might just be rationalising my own behaviour. If it's just some random club night with nothing at stake, I'd rather play against the strongest pairs because that is more likely to generate interesting lessons for the washup.

 

Same here, although really it's the best of both worlds. The better players around here often end up sitting N/S, and if I try for E/W seats I both have more competitive games *and* my pair's results will be more meaningful with the more consistent opposition at the table.

[EricK]

Pair A might want to sit opposite to the strong players because they want to challenge themselves on individual hands against the better players. Pair B might want to sit in the same direction as the strongest pairs because they wants to see if they can beat the strongest players over the evening, and the only way to get a comparable score is to play the same hands in the same direction as them.

[gnasher]

As others have said, there can be more than one reason for wanting to play in the weaker direction. I always choose NS if I get there early enough to do so, because I want a better game of bridge.

[EricK]

As others have said, there can be more than one reason for wanting to play in the weaker direction. I always choose NS if I get there early enough to do so, because I want a better game of bridge.

Why does NS give you a better game of bridge? Is it because the less mobile people get there early to grab a NS seat, and they are generally weaker?

[helene_t]

I might feel a little less about a strong pair that chose the weaker line in order to get some cheap monsterpoints. Then again, I find it hard to take the competition seriously when people chose their own starting position.

 

A weak pair that just wants to be compared to their peers is fine.

[gnasher]

Why does NS give you a better game of bridge? Is it because the less mobile people get there early to grab a NS seat, and they are generally weaker?

 

Maybe good players lead more hectic lives, and so are more likely to arrive five minutes before the start. Or maybe it's just my imagination.

[mgoetze]

I have played two kinds of pairs tournaments in my life:

 

1. ones where the results did not matter at all and

2. ones where I had no influence whatsoever on the seating.

 

As such I find it quite hard to imagine how the given questions can be pertinent. But if they were, the German regulations state clearly it is the duty of the TD to ensure the lines are of even strength, and if the TD chooses to ignore that regulation, it's hardly my fault, is it?

[paulg]

I discussed this on my blog a few months ago - http://thebeercard.b...ould-i-sit.html

 

The conclusion was, "But it does suggest that you are better off being compared with weaker pairs in a small field if you want a good score. But in a large field you want to be playing the weaker pairs. Doesn't sound like rocket science when I put it like that!"

[Free]

I don't see anything wrong with picking randomly. It's according to the rules and everyone gets his good seat from time to time. Only exceptions are for medical reasons imo.

[ArtK78]

I didn't vote in the poll questions, but my reaction to all of the questions is that the tactics suggested are sleazy, but not impermissible or even unethical, as long as the TD allows it.

 

In any pair game, even regular club games, the TD should seed the field so that at least the 3 or 4 best pairs are divided between North-South and East-West and the best pairs should be paired against each other in the first round. Furthermore, the movement should insure that the best pairs play each other. Other than that, it probably doesn't matter where anyone sits (except for providing that pairs with special needs get North-South positions).

[Siegmund]

In non-arrow-switched games, the director is supposed to balance the two fields and usually does. People sit where they want except for one or two who he moves.

 

In arrow-switched games this can become a problem, because the ways to achieve the best balance are far from obvious -- ex. in the 9-table Mitchell with the last round switched, you are compared approximately equally strongly against everyone except the pair against whom you play the last round -- and the "skill" in choosing your seat becomes quite big. (One director here insists on arrow switching 3 rounds of a 9-table game. That makes it even more important to choose where to sit, in a very odd way.)

 

The director should keep balance in mind, and remember that it matters all the time except in the handful of 'perfect movements'. Sometimes the right way to achieve balance is not the way the players like: with a 2 1/2 table Howell the balance is much better if you make the stationary pair the phantom, but that's a great way to annoy everybody in the room who wished he could have been stationary.

 

If the director isn't going to do his job... can't fault the players for sitting where they like. Different players like different seats for different reasons. Better opps, weaker opps, getting the best opps out of the way first, saving them for last, being close to the dessert table, being far from the dessert table, being near the door, being far from the door.

[fromageGB]

I play in a club where room layout usually gives rise to two howell movements (amalgamated) with the better pairs predominantly in one section, through habit. I prefer that section because results can sometimes be random in the other, when you cannot make judgements as to what opponents bids might indicate. So put me down for the "sit NS if EW are stronger" camp.

[TMorris]

At the club I play at this question is irrelevant. There are enough people unable to move (or at least move very easily) that sitting NS if you can actually move is very unlikely. I play there about 5 times a month and so far this year have sat NS 3 times. (If you sit at a table where both pairs can move then you toss for seating rights but at least half the time you will either be asked to move to fill up a table where a stationary pair is sitting or your chosen table will become a swivel table). The idea of a director being able to balance the directions by having equal number of good and bad pairs in each direction is not a practical consideration.

[campboy]

(One director here insists on arrow switching 3 rounds of a 9-table game. That makes it even more important to choose where to sit, in a very odd way.)

Yuck. That's less balanced than not switching at all.

[32519]

The Links Bridge Club in Johannesburg, South Africa may well be one of the largest clubs anywhere. On any given Saturday afternoon they can have up to 100 tables divided into sections A-H. The players get assigned into the relevant section based on their last four average scores. The lower the average, the higher the section you are allocated to.

 

Assigning or calculating a score goes like this:

Winning the A section = a score of 0, second place = 2, third place = 4, etc.

Winning the B section = a score of 2, second place = 4, third place = 6, etc.

Winning the C section = a score of 4, second place = 6, third place = 8, etc.

The same pattern gets repeated all the way down to section H.

 

Using your last four scores ensures that you need to be on your game every week, not just 1 random lucky week.

 

With this scheme for seating arrangements you get players of similar skills playing against each other. Everyone wants to play in the A section because then you can announce “I know something about this game called bridge.” When it comes to national selection, interprovincial selection or interclub selection, it is the players who are consistently in the A section who inevitably progress further. Conversely if you are assigned to the H section every week, your game sucks. The only way you can get into a higher section is to up the standard of your own game.

 

A club with enough players can look at doing something similar to ensure that players of equal strength are playing against each other. A Mitchell movement is used.

[Siegmund]

In the ACBL you are allowed to run a 'handicap game', where half the masterpoints are awarded based on any of several ways of compensating for player strength and half in the usual way -- and in party bridge there is often a progressive movement with winners moving up and losers moving down a a table so the room is 'sorted' by the end of the party -- but I find it quite odd to run a club game in that way. Maybe it makes more sense in a 100 table club.

 

Of course I find it quite odd that anyone anywhere likes Swisses, too but a lot of people do.