shevek Posted January 27, 2013 Report Share Posted January 27, 2013 I'm about to run a 2-session, 1-winner qualifying event with 2 sections.Say it's 2 x 9 tables. I end up with 4 fields, 1 field playing NS twice, 1 play EW twice, 2 flip-flop.Question: Do I also need to arrow-switch (1 round) in each session? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordontd Posted January 27, 2013 Report Share Posted January 27, 2013 I'm about to run a 2-session, 1-winner qualifying event with 2 sections.Say it's 2 x 9 tables. I end up with 4 fields, 1 field playing NS twice, 1 play EW twice, 2 flip-flop.Question: Do I also need to arrow-switch (1 round) in each session?I don't think it matters much either way if they are not playing all the other pairs, unless you intend having session prizes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
campboy Posted January 27, 2013 Report Share Posted January 27, 2013 The movement isn't going to be particularly balanced whatever you do, but from my calculations arrow-switching does give a significant improvement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
campboy Posted January 27, 2013 Report Share Posted January 27, 2013 I was in a hurry before and just looked at the numbers without really thinking what they meant. In fact, arrow-switching this is obligatory because the movement without arrow-switching is actually a 2-winner movement in disguise. If line A plays the same direction as line B in one session and plays against them in the other (there will always be some choice of B for which this is the case) then in each session A and B combined must average 50%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted January 27, 2013 Report Share Posted January 27, 2013 It seems obvious to me to arrow-switch, since otherwise some pairs will never compete directly against others, and some pairs always will. Arrow-switching removes both never and always. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shevek Posted January 27, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2013 Thanks all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shevek Posted January 28, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2013 Here's a related matter. If I have 18 tables, I can run separate NS & EW, swapping. Top 7 each way to final. That's easy & best.However, not so good with an odd number, like 19.If I swap fields, one pair (EW 10 say) plays the same pairs twice, a bit mean.Other than running one field & arrow-switches, is there a way round this? TIA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted January 28, 2013 Report Share Posted January 28, 2013 What's wrong with a single field? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted January 28, 2013 Report Share Posted January 28, 2013 Here's a related matter. If I have 18 tables, I can run separate NS & EW, swapping. Top 7 each way to final. That's easy & best.However, not so good with an odd number, like 19.If I swap fields, one pair (EW 10 say) plays the same pairs twice, a bit mean.Other than running one field & arrow-switches, is there a way round this? TIAGet round what? You have a simple method, easy to score, easy to run, relatively fair. Why do you want another way? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.