movements needed

[shevek]

The club wants to run some sessions in 2 halves, with a break in the middle when boards & results can be displayed on screen and discussed with an expert panel.

The aim is for 24 boards, prefer Mitchell style but Howell etc okay for small numbers.

Want the players to play all boards in play since IMP scoring.

 

Note that we can have multiple board sets but maybe not enough to do barometers for all sizes.

8 tables might like to play 8 x 3 bd Mitchell but that's 6 sets of 1-3 for Rnd 1.

Would be good to have 3 sets, say with 1-3 & 4-6 in play.

For Howells, are there moves where 1-12 are all played in the first half?

 

Is there a resource for this sort of stuff?

 

TIA

 

Nick

[blackshoe]

There are a couple of books on movements. One by Ian MacKinnon (I think that's the name) who's an Australian TD, so it should be available there. Another by some Scandinavian folks (Haller, et. al.). And one by Manning, which I believe is available from the EBU.

 

How many tables are we talking about? Upper and lower limits would be good.

[mjj29]

The club wants to run some sessions in 2 halves, with a break in the middle when boards & results can be displayed on screen and discussed with an expert panel.

The aim is for 24 boards, prefer Mitchell style but Howell etc okay for small numbers.

Want the players to play all boards in play since IMP scoring.

 

Note that we can have multiple board sets but maybe not enough to do barometers for all sizes.

8 tables might like to play 8 x 3 bd Mitchell but that's 6 sets of 1-3 for Rnd 1.

Would be good to have 3 sets, say with 1-3 & 4-6 in play.

For Howells, are there moves where 1-12 are all played in the first half?

 

If you want it to be all-play-all, my normal approach for a small number of tables is to have a mitchell (for 8 or 12 a double-weave) in the first session, followed by two full howells in the second. With an odd number of tables you have to omit the first round of the mitchell and then interweave the two half tables in the howells. At least Jeff Smith's scorer (pairsscorer) has movements for this already in it.

 

With a larger number of tables (that's a multiple of 3) the EBU's approach is to have a howell of N tables and a mitchell of 2N tables, then rotate the three lines (Howell, Mitchell NS and Mitchell EW) over three sessions, with secure breaks between each. With larger still (when all-play-all is not possible) we run multiple sections of web mitchells and then move the lines between each section during each break.

 

In particular, if you end up with a mitchell which is larger than the number of rounds you want to play but want to have everyone playing all the boards I highly recommend web mitchells. I had a 12 table event I needed to run as 2 sets of 8 rounds (so not all-play-all) in which playing a 12-table web skip mitchell of 8 2-board rounds (2 sets of boards needed), followed by 2 double-hesitation 6-table mitchells for another 8 rounds of 2 boards (again, one set each for a total of 2 sets) worked well.

 

These are all multi-session/section movements, for which I use Jeff Smith's scorer. I assume that other programs can also manage this, but if not it's pretty straightforward to use.

 

Matt

[mamos]

The club wants to run some sessions in 2 halves, with a break in the middle when boards & results can be displayed on screen and discussed with an expert panel.

The aim is for 24 boards, prefer Mitchell style but Howell etc okay for small numbers.

Want the players to play all boards in play since IMP scoring.

 

Note that we can have multiple board sets but maybe not enough to do barometers for all sizes.

8 tables might like to play 8 x 3 bd Mitchell but that's 6 sets of 1-3 for Rnd 1.

Would be good to have 3 sets, say with 1-3 & 4-6 in play.

For Howells, are there moves where 1-12 are all played in the first half?

 

Is there a resource for this sort of stuff?

 

TIA

 

Nick

 

Even table Mitchells are dead easy to organise in two halves and a competent scorer should be able to write such a movement into a scoring program

 

For example 8 tables - 3 boards a round - needs two sets of boards - minisession 1 12 boards Table 1 1-3 2 4-6 etc then 5 1-3 again 6 4-6 and so on - now you can play and complete 4 rounds with normal Mitchell and conduct your teaching whatever

Second half boards 13-24 in same way move up one table from end of Session 1 and play four more rounds

 

Barometer need not take s many boards as you may think - an eight table complete barometer could easily play three board rounds using four sets as three boards can successfully be shared between two tables. You can devise semibarometer moves where half the field shares boards in one round and swaps with the other half in the next. Dividing nine or even 12 tables into threesubsections would work

 

As Blackshoe suggests tell us what numbers you have and Im sure someone can come up with some ideas

 

Mike

[shevek]

Even table Mitchells are dead easy to organise in two halves and a competent scorer should be able to write such a movement into a scoring program

 

For example 8 tables - 3 boards a round - needs two sets of boards - minisession 1 12 boards Table 1 1-3 2 4-6 etc then 5 1-3 again 6 4-6 and so on - now you can play and complete 4 rounds with normal Mitchell and conduct your teaching whatever

Second half boards 13-24 in same way move up one table from end of Session 1 and play four more rounds

 

Barometer need not take s many boards as you may think - an eight table complete barometer could easily play three board rounds using four sets as three boards can successfully be shared between two tables. You can devise semibarometer moves where half the field shares boards in one round and swaps with the other half in the next. Dividing nine or even 12 tables into threesubsections would work

 

As Blackshoe suggests tell us what numbers you have and Im sure someone can come up with some ideas

 

Mike

 

Thanks for replies. This is what I probably will do:

All require 2 bd sets, not more.

 

9+T 9 x 3 bd & simply score at end. web or Bowman-Ewing.

8T 8 x 3 bd 2 x 4T share/relay. Not ideal because 2 tables share 3 boards. (Is this avoidable?)

7T 8 x 3 bd Interwoven. Like above, 2 x 3½ tables. EW go to NS 4 after they leave T7.

6T 6 x 4 Bd easy. No sharing

5T 6 x 4 Bd Interwoven. 2 x 2½ tables. EW go to 3 NS after they leave T5.

4T 4 x 6 bd barometer. (Or 6 x 4 bd ¾ Howell if unfillable half table)

 

Is that the best I can do?

 

Remember, all pairs need to play all 24 boards, 1 or 2 winners. IMP scoring (after 12 bds & at end)

 

PS. A bit grim for this thread to be moved outside directors' forums.

[blackshoe]

PS. A bit grim for this thread to be moved outside directors' forums.

Eh? As far as I know this ("Offline Bridge") is where it was originally posted. Certainly I haven't moved it from anywhere.

 

Edit: I see it was moved — from "Laws and Rulings". I don't know who did that. It's not really a "rulings" question, though, is it? On reflection, "Offline Bridge" does look like the best place for it.

Edited August 21, 2013 by blackshoe

[shevek]

Eh? As far as I know this ("Offline Bridge") is where it was originally posted. Certainly I haven't moved it from anywhere.

 

Edit: I see it was moved — from "Laws and Rulings". I don't know who did that. It's not really a "rulings" question, though, is it? On reflection, "Offline Bridge" does look like the best place for it.

 

That's fine, so long as directors - the people needed to give advice on movements - also peruse this offline forum.

[blackshoe]

That's fine, so long as directors - the people needed to give advice on movements - also peruse this offline forum.

You mean, people like Matt, and Mike Amos? And me? B-)

[barmar]

Edit: I see it was moved — from "Laws and Rulings". I don't know who did that. It's not really a "rulings" question, though, is it? On reflection, "Offline Bridge" does look like the best place for it.

I moved it, and explained why in the Notice of thread/post moderation thread. I think I also left a link in the original location.

[blackshoe]

I moved it, and explained why in the Notice of thread/post moderation thread. I think I also left a link in the original location.

Ah. I missed the explanation post - or I'd forgotten it. Yes, you did leave a link. :)