Setting the movement

[blackshoe]

Yesterday there was some problem with the movement. I gather that a player arrived a bit early, and when his partner hadn't shown up by game time, or perhaps a little before, he left. Five minutes later his partner showed up, but there was no one to play with him, so he left. We ended up with 16 1/2 tables in the "open" event (there is a concurrent "299er" event, although I'm not at all sure there aren't people playing in it who have more than 299 MPs). The directors split the open event into two sections, 8 and 8 1/2 tables, three board rounds. In the seventh round, they announced that in the second (8 1/2 table) section, the movement would be curtailed by one round "so that there would be the same number of rounds in both sections". This seemed odd to me, but when I asked about it, the director who made the original decision about the movement got very annoyed, commenting "it was a bad movement, and I'm done talking about it". Turns out he would have set up a web movement if there'd been seventeen full tables, but with the loss of half a table he decided to go with the movement I've described.

 

It's a club game, so I don't really care if the movement wasn't the best. It just seems odd to me to curtail the movement in one section for the reason given (so both sections would have the same number of rounds). Comments?

[RMB1]

It's a club game, so I don't really care if the movement wasn't the best. It just seems odd to me to curtail the movement in one section for the reason given (so both sections would have the same number of rounds). Comments?

 

I understand playing the same number of boards in each section.

 

For what its worth, if I had two sections I would play 7.5 table hesitation mitchell playing 9 rounds, and 9 table mitchell playing 9 rounds.

[blackshoe]

Maybe I'm just looking at the 8 1/2 table section in isolation, and maybe that's not the best way to look, but if you curtail the movement in that section, not only will all the EWs miss two boards instead of one, they will (except for the last round sit out) miss meeting one NS pair, and all the NS pairs will miss one EW pair. Seems less than optimal.

 

I may be missing something, but all making the # of rounds the same in both sections does for you is to avoid any factoring in the overall scores - and the computer will take care of that anyway.

 

I like your choice of movements, but these folks don't think of things like that. They stick to what's familiar, and a hesitation Mitchell doesn't qualify - although IMO it should. B-)

[McBruce]

Why not simply set up your 17 table Web and play with the player who arrived late, and when you have a moment try to call the player who left? Splitting into two sections is so 20th century... :)

[barmar]

I don't understand why they couldn't run a full movement in the 8-table section. Isn't the normal movement with 8 tables a bystand Mitchell, which allows all EW to play all NS, and everyone plays 24 boards? The 8-1/2 table section can use the same movement, with a NS bump pair, so you get the same full movement (except that pairs that are bumped miss a round -- not much you can do about that).

 

 

 

[fromageGB]

It makes sense if playing the full movement meant 27 boards, and either the premises need vacating at the normal time afforded by 24 boards or the director was going out for a drink after the event with someone in the 8 table section.

[barmar]

I've never played in a club that tried to do more than 24 boards in a session (I think we pushed it to 25 boards on the rare occasions when we've had so few tables that we had to do 5-board rounds). Around here, 26 and 27 boards only happen at tournaments.

[mycroft]

...heh, whereas here, if someone suggested we play less than 26, there'd be a riot, at least in the open game.

 

I agree with RMB, unfortunately, the hesitation mitchell isn't in the standard set of movements in ACBLScore (I had to make it for my own self). Frustrating, because it's such a beautiful one. Having said that, if we want to do anything sane, we'll have to arrow-switch *both sections*, making it a one-winner movement (because the hesitation mitchell is a one-winner movement already). RMB's players just assume that's going to happen anyway; I expect pitchforks again, on this side of the Pond.

[jeffford76]

Turns out he would have set up a web movement if there'd been seventeen full tables, but with the loss of half a table he decided to go with the movement I've described.

 

The director is confused about something. Web movements work just fine with half tables, and a 16.5 table game run as a 17-table web would be far preferable to what happened. (Or if there are only 2 sets of boards, a 16 table web with a bump is also possible.)

[RMB1]

Around here, 26 and 27 boards only happen at tournaments.

 

Clubs I have played in think playing 26/27 boards is the norm.

[barmar]

Clubs I have played in think playing 26/27 boards is the norm.

Daytime or evening games? If the latter, what time do they start and end?

[RMB1]

Daytime or evening games? If the latter, what time do they start and end?

Locally, 7:05 to 10:30. In London, 7:30ish to 11ish.

[blackshoe]

Why not simply set up your 17 table Web and play with the player who arrived late, and when you have a moment try to call the player who left? Splitting into two sections is so 20th century... :)

There were two other sections and a total of 39 1/2 tables in this game, and only two TDs - one of whom spends most of her time fiddling around in the kitchen. Do you really want the other TD to be playing?

 

Why he did what he did, I don't know - as I said he wouldn't discuss it. I think he was annoyed with himself. B-)

[blackshoe]

I don't understand why they couldn't run a full movement in the 8-table section. Isn't the normal movement with 8 tables a bystand Mitchell, which allows all EW to play all NS, and everyone plays 24 boards? The 8-1/2 table section can use the same movement, with a NS bump pair, so you get the same full movement (except that pairs that are bumped miss a round -- not much you can do about that).

My understanding is that they did run a full movement in the 8 table section, and it was a by stand Mitchell. The 8 1/2 table section played a straight Mitchell with an EW sitout at table 9.

[blackshoe]

It makes sense if playing the full movement meant 27 boards, and either the premises need vacating at the normal time afforded by 24 boards or the director was going out for a drink after the event with someone in the 8 table section.

We try to play at least 24 boards, preferring 26 or 27, and there is not normally (and was not this week) a time constraint.

[blackshoe]

...heh, whereas here, if someone suggested we play less than 26, there'd be a riot, at least in the open game.

 

I agree with RMB, unfortunately, the hesitation mitchell isn't in the standard set of movements in ACBLScore (I had to make it for my own self). Frustrating, because it's such a beautiful one. Having said that, if we want to do anything sane, we'll have to arrow-switch *both sections*, making it a one-winner movement (because the hesitation mitchell is a one-winner movement already). RMB's players just assume that's going to happen anyway; I expect pitchforks again, on this side of the Pond.

Pitchforks or worse. B-)

[blackshoe]

The director is confused about something. Web movements work just fine with half tables, and a 16.5 table game run as a 17-table web would be far preferable to what happened. (Or if there are only 2 sets of boards, a 16 table web with a bump is also possible.)

There were only two board sets available. Well, that's not entirely true. There were four sets, but two of them went to the "299er" event, which also had two sections.

 

I think he just didn't think of any of those options.

[Siegmund]

Before Webs came back into fashion, we "always" used one section up to 17 tables, with 34 boards in play (of which 26 got played.) Can't imagine why the director wanted to split it down to 8 and 8 1/2 table sections.

 

I have observed two directors in the past year using Webs when they had full tables and splitting sections when they had half tables (these were 20-24ish table games). It had me convinced there was some reason a web with a half table didn't work -- but I sure can't think of one.

[gordontd]

Before Webs came back into fashion, we "always" used one section up to 17 tables, with 34 boards in play (of which 26 got played.) Can't imagine why the director wanted to split it down to 8 and 8 1/2 table sections.

So that players are compared with others who have played the same boards as them?

 

I have observed two directors in the past year using Webs when they had full tables and splitting sections when they had half tables (these were 20-24ish table games). It had me convinced there was some reason a web with a half table didn't work -- but I sure can't think of one.

Me neither - it works fine, but it does help to know from the start how may you are going to have.