arunk4 Posted September 7, 2017 Report Share Posted September 7, 2017 Our club games happen twice a week. MP scoring is employed. We normally have 16 to 18 tables on play and our directors use simple Mitchel movement for deciding the winners. Total boards in play will be between 32 to 36 [2 boards per Round]but due to time constrain only 22 or 24 boards[11 to 12 rounds]are played and the winner is announced! Is this the right approach in MP/IMP scoring where we do not play 10 to 14 boards in common?Can the parity be achieved among participants while scoring? Experts who run the club events may throw some light on the subject and give suitable suggestions please. Arun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted September 7, 2017 Report Share Posted September 7, 2017 Our club games happen twice a week. MP scoring is employed. We normally have 16 to 18 tables on play and our directors use simple Mitchel movement for deciding the winners. Total boards in play will be between 32 to 36 [2 boards per Round]but due to time constrain only 22 or 24 boards[11 to 12 rounds]are played and the winner is announced! Is this the right approach in MP/IMP scoring where we do not play 10 to 14 boards in common?Can the parity be achieved among participants while scoring? Experts who run the club events may throw some light on the subject and give suitable suggestions please. Arun. The best solution, if feasible, will be to have two sets of boards and run a web movement. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arunk4 Posted September 7, 2017 Author Report Share Posted September 7, 2017 The best solution, if feasible, will be to have two sets of boards and run a web movement. Thanks for the input. My query is whether it is right to judge the winners via normal Mitchel movement where only 60% of boards are played commonly? What is the bench mark? How is it handled in the other clubs world over if such situation arises?Thanks in advance. Arun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted September 7, 2017 Report Share Posted September 7, 2017 I don't know how much statistical analysis has been done, but so many missed boards really seems poor. Another option if you have two sets of boards is to split into two sections of 8-9 tables. You'll play 3-board rounds, which should make the game go a little quicker, so you should be able to play 24 boards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve2005 Posted September 7, 2017 Report Share Posted September 7, 2017 ACBL just ran a national Championship using robots where quite possibly the players in contention did not play one board in common out of I think 96 boards.I think running a club game with 10-14 boards in common is fine! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrecisionL Posted September 7, 2017 Report Share Posted September 7, 2017 I would make it 2 sections and score across both sections with 3 board rounds. This will also solve your time constraints. Balancing the sections will be a challenge. Larry, an ACBL Club Director Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted September 8, 2017 Report Share Posted September 8, 2017 I would make it 2 sections and score across both sections with 3 board rounds. This will also solve your time constraints. Balancing the sections will be a challenge. Larry, an ACBL Club Director Yes, with three-board rounds you do not need two sets of boards, as the boards can be placed on a table or chair and shared by the two sections. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordontd Posted September 8, 2017 Report Share Posted September 8, 2017 We have a regulation in the EBU that pairs events need to have at least 70% of boards in common. Originally the intention was for it to be 75% but this was modified in the face of opposition from a small number of clubs, to allow them to play things like 8x3 boards over 11 tables. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted September 8, 2017 Report Share Posted September 8, 2017 Yes, with three-board rounds you do not need two sets of boards, as the boards can be placed on a table or chair and shared by the two sections.I suppose this will work, but it means physically arranging the playing area so all the corresponding tables from the two sections are next to each other. And all that board sharing will probably cancel out the time saving from 3-board rounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted September 9, 2017 Report Share Posted September 9, 2017 I suppose this will work, but it means physically arranging the playing area so all the corresponding tables from the two sections are next to each other. And all that board sharing will probably cancel out the time saving from 3-board rounds. That is fine; the OP never discussed time saving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted September 10, 2017 Report Share Posted September 10, 2017 That is fine; the OP never discussed time saving.He mentioned that they sometimes play only 22 boards because of time constraints. Which do you think players are likely to care more about, the number of boards they get to play or how many boards they have in common with other players? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted September 10, 2017 Report Share Posted September 10, 2017 He mentioned that they sometimes play only 22 boards because of time constraints. Which do you think players are likely to care more about, the number of boards they get to play or how many boards they have in common with other players? Well, I don't know. And I don't know whether people would be more bothered by the fact that it is not a very valid contest or that there are so few boards to compare in the pub afterwards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted September 10, 2017 Report Share Posted September 10, 2017 He mentioned that they sometimes play only 22 boards because of time constraints. Which do you think players are likely to care more about, the number of boards they get to play or how many boards they have in common with other players? I think that if a session is supposed to be 24 boards but only 22 are played because of time, it is the director's fault. Obviously. But anyway, if you have two sections and they play different boards, you will have two smaller duplicate sessions instead of one large one. Of course if you are preparing two sets of boards you can make them the same, so why not have a web movement with two-board rounds? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted September 11, 2017 Report Share Posted September 11, 2017 Well, I don't know. And I don't know whether people would be more bothered by the fact that it is not a very valid contest or that there are so few boards to compare in the pub afterwards.I'll bet any amount that most of the players don't even realize this is an issue. They don't think about the statistics, and they don't meet up at the pub. They just want to have a nice evening out of the house playing bridge, and the more hands they play the better, as long as they don't get home after their bedtime. There's just a few who understand that the results are less valid, or they go to the pub and have to keep saying "didn't play those boards". Anyway, 3-board rounds with two sets of boards should allow you to maximize the number of boards played and minimize the number of "did not play" (most likely just 3 boards if there's a half table). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted October 4, 2017 Report Share Posted October 4, 2017 Evening? What evening? B-) 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.