[McBruce]

I run a game at a club where the attendance is usually 8-11 tables and there is time for 24 boards. With, say, 10 tables, is is reasonable to run 2-board rounds and, during this portion of the game, make enough copies of boards 21-24 to distribute throughout the room for a final round, where we match pairs top to bottom based on the scores at that point?

Is it Laws legal? ACBL legal? Fair?

[NickRW]

McBruce, on 2011-January-17, 23:50, said:

Is it Laws legal? ACBL legal? Fair?

Not sure about laws - but I would have thought that if those were the conditions of contest then those are the CoC.

I'd have thought it less hassle and no more unfair to run a 10 table Blackpool/Revenge Mitchell movement for the full 12 rounds. Some moan about Revenge Mitchells saying that it is unfair to meet the same pair more than once - which it is - but it is no more unfair than a Skip Mitchell - which don't seem to get a murmur of complaint.

Or a Double Hesitation Mitchell will give you 12 rounds as well - one winner - and no meeting the same pair twice.

Nick

P.S. Or an appendix mitchell gives you 8 rounds I think - also reasonable - need two sets of boards really if it is 10 full tables - can get by with 1 if it is 9.5

[mjj29]

Or a 3/4 howell with 12 rounds

[hrothgar]

Its the ACBL...

Do what thou wilt, so long as you tithe to Memphis, shall be the whole of the law...

With this said and done, I'm highly skeptical.

I think that fully meshed Howells are a great ways to run a movement
I think that barometers are reasonable ways to run run movements
Some bastard stepchild sounds like a bad idea

* You're going to decrease the balance of your Howell
* You're not running a real barometer, so different pairs are playing different boards

What might make sense is something like the following:

1. Try to run a fully meshed Howell movement. If so, life is good.

2. If the number of tables / amount of time makes it impractical to run meshed Howell see whether decreasing the number of boards would allow a fully meshed movement. If so, run your fully meshed movement and then use the barometer to icnrease the board count up to what you originally wanted.

[blackshoe]

What is a "meshed" Howell?

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on 2011-January-18, 08:38, said:

What is a "meshed" Howell?

Possibly a brain fart...

I seem to recall hearing the expression "fully meshed" Howell used to describe a movement in which each pair competed against all the rest of the pairs.

[bluejak]

Hmmm.

I am not sure quite what you mean. Do you mean you run this as a normal pairs movement for the first so many rounds, and then run a single round with the same boards everywhere, and the leading pair playing the second pair, th third pair playing the fourth pair,and so on?

Sounds a very fun idea!

Well, it is easy to answer two of your questions.

Is it Laws legal? Certainly. The Laws tell you how to matchpoiint a single board, but they do not tell you how to run a tournament.

Is it fair? Certainly. It has no basic unfairness, and so long as the method is published in advance, why not?

Is it ACBL legal? That's more tricky! You wold have to look in the regulations. But my guess would be Yes, I doubt the ACBL tells you how to run a pairs tournament.

I do not understand the other replies. Of course there are other things he can do with these number of tables. So? That's not what was asked.

Personally, my suggestion is to check your documentation to find out whether the ACBL specifically ban it, and if they do not do so specifically, do not worry. Tell the players in advance, run it twice, put feedback forms on the tables on th second occasion, and see what they think.

[suprgrover]

bluejak, on 2011-January-18, 10:24, said:

Personally, my suggestion is to check your documentation to find out whether the ACBL specifically ban it, and if they do not do so specifically, do not worry. Tell the players in advance, run it twice, put feedback forms on the tables on the second occasion, and see what they think.

The only problem that I can foresee is that the ACBL is still convinced that No One Plays or Likes Swiss Pairs--so the default scoring program is not equipped to handle Swiss Pairs in anything like an easy fashion.

[McBruce]

Perhaps I should clarify further:

The game in question is a members-only club bridge game. Normally we play a Mitchell movement with 8 rounds of 3 boards for 8-12 tables. I have convinced the club to buy a new set of boards and cards so that while they play their game, I can preduplicate the next week's set, and look for hands upon which I might make some comments along with the hand records. (The club's best pairs play a year-end game against another members-only club, and they would like to improve their winning percentage. Somehow they feel that I may be able to help them here.)

Anyhow, the overall idea is to reduce the number of boards in play, to a maximum of 27, by switching to two-board rounds with more than nine tables and a complete Mitchell, followed by 2 or 4 boards played throughout the room at the same time to get us to 24. This seems to me to make a better movement for 10 or 11 tables than a 3-board Mitchell, and means I have fewer boards to duplicate.

[McBruce]

suprgrover, on 2011-January-18, 13:27, said:

The only problem that I can foresee is that the ACBL is still convinced that No One Plays or Likes Swiss Pairs--so the default scoring program is not equipped to handle Swiss Pairs in anything like an easy fashion.

True, but it is fairly simple to use a proper Swiss Pairs scoring program and enter the raw results. I run a Swiss Pairs once every two months (at a different club).

[McBruce]

bluejak, on 2011-January-18, 10:24, said:

Personally, my suggestion is to check your documentation to find out whether the ACBL specifically ban it, and if they do not do so specifically, do not worry. Tell the players in advance, run it twice, put feedback forms on the tables on th second occasion, and see what they think.

A quick look in the ACBL Handbook's club section seems to say nothing on this subject, so I shall take your advice.

[gordontd]

McBruce, on 2011-January-18, 14:04, said:

Anyhow, the overall idea is to reduce the number of boards in play, to a maximum of 27, by switching to two-board rounds with more than nine tables and a complete Mitchell, followed by 2 or 4 boards played throughout the room at the same time to get us to 24. This seems to me to make a better movement for 10 or 11 tables than a 3-board Mitchell, and means I have fewer boards to duplicate.

Without wishing to discourage your innovation, you could fulfil the above requirements by playing a Bowman movement, and since you have three-board rounds you can share without having a second set.

[Siegmund]

IMO it would be legal, ACBL or otherwise. Basically no restrictions on what movement is used, long as you can find a way to type it into the computer and send it to Memphis.

But "better"? No. Winners-playing-winners is a way to drag the scores for the whole event closer to average and add noise. Considered acceptable in a Swiss team because people supposedly dont like playing against others of differing ability, at the expense of the rankings.... but.... argh. I'd MUCH rather see a properly seeded Mitchell or Howell or whatever else. (And hey, maybe you can get them to play faster, and get 27 boards in. Or grow the game to 12 or 13 tables.)

[blackshoe]

I know of nothing in ACBL regs that would preclude what Bruce wants to do, particularly in a club game.

[jh51]

suprgrover, on 2011-January-18, 13:27, said:

The only problem that I can foresee is that the ACBL is still convinced that No One Plays or Likes Swiss Pairs--so the default scoring program is not equipped to handle Swiss Pairs in anything like an easy fashion.

Which is sad. I played in Swiss Pairs at a sectional in Delaware last year and found it to be incredibly fun. It was fun even after the director screwed up the computer for the second session. (Wireless score entry devices were in use in the first 4-round session and a director's computer error made them unusable for the second session.) Had it not been for the computer problem, the overall results would have been known as soon as the last board was played.