[jillybean]

Our next adventure will be Web Movements.

How many sets of boards do we need for a 20-24 table , 21 board game?

Thanks

[pescetom]

Well done
If you don't need braille embossed cards, then it's all downhill from now on.

[blackshoe]

https://www.bridgesc.../all_tables.pdf

https://www.bridgewe...20Movements.pdf

[jillybean]

Thanks, it should be fun to get this going.

[jillybean]

I can't find any reference to 21 board web movements.
I could set up and distribute boards for a 24 board game and if the players can't finish 8 rounds, I can remove the last round but that kills the purpose the web movement.

I did find this comprehensive document on movements, Kiwi style.

https://www.akbc.co....tric_Carter.pdf

[jillybean]

I have an answer, you use MIT movements, not WEBs. Happy to share if anyone is interested.

[mycroft]

You should be able(*) to run 21-board webs, but you would have to make the movements.

20 tables is a bit much for one section, so you break off either 7 or 14 tables into their own section(s) (each with one set of boards) and web the rest.
20: 7 and 13 (4 sets, sorry)
21: 7, 7, and 7
22: 7, 7, and 8 (4 sets)
23: 7, 7, and 9 (officially 5 sets, but there's only one share round if you only have 4)
24: 7, 7, and 10 (4 sets).

When running multiple sections, it behooves you even more than normal to seed the field, so that one set of 7 doesn't have all of the top pairs (or all of the Life Novices, for that matter). Even if you ran it in one full swoop, you still want to spread them out, when people are only playing 7 of 20; but it's *much* more obvious when "section B is so much stronger".

Another option, if you're not quite up to full webs yet, is 8-table skip Mitchells, at least for 21-24 (3 7s, 2 7s and 1 8, 1 7 and 2 8s, 3 8s). Yes, there will be factoring (if you score across sections, at least); yes, there will be 3 boards the 8s don't play (but only 3); it's still a far sight closer to perfect. 3 sets of boards.

Of course you can do the Bangalore movement: 20 1-board rounds, with a skip and a revenge round :-). Still worth having 2 sets of boards, so you can feed some in behind the slow table(s).

Seriously though, if you're good with 2-board rounds, and running 22 if not 24, you get more flexibility. Some clubs are not, and any club that voluntarily plays 21 likely falls into that category.


(*) The theory says it should work. In practise, that's a great theory. However, if I recover from Toronto, I might try running one up - it should take me about 15 minutes to create (or 5 minutes to find it doesn't work).

[jillybean]

Since you asked Here is the response from Patrick, the author of the movement document above.

Hi Kathryn,

16-22 tables playing 7 rounds you would need 4 sets of boards

3 sets of boards would be enough for 16, 17, 19 and 21 tables

If 4 sets is too many play 20 boards with 2 boards per table for the others

All of the movements you will need to set up a scoring file

I will just give you the 7 round movements

Let me know if you need me to detail the 10 round movements for 20 boards
15 Tables 7 Rounds

One set around tables 1-7 in normal layout

One set at tables 8-11 with feed ins in sequence coming in to table 11

Boards can flow right through tables 1-11 feeding out at table 1

Table 12 Boards 7-9

Table 13 Boards 4-6

Table 14 Boards 1-3

Table 15 Boards 19-21

Feed-ins at table 15.... 16-18.... 13-15.... 10-12

This set is flowing from 15 and feeding out at table 12

The players in this part of the movement play the sets in reverse order

16 Tables 7 Rounds

Two sets around 1-14 in normal layout

One set shared between tables 15 and 16

15 starts with 1-3 and plays in normal order

16 Starts with 19-21 and plays in reverse order

On the 4th round they need to share boards 10-12

You can allow the boards to flow from 15 to 14

Then you replenish Table 16 at halfway with boards from table 1

17 Tables 7 Rounds
One set around tables 1-7 in normal layout

One set at tables 8-12 with feed ins in sequence coming in to table 12

Boards can flow right through tables 1-12 feeding out at table 1

Table 13 Boards 10-12

Table 14 Boards 7-9

Table 15 Boards 4-6

Table 16 Boards 1-3

Table 17 Boards 19-21

Feed-ins at table 17.... 16-18.... 13-15
This set is flowing from 17 and feeding out at table 13

The players in this part of the movement play the sets in reverse order

18 Tables 7 Rounds

Two sets around 1-14 in normal layout

One set at tables 15-16 with feed ins in sequence coming in to table 16

Boards can flow right through tables 1-16 feeding out at table 1

Table 17 Boards 1-3

Table 18 Boards 19-21

Feeds ins at table 18 .... 16-18 .... 13-15.... 10-12 .... 7-9 ..... 4-6
This set is flowing from 18 and feeding out at table 17

The players in this part of the movement play the sets in reverse order

19 Tables 7 Rounds

One set around tables 1-7 in normal layout

One set tables 8-13 with feed ins in sequence coming in to table 13

Boards can flow right through tables 1-13 feeding out at table 1

Table 14 Boards 13-15
Table 15 Boards 10-12

Table 16 Boards 7-9

Table 17 Boards 4-6

Table 18 Boards 1-3

Table 19 Boards 19-21

Feed-ins at table 19.... 16-18
This set is flowing from 19 and feeding out at table 14

The players in this part of the movement play the sets in reverse order

20 Tables 7 Rounds

Two sets around 1-14 in normal layout

One set at tables 15-17 with feed ins in sequence coming in to table 17

Boards can flow right through tables 1-17 feeding out at table 1

Table 18 Boards 4-6

Table 19 Boards 1-3

Table 20 Boards 19-21

Feeds ins at table 20 .... 16-18 .... 13-15.... 10-12 .... 7-9
This set is flowing from 20 and feeding out at table 18

The players in this part of the movement play the sets in reverse order

21 Tables 7 Rounds

The easiest movement

3 sets just laid out in sequence around all 21 tables

22 Tables 7 Rounds

Two sets around 1-14 in normal layout

One set at tables 15-18 with feed ins in sequence coming in to table 18

Boards can flow right through tables 1-18 feeding out at table 1

Feeds ins at table 18 .... 16-18 .... 13-15.... 10-12
Table 19 Boards 7-9
Table 20 Boards 4-6

Table 21 Boards 1-3

Table 22 Boards 19-21

Feed ins at table 22 .... 16-18 .... 13-15 ... 10-12
This set is flowing from 22 and feeding out at table 19

The players in this part of the movement play the sets in reverse order

Cheers
Patrick

PS Note that the movements for odd numbers I stopped calling Webs

They come from the ACBL asking the MIT Maths Department for advice

I picked them up in discussion with the ACBL about a seeding question

I think it is only fair to call them MITs

However I notice that in Australia they do just call them webs

[jillybean]

 mycroft, on 2024-July-28, 16:57, said:

You should be able(*) to run 21-board webs, but you would have to make the movements.

20 tables is a bit much for one section, so you break off either 7 or 14 tables into their own section(s) (each with one set of boards) and web the rest.
20: 7 and 13 (4 sets, sorry)
21: 7, 7, and 7
22: 7, 7, and 8 (4 sets)
23: 7, 7, and 9 (officially 5 sets, but there's only one share round if you only have 4)
24: 7, 7, and 10 (4 sets).

When running multiple sections, it behooves you even more than normal to seed the field, so that one set of 7 doesn't have all of the top pairs (or all of the Life Novices, for that matter). Even if you ran it in one full swoop, you still want to spread them out, when people are only playing 7 of 20; but it's *much* more obvious when "section B is so much stronger".

Another option, if you're not quite up to full webs yet, is 8-table skip Mitchells, at least for 21-24 (3 7s, 2 7s and 1 8, 1 7 and 2 8s, 3 8s). Yes, there will be factoring (if you score across sections, at least); yes, there will be 3 boards the 8s don't play (but only 3); it's still a far sight closer to perfect. 3 sets of boards.

Of course you can do the Bangalore movement: 20 1-board rounds, with a skip and a revenge round :-). Still worth having 2 sets of boards, so you can feed some in behind the slow table(s).

Seriously though, if you're good with 2-board rounds, and running 22 if not 24, you get more flexibility. Some clubs are not, and any club that voluntarily plays 21 likely falls into that category.


(*) The theory says it should work. In practise, that's a great theory. However, if I recover from Toronto, I might try running one up - it should take me about 15 minutes to create (or 5 minutes to find it doesn't work).

Thanks for this, I don't understand skip Mitchells, I've never done any factoring. I don't see why we couldn't play 2 board rounds, I will talk with my co-dircetor about this.

When you've recovered from Toronto , how about sharing some good, funny, memorable Director calls?

[blackshoe]

You may find this book interesting. Also available as an ebook.

[mycroft]

Skip Mitchell - the old-fashioned thing you remember from before webs. Even-table Mitchells have this issue that halfway through the full movement(*), E-W and the boards catch up to each other. So we get E-W to skip a table to jump into the other half of the boards.

Specifically for 8 table, 21 board: skip after 4, play 7 rounds, everybody plays "all" the tables (except the one they skipped/skipped them) and "all" the boards (except for one set. Okay, you could revenge round and get that one in too, but if you want 24 there's a better movement, especially if you have a dealing machine(**)).

If you have 7s and 8s, there's 24 boards in play in the 8-table sections (that each player plays 21 of), and 21 in the 7s (that each player plays all of), so 22-24 isn't played as often as 1-21. So, you need to factor the scores on 22-24 to the same top as the 1-21s so they're "worth as much". Don't worry, ACBLScor does that for you automatically.

2-board rounds are usually slower, because there are more changes, so more opportunities for a pair to have to wait (and propagating that slowness to 4 or 5 tables) and less ability for the faster pairs to catch them up. That's usually why "we have 20 tables, but play 3 board rounds anyway" or "we can only get through 21 boards in a session" clubs make those decisions.

I wish I had funny director calls. Apart from the one that made BW (yeah, no, I won't pinpoint it more than that) and the one that required 4 views of the video to understand what happened (which, again, wasn't funny, just an interesting judgement call of 'what was in declarer's mind'), most of them were either very normal (revokes, bids out of turn, "I won and she led", ...) or terrifying. Or, you know, just plain stupid, but the bridge lawyers were insistent that what we actually saw wasn't what happened.

(*) Remember, "E-W higher, boards lower" means that the boards and the pairs move two more tables away from each other every round. In an odd table Mitchell, that works (1, 3, 5, 7, 2, 4, 6). In an even-table Mitchell, there's two distinct sets (1, 3, 5, 7, 1,... and 2, 4, 6, 8, 2,...).
(**) Bye-stand and relay (in England, "relay and share". Two continents separated...) This works by having the *boards* skip/delay a table instead of the players. Downside is that the other half of the room, two tables are playing the same boards and need to share them. Unless you have a second set of boards you can stick at one of those tables...

[jillybean]

Thanks foe the explanation.

The discussion on the other site is an interesting one. During my early tournament experiences I remember a Director asking me if I had been damaged, how I would have proceeded without the revoke. All I could say was "no", I had no idea how the play could have gone, I doubt that I could offer more now. The more experienced players could rattle off lines of play very confidently and convincingly.

[mycroft]

Getting way off topic here, but...

As you probably know, I'm sort of in the middle here. I don't expect players to tell me what the damage is - because frequently they look at the wrong thing completely! - but I do expect them to remember how the play went well enough to tell me if "play right" would garner multiple extra tricks. Usually, because they're already in everyone's face about "but if she hadn't revoked, I would have..." and I have to spend a long time arguing that "yes, but that's what we're giving you already" and dealing with the "so there's no penalty for revoking?"

And beyond the 299er game (frankly, beyond the 99er game, or should be IMNSHO) if you can't tell me how you would take *2 more* (or more more) tricks on proper play, then you wouldn't. Automatic trick adjustment is sufficient. "if this, then I wouldn't have to do that, and that might lead me to..." is enough, thanks, I can take it from there. "Get from the director what you couldn't get at the table"/"but director, *this player* would never have done that" issues aside (and there are a lot of them), if the TD has to go through, without assistance, every hand's play for every revoke (which, of course, means I need the actual board with the tricks in order from everyone. Oh, you shuffled your cards? And now I have to either ask you for the play or work it out from the other hands, or both?) we can just imagine how disruptive that is going to be. "We need board 12" "yes, I know, but I haven't finished with it yet".

Now, expecting the players to tell you how you were damaged by UI - as I remember happening at an NABC (regional teams, sure) - as an alternative to actually using your TD brain (as opposed to "in addition to using your TD brain") - yeah, no. That's your job. I'll do it (because I'm a TD, it's easy for me to phrase it in TDese, and it's my score), but I shouldn't have to. But sometimes, the explanation of how *you* were damaged is different from how *an opponent* was damaged, and the TD just can't have everybody's system foibles in their head.

My favourite example, because I use it for "look at the other results" wonks: "But most others are reaching 4♥, so it's fair to believe they would without the UI as well." "Sure, but how many of those others are getting a 2♠ opening on their right on T8643 K4 K85 732?" Or similarly, "but partner could have been raising on [same hand]." "No, partner can't have that hand, they would have opened 2♠. Yes, 100% of the time, it's a forced opening." No way TD is going to know that if you don't let them in on the (in this case, EHAA) joke.

But for revokes, in my experience, if you can't tell me how you could have got more tricks than the auto adjustment - especially of the 2-trick variety - that's because there isn't a way, not because you aren't good enough at analysis.

[blackshoe]

If I don't know how I might have garnered more tricks absent an irregularity, I say to the director "I have no idea". If the director takes that as conclusive evidence that there is no way I might have garnered more tricks, he's an idiot.

[pescetom]

 blackshoe, on 2024-July-31, 21:01, said:

If I don't know how I might have garnered more tricks absent an irregularity, I say to the director "I have no idea". If the director takes that as conclusive evidence that there is no way I might have garnered more tricks, he's an idiot.

Agreed (and that puts me against the mainstream of Directors here) but I don't think mycroft was saying much different, except that you probably do not deserve more compensation than the automatic compensation foreseen by the current Revoke Laws... but I'm sure he would concede even that if it was obviously due.

Of course the protest can go the other way, rather than "how come the revoker is not punished?". The other day I had a player who was outraged that her accidental revoke ("following suit" after her partner ruffed and dummy over-ruffed) turned her trump honour into a penalty card, resulting in two extra tricks for the opponents. I do wonder if these people are watching and have any understanding of the Olympics, where a foot placed outside of lane (accidentally or not, makes a difference or not) results in disqualification and the evaporation of four years of effort and dreams.

[jillybean]

 pescetom, on 2024-August-01, 15:08, said:

. I do wonder if these people are watching and have any understanding of the Olympics, where a foot placed outside of lane (accidentally or not, makes a difference or not) results in disqualification and the evaporation of four years of effort and dreams.

Are you suggesting we play by the rules? That would certainly scare everyone away.

[pescetom]

 jillybean, on 2024-August-02, 09:04, said:

Are you suggesting we play by the rules? That would certainly scare everyone away.

I would happily wave them goodbye, even if it meant finding another sport.

[mw64ahw]

Getting back to the dealing machine; ours is partial to a snifter of gin which apparently helps the cards roll smoothly and is applied with a fine brush. Does yours have a favourite tipple?

[jillybean]

mw64ahw, on 2024-August-02, 21:07, said:

Getting back to the dealing machine; ours is partial to a sniffer of gin which apparently helps the cards roll smoothly and is applied with a fine brush. Does yours have a favourite tipple?

This machine is so new, I have not had to clean it. The previous on loan machine I cleaned the rollers and lens with a soft cloth and isopropyl alcohol. I’m a tea totaler.
I wonder if we should be using a brush.

[pescetom]

mw64ahw, on 2024-August-02, 21:07, said:

Getting back to the dealing machine; ours is partial to a snifter of gin which apparently helps the cards roll smoothly and is applied with a fine brush. Does yours have a favourite tipple?

I have only experience with Duplimate (Jannersten) and an Italian clone, both with optical recognition rather than barcodes.
I understand there is also an Australian clone, plus probably others more or less similar.
The biggest problem by far (which only a few of us have) is with braille embossed cards, which means both sourcing/creating low profile embossment and tuning the machine to deal such cards reliably.
More in general, it pays to keep things clean with frequent brushing and cleaning with diluted alcohol.
It's worth experimenting in tuning to find the optimal settings for your own cards, in general going a bit slower rather than looking for problems.
Spot and communicate how the machine (mis)diagnoses common problems.
Do not let untrained people use the machine.