Michael Angelo Ravera
4/11/2011 8:46:00 PM
On Apr 11, 6:09 am, David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
> Michael Angelo Ravera wrote
>
> >In the ACBL, 9.5 tables are usually handled with a bump, but this
> >requires one pair to do something unusual for 1 or 2 rounds in order
> >to avoid being bumped twice or playing the bumping pair twice. Just
> >set up a N-S bump in one line and an E-W bump in the other line and
> >have the pairs who are bumped play each other. I suspect that, with
> >the double bump, this unusualness could be avoided, but I haven't made
> >up the movement file for it yet. You may need three sets of boards or
> >to share to make it work. In the 19-table case, you could play 24 or
> >27 boards, if you use this sort of movement.
>
> 9.5: share across end, Bowman, or Ewing [all the same thing]: 24
> boards in play, easy peasy. If you want more boards, Mitchell with
> skip, play 27 out of 30 boards, no revenge round.
>
> >I haven't worked out whether you can use the usual Appendix Mitchell
> >for 10.5 tables with roles switched on one of the lines and get a
> >viable pseudo-sitout matchup. However, you could certainly make 3
> >lines of 7 tables each with a blackpool and use free migration between
> >lines. You just need 3 sets of boards. Arrow switch to get one winner.
>
> 10.5: share across end, Bowman, or Ewing [all the same thing]: 27
> boards in play, easy peasy. You can stop a round early if oyu want to
> play 24 boards.
>
> >Nobody likes ANY movement for 11.5 tables, so 23 tables
> >(coincidenallty the number of tables that we had for our team game
> >last month) is going to be a hairy bear. Probably best to do an 11-
> >table blackpool and a 12-table bye and share (or blackpool, if we
> >might want to play 26 boards). It may help matters to do a line switch
> >half-way through. An arrow switch can be used to produce one winner.
>
> 23? 14 [13x2] and 9 [9x3].
>
> >For 25 tables, It's back to your idea of treating it as 2 lines of
> >12.5 tables
>
> >For the benefit of ACBL directors, David's use of the term "Line" is
> >basially the same as what we would call a "Section", but actually
> >better describes what is going on in a large event where you'd like to
> >get only one or two winners, so I used David's term.
>
> If you play 24 tables as a 12 table and a 12 table, then you have 2
> sections and 4 lines. If you play 2 sessions for example, normal in
> England is to rotate lines as follows:
>
> Red N/S to Red N/S
> Red E/W to White N/S
> White N/S to White E/W
> White E/W to Red E/W
>
> We like a stationary line for pairs who cannot move.
>
> In the ACBL more common seems to be
>
> Red N/S to Red E/W
> Red E/W to White N/S
> White N/S to White E/W
> White E/W to Red N/S
This make the term "line" distinct from "section" and a useful term
for which no one over here sems to have a good term.