[MickyB]

Say you have 11 or 12 tables and wish to play 24 boards. One option is to play a revenge mitchell with two-board rounds.

It occurs to me that it might be preferable to play all four boards vs the same pair in one go, to reduce the amount of time spent waiting for the move to be called.

For example, with twelve tables, you could -

Play five rounds
Skip
Play five more rounds
Play a double-length round, with boards to be passed down one table once played

When seeking a single winner, you could arrow-switch the whole of the last round; I believe this produces a very slightly more balanced movement than only arrow-switching two boards.

Any thoughts on how this would work in practice, including with Bridgemates and scoring software?

As an aside, it has occurred to me that you could aim for a much more balanced movement by arrow-switching three boards, even when playing two-board rounds, or a four-board round as above! Surprised I've not seen anyone try this...

[gordontd]

MickyB, on 2014-June-25, 18:08, said:

Say you have 11 or 12 tables and wish to play 24 boards. One option is to play a revenge mitchell with two-board rounds.

Yes, it's an option, but not a very good one. A hesitation Mitchell with 11 tables or a double-weave Mitchell with 12 would be preferable.

MickyB, on 2014-June-25, 18:08, said:

As an aside, it has occurred to me that you could aim for a much more balanced movement by arrow-switching three boards, even when playing two-board rounds, or a four-board round as above! Surprised I've not seen anyone try this...

It's hard enough getting all the players to arrow-switch the correct boards and score them properly with complete rounds; making them split the rounds for arrow-switching is asking for trouble!

[whereagles]

As a rule, you should avoid revenge rounds. You're bound to have people complaining they played the strongest pair twice

Relay/hesitation/interwoven movements offer an adequate alternative, as mentioned.

[NickRW]

whereagles, on 2014-June-26, 00:25, said:

As a rule, you should avoid revenge rounds. You're bound to have people complaining they played the strongest pair twice

Well some say that, but there is a similar problem for 27 board clubs with 8 tables that don't like anything "too complicated". You can play s skip Mitchell of 7x4boards or a revenge Mitchell for 9x3. If you think about it, playing 3 boards extra against one pair is less unbalanced than missing one pair for 4 boards. Believe it or not, you can get that point across to the sceptics and if they don't like it, threaten them with the hesitation Mitchell instead (which many clubs seem to have an irrational fear of).

Nick

[mycroft]

Hesitation Mitchells with 11 tables either require a second set of boards or a two-board relay, which will be slow unless you have a half table. It's a great movement though. Same argument applies to the Share-and-Relay 12-table game - one of these days I'll run a Double-Weave (but there are very few 24-board games in my city).

8-table, 3-board share, Hesitation Mitchell, however, is wonderful, and gets me 27 boards with 9 opponents (and a 1.60 1st place award - having said that, it's amazing how many people go all out for the big masterpoint games, but would rather have 0.80 to 3 x 2 than 1.60 to 6 because "it's different") instead of 28 boards with 7 opponents.

I would avoid revenge Mitchells unless it's a fun game (where the people are probably starting against the people they ate with before, so likely wouldn't mind the revenge) or weird circumstances (read: Mycroft messed up - again) forced me into it. I don't think the people who "have to play the strongest pair twice" have the same concern about that than you'll hear "oh, they won just because they got four chances to kill the fish."

[ED: way too late, but of course, the people who actually run the movements are right and I am wrong about the relay in the 11-board Hesitation Mitchell.]

[kuhchung]

I feel sorry for any pair that skips me in a pair game. They should probably be awarded 65% of 3 boards.

[gordontd]

mycroft, on 2014-June-26, 10:37, said:

Hesitation Mitchells with 11 tables either require a second set of boards or a two-board relay, which will be slow unless you have a half table.

This is not correct: it's only when there is an even number of tables that board-sharing is required for a Hesitation Mitchell.

[aguahombre]

kuhchung, on 2014-June-26, 10:58, said:

I feel sorry for any pair that skips me in a pair game. They should probably be awarded 65% of 3 boards.

Yes, the TD gets pleas for an adjustment each time we are skipped. He still laughs but I know it has gotten old to him.

[Mbodell]

gordontd, on 2014-June-26, 00:19, said:

It's hard enough getting all the players to arrow-switch the correct boards and score them properly with complete rounds; making them split the rounds for arrow-switching is asking for trouble!

We sort of did that on Monday night. There was a bump pair so each round was 2 boards, but for everyone but the bumped table, it was a 4 board round. We arrow-switched the last 2 boards, so for everyone except the bump table this was like a mid-round arrow-switch. It worked out fine.

[PhilKing]

I have given this thread FIVE STARS!

[gordontd]

I'll put aside my antipathy towards the whole thing in order to answer a couple of your questions.

MickyB, on 2014-June-25, 18:08, said:

When seeking a single winner, you could arrow-switch the whole of the last round; I believe this produces a very slightly more balanced movement than only arrow-switching two boards.

Any thoughts on how this would work in practice, including with Bridgemates and scoring software?

I think it would produce a less balanced movement if you were arrow-switching four boards against the same pair than if you arrow-switched two boards against each of two different pairs.

In order to do what you want, you would just need to put an appropriate movement into the scoring program. The final, longer round would technically be two rounds played against the same opponents.

[campboy]

Actually, what is a revenge Mitchell? You can play a skip Mitchell with a revenge round; is that what is meant? Presumably not since there would still be one pair you don't play, which is not consistent with NickRW's comment. So how does it work?

[MickyB]

gordontd, on 2014-June-27, 02:45, said:

I'll put aside my antipathy towards the whole thing in order to answer a couple of your questions.

I think it would produce a less balanced movement if you were arrow-switching four boards against the same pair than if you arrow-switched two boards against each of two different pairs.

In order to do what you want, you would just need to put an appropriate movement into the scoring program. The final, longer round would technically be two rounds played against the same opponents.

Thanks Gordon.

Fairly sure that, if you arrow-switch four boards in a revenge, they should be the four boards vs the same pair. This means that you and they are "teammates" for the remaining twenty boards.

[Vampyr]

gordontd, on 2014-June-26, 00:19, said:

Yes, it's an option, but not a very good one. A hesitation Mitchell with 11 tables or a double-weave Mitchell with 12 would be preferable.

At our local club the CTD is reluctant to try a double-weave Mitchell. Somehow people don't seem to mind the revenge rounds. I do.

[MickyB]

gordontd, on 2014-June-26, 00:19, said:

Yes, it's an option, but not a very good one. A hesitation Mitchell with 11 tables or a double-weave Mitchell with 12 would be preferable.

A hesitation mitchell could work for us for 11 tables, but the fight for stationary spots is always strong; reducing the number would be unpopular. A double-weave mitchell would be poor for us, much of our bridge is played in a long thin room where it is greatly preferable for the E/W pairs to have a common direction of travel rather than trying to swap places with each other.

[MickyB]

PhilKing, on 2014-June-26, 17:22, said:

I have given this thread FIVE STARS!

♥ The thread thanks you for your approval ♥

[MickyB]

campboy, on 2014-June-27, 07:24, said:

Actually, what is a revenge Mitchell? You can play a skip Mitchell with a revenge round; is that what is meant? Presumably not since there would still be one pair you don't play, which is not consistent with NickRW's comment. So how does it work?

I think you have two more sets of boards than tables, eg 26 boards for an 11-table movement. You can then play 22, 24 or 26 boards with 0/1/2 revenge rounds respectively.

[RMB1]

MickyB, on 2014-June-29, 12:34, said:

I think you have two more sets of boards than tables, eg 26 boards for an 11-table movement. You can then play 22, 24 or 26 boards with 0/1/2 revenge rounds respectively.

28 boards at 12 tables - playing 12/13/14? rounds - is called Blackpool in the EBU. The 13th round is a revenge and to play the 14th round (also revenge of course) there is an irregular move.

[Vampyr]

mycroft, on 2014-June-26, 10:37, said:

Hesitation Mitchells with 11 tables either require a second set of boards or a two-board relay,

Are you sure? We use this movement at the local club without a second set of boards and without a relay (called 'share' over here; the word 'relay' refers to a bye stand).

[NickRW]

campboy, on 2014-June-27, 07:24, said:

Actually, what is a revenge Mitchell? You can play a skip Mitchell with a revenge round; is that what is meant? Presumably not since there would still be one pair you don't play, which is not consistent with NickRW's comment. So how does it work?

In the 8 table for 27 boards case, you have 10 sets of 3 boards. Relay between 8 and 1, and between 4 and 5. It plays for 9 rounds without problems. It isn't much use for 7.5 tables as one pair would sit out twice. However the skip Mitchell with a 4 board sit out isn't ideal either and the hesitation Mitchell becomes more attractive.

Nick