[Vampyr]

 Trinidad, on 2015-July-26, 13:51, said:

As the British say: "That would not be cricket". I wouold say that it wouldn't be bridge either (not even baseball).

As an aside (I am no expert in movements and I am travelling, so I don't have my books on movements at hand): is there a real problem with 11 tables playing 8 rounds?

Um... yes, because it is 72.7% of the boards.

Quote

Is it impossible to come up with a movement where boards are shared between tables

If there were one, Gordon would have come up with it.

Quote

(or, alternatively, where boards are duplicated after the first time they have been played)?

Rik

Irrelevant, because it's never gonna happen.

[barmar]

Even if it weren't EBU's job to decide what's "fair", it's still obviously their job to decide how many masterpoints to award.

Instead of awarding NO masterpoints for these movements, perhaps it would be more reasonable if they just reduced the masterpoints.

[lamford]

 FrancesHinden, on 2015-July-23, 15:10, said:

That's not what the regulation quoted by hotshot says. Is there yet another one somewhere else saying what you have written here?

The "regulation" on the EBU website was update on 23rd July, after Vampyr posted the OP, and it now states:

"It was intended that from 1st August 2015 Master Points would only be awarded for pairs events in which all the competitors are scheduled to play at least 75% of the boards used in the movement. Thus, when the intention was to play 24 boards in a session, for example, no more than 32 boards should be in play."

That seems, in any case, to be essentially the same as Vampyr's post, athough I cannot view the regulation before it was updated. [Actually, I can, as hotshot quoted it before the change, which was minimal]

This post has been edited by lamford: 2015-July-28, 02:46

[Vampyr]

 Lanor Fow, on 2015-July-26, 14:54, said:

It might be possible to play a web for 11 tables and 8 rounds, but why would you? Surely if you are going to try and reduce the number of boards not played, you'd just play a hesitation mitchell and have 12 rounds.

This is OK for one-winner games, but there is no terribly good solution for two-winner games.

[VixTD]

 lamford, on 2015-July-27, 17:38, said:

That seems, in any case, to be essentially the same as Vampyr's post, athough I cannot view the regulation before it was updated. [Actually, I can, as hotshot quoted it before the change, which was minimal]

The regulation specifies pairs tournaments, which is important. It's quite common to have team games in which each team plays only 67% of the boards in play.

[FrancesHinden]

The regulation refers to the number of boards pairs are scheduled to play, not the number that they actually play.
That's also an important difference

[FrancesHinden]

Back to the original point.

The EBU charges P2P fees to cover all the services supplied by the county and the national authority which include lots of other stuff other than just masterpoints such as the magazine (you can argue about whether they are worth the money or not that isn't the point).

It seems entirely reasonable to say, first, if you run a duplicate bridge session as part of your affiliated club activities, you pay the P2P charge and, secondly, but we will only give masterpoints if you play a movement we approve of.

[Vampyr]

 FrancesHinden, on 2015-August-01, 02:46, said:

The regulation refers to the number of boards pairs are scheduled to play, not the number that they actually play.
That's also an important difference

Well, yes. It means that no movement need fall foul, in actual fact, of the regulation. But then why bother having it?

I think that the magazine is a distraction; the offending movements would only be played rarely, when certain awkward numbers show up to play eg 11 when the club uses two-winner movements. So it is likely that regular players would earn enough magazine points anyway, and very irregular players would not earn them regardless.

As to other services, well, I suspect that this issue mostly applies to rural or small-town clubs where the players are more social than competitive. These players will not benefit from the ability to play in the NICKO, the Garden Cities, other major events or tournaments. And as above, it is unlikely that the few non-qualifying sessions they play will affect their status in this way. For eg Londoners, these things are a lot more important than master points, but for these players I mention it might be the other way around, and masterpoints may be the most tangible benefit they as players receive from the EBU. In any case they are part of the service, so there is at least no justification for charging full price.

in any case, the masterpoints awarded for a club duplicate are not very many at all, so it seems a waste of time to bother about it.

Quote

It seems entirely reasonable to say, first, if you run a duplicate bridge session as part of your affiliated club activities, you pay the P2P charge and, secondly, but we will only give masterpoints if you play a movement we approve of.

Sure. Does it somehow seem less reasonable for a club to say that, as we have run an un-approved movement, we will neither report the session to the EBU nor pay? A club needs to play 26 sessions a year not to be liable to pay a penalty affiliation fee. That leaves, for a weekly club, 26 sessions that they may choose not to pay for. Let us not forget some of the press that preceded the P2P; for some clubs it represents a substantial proportion of their table money. Not paying for some sessions may make a lot of sense for these clubs, but the loss of revenue to the EBU will harm the rest of us.

A number of London clubs are not affiliated to the EBU, and this does not, as far as I can tell, affect their popularity. As a London player several factors affect which club I play at on a particular evening, and EBU affiliation is not one of them. Maybe the EBU should focus on attracting these clubs by offering more benefits to affiliation rather than (even if by a little bit) fewer. Just a thought.

[barmar]

 FrancesHinden, on 2015-August-01, 02:46, said:

The regulation refers to the number of boards pairs are scheduled to play, not the number that they actually play.
That's also an important difference

I think Vampyr may just have been loose when she was summarizing it one sentence. The quoted material makes it clear that sit-outs don't count against it.

[Vampyr]

 barmar, on 2015-August-01, 13:58, said:

I think Vampyr may just have been loose when she was summarizing it one sentence. The quoted material makes it clear that sit-outs don't count against it.

Yes, but at the time I didn't realise the intriguing part about "scheduled".

[Trinidad]

 Vampyr, on 2015-July-26, 15:03, said:

 Trinidad, on 2015-July-26, 13:51, said:

Is it impossible to come up with a movement where boards are shared between tables?

If there were one, Gordon would have come up with it.

From Hans-Olof Hallén, Movements-a fair approach, I found a movement for 11 tabloes qand 8 rounds. It is a movement for 10 tables and 8 rounds with an appendix table. I will first give the movement for 10 tables:

Quote

Reduced interwoven Howell:
11 tables, 8 rounds

Table NS EW boards
  1   17  1 1
  2    9  6 2
  3    8 16 3
  4    5  7 4
  5   20 13 4
  6    4  3 5
  7   15 18 5
  8   14 12 6
  9   10 11 7
 10    2 19 8


Pairs 17-20 are stationary.
Every pair follows the pair with a number that is one less, except:
Pair 1 follows pair 8
Pair 9 follows pair 16
Boards move down. Table 4 and 5 share boards and table 6 and 7 share boards.
Arrow switch in round 8.

For 11 tables, you need to add an appendix table to table 3. The starting positions for table 3 and 3A become:

Quote

Reduced interwoven Howell:
11 tables, 8 rounds

Table NS EW boards
  3   21 16 3
  3A   8 22 3


Pairs 21 and 22 are also stationary.
Every pair follows the pair with a number that is one less, except:
Pair 1 follows pair 8
Pair 9 follows pair 16
Boards move down. Table 4 and 5 share boards, table 6 and 7 share boards, table 3 and 3A share boards.
Pair 22 Arrow switches in round 4, Other stationary pairs arrow switch in round 8.

Rik

[blackshoe]

I think you're right - those are 8 round movements. But you've labelled them as 9.

[Trinidad]

 blackshoe, on 2015-August-02, 10:14, said:

I think you're right - those are 8 round movements. But you've labelled them as 9.

One typo, you copy and paste, and you have two!

Thanks, I corrected it.

Rik

[Vampyr]

But these are not two-winner movements.

[gordontd]

 Vampyr, on 2015-August-02, 18:00, said:

But these are not two-winner movements.

There are two such movements in the suggested list.

[StevenG]

Quote

Having fewer boards in play is also more satisfactory for most players. Since each board is played by most people, as well as giving a fairer result it allows more chance for discussion afterwards so makes the evening more interesting.

The EBU live in a parallel universe. Players don't discuss the hands after the game; they hobble slowly to their cars and pray that they are stll awake enough to drive home safely.

Both the movements suggested are seriously flawed for the case Vampyr proposes. Blackpool involves playing the same pair twice, which is worse than the problem it attempts to solve. I've never played a Bowman, but the first website I looked at describes it as "not a very suitable movement for an odd number of full tables".

I do not understand why, when the EBU is desperate for non-affiliated clubs to join, it needlessly invents hoops for the more social clubs to jump through.

[Trinidad]

 Vampyr, on 2015-August-02, 18:00, said:

But these are not two-winner movements.

So you want a plain, simple Mitchell movement for 8 rounds and 11 tables?

How about a 9 table Mitchel with 2 appendix tables, curtailed after 8 rounds?

Rik

[Jeremy69A]

Quote

I do not understand why, when the EBU is desperate for non-affiliated clubs to join, it needlessly invents hoops for the more social clubs to jump through.

The EBU is not "desperate" for unaffiliated clubs to join although it certainly welcomes those who want to do so.

If you award masterpoints and the system is to mean anything then there must be regulations for how many points you can award and when. That's why, for example, there is a scale based on number of pairs, a minimum number of boards etc.

To give an extreme example if you have 24 tables and play one section with 48 boards in play then some pairs will have 0 boards in common and most will have few boards in common which is not any sort of competition. Although that is extreme there is certainly a club where 22 tables has been found using one section.

If you take the more common example of 11 tables then playing 24 boards you have quite a lot of boards not in common. If you discuss them afterwards which I accept many will not do then that is at least partially spoilt but playing only some boards in common has been compared to having a round of golf where competitors play about 13 of the 18 holes and they are different to another competitor. Would you award ranking points for that? I wouldn't.

It seems to me that this is a storm in a tea cup. Some clubs will need to change the odd movement. Change often does not go down well at first. Many will be unaffected. A delay until early 2016 before this or a variant comes into force will apply so any alternatives that came to light late on in the process can be considered.

[Vampyr]

 gordontd, on 2015-August-03, 00:17, said:

There are two such movements in the suggested list.

IIRC (and Steven G's post suggests that I do) both of these movements involve revenge rounds. I can well understand why some clubs have a policy against revenge rounds. I wish all of mine did.

[RMB1]

 Vampyr, on 2015-August-03, 12:27, said:

IIRC (and Steven G's post suggests that I do) both of these movements involve revenge rounds. I can well understand why some clubs have a policy against revenge rounds. I wish all of mine did.

The Bowman (= Web) movement does not involve a revenge round.
EW move up one table each round and play 8 of the 11 NS pairs.

It is best with two sets of boards, otherwise 10 shares with 1 and 11 shares with 9,7,5,3,1,8,6,4

Playing only 8 rounds (24 boards) it is possible to omit round 5 rather than round 9.
After 4 rounds, EW up 2, boards down 2. This avoids the triple share between tables 1,10,11.