[lamford]

At our local club last week, we had a SIMs with 32 boards pre-duplicated. At the start there were 17 tables, and 34 pairs present. The TD sent home the last pair to arrive, and we had 16 tables with a Rover. This seemed wrong to me, as I would have thought there would be a movement with board-sharing that would have allowed all 68 attendees to play. Can anyone help, please? We play 24 boards normally.

[Pig Trader]

Sure. You need one set of 27 boards 9 rounds of three boards each. There is some sharing between adjacent tables.

See http://www.sheffield...20movements.pdf

I don't know where our movements for 15-20 tables come from. Chien Fou thought they may be from Scandinavia when I asked him some years ago. They might otherwise have been devised by a late SBC member. But they are excellent for us. You would need to input these movements into EBU Score or Score Bridge.

[chrism]

Create an appendix table. The pair that was sent home instead sits as a stationary east-west and the pair bumped by the rover plays against them, sharing boards with the table they were bumped from.

Or if conditions of contest allow, shuffle and deal boards 33 and 34. Surely better than sending a pair home.

[Vampyr]

Pig Trader, on 2016-January-12, 19:56, said:

Sure. You need one set of 27 boards 9 rounds of three boards each. There is some sharing between adjacent tables.

It would actually be eight rounds, but the club runs duplicate bridge games, so this wouldn't work.

[Vampyr]

chrism, on 2016-January-12, 20:12, said:

Create an appendix table. The pair that was sent home instead sits as a stationary east-west and the pair bumped by the rover plays against them, sharing boards with the table they were bumped from.

Or if conditions of contest allow, shuffle and deal boards 33 and 34. Surely better than sending a pair home.

The conditions do not allow this last.

The problem with appendix tables is that two-board sharing is potentially very slow. The club needs to complete the game in three hours.

[mgoetze]

Vampyr, on 2016-January-12, 20:18, said:

The conditions do not allow this last.

The problem with appendix tables is that two-board sharing is potentially very slow. The club needs to complete the game in three hours.

Well it does seem rather obvious that if you have 1 set of 32 boards and want to play 2-board rounds without board sharing that you can only have 16 tables playing at any given time.

At that point you may as well run a 17-table Mitchell with a virtual board 33+34. The people at the table that would play 33+34 sit out instead.

However, I note that the OP did ask for a movement with board sharing.

[chrism]

If board-sharing with 2-board rounds is not acceptable, then the Sheffield movement above, truncated to 8 rounds, looks to me as if it would work (I don't understand Vampyr's comment, but perhaps I'm just being slow).
An alternative for a TD not in possession of that movement is to split into 2 sections, a regular 9-table Mitchell and an 8-table Blackpool, sharing boards as appropriate between the two sections.

[RMB1]

chrism, on 2016-January-13, 10:39, said:

An alternative for a TD not in possession of that movement is to split into 2 sections, a regular 9-table Mitchell and an 8-table Blackpool, sharing boards as appropriate between the two sections.

You could play two 9-table mitchells with one stationary pair missing in each section and the moving pairs from the second section play in place of the missing NS in the first section. Having both sections playing the same movement should make board sharing easier to manage.

If you want to out-weird your customers, play the second section so that NS move and EW are stationary - this movement is available in Jeff Smith's PairsScorer and EBUscore as "Combined Mitchells (sitouts at T<N>)".

[PeterAlan]

lamford, on 2016-January-12, 19:34, said:

At our local club last week, we had a SIMs with 32 boards pre-duplicated. At the start there were 17 tables, and 34 pairs present. The TD sent home the last pair to arrive, and we had 16 tables with a Rover. This seemed wrong to me, as I would have thought there would be a movement with board-sharing that would have allowed all 68 attendees to play. Can anyone help, please? We play 24 boards normally.

Since this was presumably the British Winter Sims, you could have protected yourselves by dealing the rest of the boards in the first place (36 deals are supplied, not just 32). Perhaps next time.

NB: 24 boards played out of 34 in play just meets the EBU's 70% rule (70% of 34 is 23.8).

[Pig Trader]

RMB1, on 2016-January-13, 10:59, said:

If you want to out-weird your customers, play the second section so that NS move and EW are stationary - this movement is available in Jeff Smith's PairsScorer and EBUscore as "Combined Mitchells (sitouts at T<N>)".

This comes to effectively the same thing as the Sheffield BC movement. I forgot it is in Jeff Smith / EBU Score already.

(I didn't understand Vampyr's comment either!)

[lamford]

Pig Trader, on 2016-January-15, 16:14, said:

(I didn't understand Vampyr's comment either!)

Posted in error by Vampyr.

[lamford]

lamford, on 2016-January-16, 05:33, said:

No? Playing eight out of 16/17 possible opponents and 24 out of 32 boards may be bridge, but it is not duplicate.

That was posted by Vampyr under my name, but I do agree that it is not an ideal solution.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2016-January-16, 05:33, said:

No? Playing eight out of 16/17 possible opponents and 24 out of 32 boards may be bridge, but it is not duplicate.

There are normally about 1000 other pairs in the competition, so why do you think playing 12 of them would be "duplicate" if playing 8 wouldn't?

Since it's a sims I would be inclined just to split into two sections and play two 12-round 3/4 Howells.