[schulken]

I have struggled with deciding whether NS or EW should sit out in a Mitchell movement when I have a half table. Some would suggest I call someone to play, which is probably the best answer but not always helpful.

The advantage of a NS sit out is that you get a stationary pair to better manage the board movement. At the same time, it is a bit unfair to the players who may need to be stationary due to physical limitations. I fear that if I announce that tonight's sit out will be EW, then everyone will want to sit NS. One suggestion I received, which I like, was to have a rotating schedule published in advance; e.g., all January sit outs will be EW, all February sit outs be NS. This still won't stop the unwanted exodus to the NS side of the table for the odd-numbered months.

I would appreciate hearing from others who have experienced similar frustrations or have a good solution I could use.

[Siegmund]

When games were hand-scored, it was important to minimize the amount of factoring you had to do.

If you run a 10-table skip mitchell, with a rover pair, you will have 30 boards in play, all of them played exactly 9 times. If you run an 11-table game with a phantom, and you play only the usual 9 rounds, you will have 33 boards in play, some of them played 9 times and others of them played 8 times; all the boards played 8 times need factored up which turns 0-7 into 0.06-7.94. (In both cases, you will have some PAIRS playing 24 boards and others playing 27; but THAT kind of factoring is simply multiplying by 9/8 after adding up whole numbers.)

In the computer age it has become very common to run games as you described in your post, and the "N/S are getting to sit still so they should be the ones to suffer the 'penalty' of a sitout" logic is quite common. (Note that with 10 tables and a rover it will still be NS getting the sitout though.)
There are still people who will complain that it is better to have only 30 boards in play rather than 33, so that you are closer to the ideal of 'every pair plays every board.' But especially as the alternate movement is not a 'perfect' one either, I would not lose too much sleep over one person's complaint.

[Edited: at the time I wrote this, OP was asking specifically about a 10 1/2 table Mitchell game. It has since morphed into a more general post.]

[WellSpyder]

This does seem to be a subject that arouses strong feelings, but it clearly has to be up to the TD not the players with the loudest voices! My observations, based on issues that have arisen at the local game:

1) Some movements clearly indicate the most appropriate sit-out. For example, if you are using a share-and-relay movement, you can avoid actual sharing by having the missing pair NS at one of the tables that would otherwise be sharing. Your approach to sitouts next to the relays sounds similarly indicated by the movement.

2) In the absence of any such considerations, I personally favour the idea of having NS sit out, simply because the NS seats tend to be the most popular, and since people generally prefer not to sit out then this avoids giving a double disadvantage to the EW players.

3) Nevertheless, the TD may have other ideas. We always used to have an EW sitout because the TD sat NS at table 1 and didn't want to sit out himself. We now tend to have a NS sitout because the TD now likes to sit out the last round in order to get away earlier (he has a longer journey home than he used to have). We have a playing TD who is not paid (other than waiving the table money), and I don't think in these circumstances anyone else really begrudges his right to choose the movement that suits him best.

4) In general, I suspect it is actually pretty rare that the other players will feel sufficiently strongly about how the sit-out is organised to vote with their feet, but that is clearly up to them at the end of the day.

[Vampyr]

WellSpyder, on 2011-December-06, 09:42, said:

1) Some movements clearly indicate the most appropriate sit-out. For example, if you are using a share-and-relay movement, you can avoid actual sharing by having the missing pair NS at one of the tables that would otherwise be sharing. Your approach to sitouts next to the relays sounds similarly indicated by the movement.

Translation for OP who might be American: for "share" read "relay". For "relay" read "bye-stand".

[gordontd]

I'm surprised your players know whether or not there is a sit-out, and in which direction, before they take their seats.

At my club we have a policy of making NS sit out wherever possible. Because we usually have two sets of boards we can do that with most movements, but occasionally we'll have a Bowman or a Share-&-Relay without having a second set of boards and then we would need to have EW sitting out.

I think EW players welcome that they get to play more in return for moving, and most NS pairs recognise it as a fair deal. If they don't like it, they can always sit EW.

[Cascade]

Unless there is a share movement where we always have the sitout at one of the share tables we have the sitout direction decided at random usually by a coin toss.

We also have a coin toss for sitting/moving at other tables where a pair does not have sitting or moving rights.

This seems to work well to both mix up the pairs and fairly allocate the sitout.

[mycroft]

I do try to do a N-S sitout if I can for all the reasons cited (and that out of 10 pairs in 16 who "have to" sit North-South, 3 actually have to, the other 7 have a Lord of the Table or take over 5 minutes to put all their bags down). The other benefit is that there's always someone at the table with the boards.

If you *do* have an E-W sitout, don't make it a corner table - and especially *don't* make it the highest numbered table. I think every TD has a "boards went down one in round 2 (or 6, or 7...), skipping the sitout table" story.

I will do a N-S bump movement (now that I don't have to make sure that table 1 N-S doesn't sit out - grumble at that club) if it's reasonable - prefer that to a sitout in a Skip Mitchell (again, it's amazing how often the boards get missed at the skip). But at my club, we are expected to try *very hard* to fill the movement, so setting up one where explicitly I can't fill it in round 3 if that's what ends up happening is frowned on.

[Elianna]

When I directed I almost always had a NS sitout. This was usually because I faced the scenario of 17 pairs want to sit NS, and 12 pairs want to sit EW. Having NS sit out at least lets me have one more pair get to be NS.

[nige1]

Elianna, on 2011-December-06, 20:30, said:

When I directed I almost always had a NS sitout. This was usually because I faced the scenario of 17 pairs want to sit NS, and 12 pairs want to sit EW. Having NS sit out at least lets me have one more pair get to be NS.

As the average age of bridge-players rises, so does the desirability of a NS seat. Hence, IMO, Eliana's policy is best.

[han]

I usually play on a 6-person team so this question comes up often. I always point at the other two pairs and they always point at me.

[Vampyr]

Elianna, on 2011-December-06, 20:30, said:

When I directed I almost always had a NS sitout. This was usually because I faced the scenario of 17 pairs want to sit NS, and 12 pairs want to sit EW. Having NS sit out at least lets me have one more pair get to be NS.

But won't you have to put extra boards in play, so that the NS sitout will involve a rover? The rover is, of course, one more NS pair, but I don't think it is what you are looking for!

[mycroft]

I think with Elianna's (probably made up) numbers, I'd run a N-S sitout, rather than a rover - because I'd rather have a 15-table no-skip Mitchell with a sit-out than a 14-table skip Mitchell with a rover. But in the ACBL, we're less averse to having extra boardsets in play than in the EBU (30 instead of the 28 in the 14-table skip-and-bump).

[Vampyr]

mycroft, on 2011-December-19, 15:53, said:

I think with Elianna's (probably made up) numbers, I'd run a N-S sitout, rather than a rover - because I'd rather have a 15-table no-skip Mitchell with a sit-out than a 14-table skip Mitchell with a rover. But in the ACBL, we're less averse to having extra boardsets in play than in the EBU (30 instead of the 28 in the 14-table skip-and-bump).

You say "less averse" as if it's a personal preference. Anyway I suspect that you play only 26 boards so you already have extra boardsets in play. What's wrong with using two sets of boards?

Many years ago when I lived in the US, it was common for a 12-board game to be played with 8 3-board rounds -- 36 boards in play! It's bridge, but it's certainly not duplicate.

[gordontd]

mycroft, on 2011-December-19, 15:53, said:

I think with Elianna's (probably made up) numbers, I'd run a N-S sitout, rather than a rover - because I'd rather have a 15-table no-skip Mitchell with a sit-out than a 14-table skip Mitchell with a rover. But in the ACBL, we're less averse to having extra boardsets in play than in the EBU (30 instead of the 28 in the 14-table skip-and-bump).

Sounds like the ideal number for a Bowman movement. Then you'd only have 26 boards in play.

[aguahombre]

Our playing Directors work it out so their direction has the sitout and that they sit out on the last round; this gets things tidied up quickly at the end for delayed rulings, manual adjustments, or anything else the director needs to do. This benefits everyone at the end so they can see the results and be on their way faster.

[TMorris]

At our club, after some cajoling, we have a NS sit out when there are an even number of whole tables ~(eg 8.5, 10.5 etc...) and an EW sit out with an odd number (eg 7.5,9.5, 11.5) but we aim for a minimum of 24 boards played for every pair.

[mycroft]

Vampyr, on 2011-December-19, 19:08, said:

You say "less averse" as if it's a personal preference. Anyway I suspect that you play only 26 boards so you already have extra boardsets in play. What's wrong with using two sets of boards?

Lack of preduplicated boards. At a tournament, boards made up at the table require an "extra set". In the club, duping two sets of boards is a non-starter - the players don't care enough (frankly, most of them don't know to care. I'm not saying we're doing anything to disabuse that lack of knowledge.) Those that have access to a duplicating machine could very easily do it, sure.

Quote

Many years ago when I lived in the US, it was common for a 12-board game to be played with 8 3-board rounds -- 36 boards in play! It's bridge, but it's certainly not duplicate.

I would never do 8 3s for 12 (9, though, sure, standard.) 24 boards and I'd do bye-stand/relay, and hope I could find two fast pairs to sit in the relay.

Similarly, we play 13 two-board rounds in an 18-table, 36-in-play movement.

Whether I agree with you or not on the soundness of this, it's the way it is. We in the ACBL are "less averse" to having (frequently many!) extra boards in play in our events than in the ACBL. And it is a "personal preference" - if "personal" includes "the ACBL believes it's fine, so the clubs do it too."

Re: gnasher - yeah, Bowman would work for 14.5 tables - but if we filled it to 15, now we have the "need another set of boards" problem.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2011-December-19, 19:08, said:

What's wrong with using two sets of boards?

Around here, that's easy: it costs the club more money.