One winner Hesitation Mitchell movement without a N/S arrow switch last round

Is it allowed to play a Hesitation Mitchell movement without a N/S arrow switch last round when you only have one winner?
I play a at club where the director has on numerous occasions played a Hesitation Mitchell movement without a N/S arrow switch last round. This doesn't make sense in the scoring.

Comments

  • It's distinctly inferior, but I don't think it breaks any regulation. Why does the TD do this?

  • It can happen when TD specifies an arrow switch in the movement and subsequently allows play to proceed so slowly they run out of time and have to abandon play of the final round.

  • edited January 30

    @TawVale said:
    It can happen when TD specifies an arrow switch in the movement and subsequently allows play to proceed so slowly they run out of time and have to abandon play of the final round.

    If that's likely to happen, the TD could either arrow-switch the first round, or the final two.

  • @gordonrainsford said:

    @TawVale said:
    It can happen when TD specifies an arrow switch in the movement and subsequently allows play to proceed so slowly they run out of time and have to abandon play of the final round.

    If that's likely to happen, the TD could either arrow-switch the first round, or the final two.

    Unfortunately this is not easy with BridgeMate software once you have started.

    Alan

  • @16248 said:

    @gordonrainsford said:

    @TawVale said:
    It can happen when TD specifies an arrow switch in the movement and subsequently allows play to proceed so slowly they run out of time and have to abandon play of the final round.

    If that's likely to happen, the TD could either arrow-switch the first round, or the final two.

    Unfortunately this is not easy with BridgeMate software once you have started.

    This is not dependent on the Bridgemate software, but on the scoring program. Certainly it's possible to make such a change in EBUScore after you have started, but my suggestion was that a club that has had this problem before might choose to vary the arrow-switch schedule from the start, to save it from arising.

  • It is not necessary to change the movement. When it get to the point where there is only time for one more round, skip rounds/tables with East/West players and boards, and just play the last arrow-switched rounds; putting in NOT PLAYED for the skipped round(s).

  • The whole movement has been played with one rotating table but she refuses to arrow switch the last round as per the movement card. She then gives 50/50 to any table which has arrow switched, as apposed to giving them the scores they achieved on those boards. When questioned she says -Not to argue with the director.

  • Maybe suggest that the club fund TD courses for its directors!
  • I think you might need to have a word with the committee, you could get together details from a few people and find out how the 50/50 scoring has affected their NGS. It may only be small but sometimes the little worm brings down the dam. However, I can guess that the committee refuses to arrow switch(She is the committee). If that is the case then probably bring it up at the AGM. My sympathy is with you and it will probably end up leaving a "sour taste in the mouth", whatever you do or don't do.
    How about doing more of the directing and gradually ease them out.
    Very difficult, I think a lot of people call it a "Rock and Hard place".
    Let us know how you get on.
    Best wishes
    CMOT_Dibbler

  • @Lucy said:
    When questioned she says -Not to argue with the director.

    The director can use this answer on the night. But it must be possible for the players to question the decisions of the director to ensure that different decisions will be made in the future.

  • @Lucy said:
    The whole movement has been played with one rotating table but she refuses to arrow switch the last round as per the movement card. She then gives 50/50 to any table which has arrow switched, as apposed to giving them the scores they achieved on those boards. When questioned she says -Not to argue with the director.

    The 50-50 is completely illegal because a bridge result has been obtained, so the TD should un-arrow-switch it for the scoring and, if inclined, apply a Procedural Penalty to both pairs. But I have a question, and it is not "Why has the TD adopted this, um, extremely inferior idea" but ....

    How are your events scored? Is someone scoring by hand? I ask because if the scoring is done by computer, whether using travellers or bridgemates or similar, then, the scoring program will expect the last round to have been arrow-switched for the tables with stationary pairs. So to get round that, someone will have had to have gone to the trouble of editing the movement in the scoring program. Or else they have every time to mark every board played at those tables in the last round as being double arrow-switched (ie not arrow-switched at all), and that takes not insignificant time.

    If the whole purpose of this were to produce two winners for what should be a single winner movement, then I can see a milligram of logic, though you'd have two unequal fields (those of sitting pairs and moving pairs).

    So I'd be very interested to know how your events are scored.

    Barrie Partridge - Senior Kibitzer in Bridge Club Live - Pig Trader in IBLF

  • @gordonrainsford said:
    It's distinctly inferior, but I don't think it breaks any regulation. Why does the TD do this?

    Could this be in breach of awarding Materpoints Ref Handbook 4.1.4?
    "For a pairs event, this may be a ‘single winner’ movement (ie a Howell or a Scrambled Mitchell) or a ‘two winner’ movement (ie Mitchell type movement, with a NS and EW winner)."

  • It certainly goes against the spirit of a one-winner movement, but I don't think we could really say it isn't one since it could not be ranked as a two-winner game.

  • edited March 10

    Inappropriate post deleted

Sign In or Register to comment.