bridgetalk.com forums :: Laws & Rulings

DJN

roving n/s ( 05:40:57 FriJul 11 2003 )

Country: USA

Hi all,
In the upcoming International Fund game in the ACBL, I see that the recommended treatment of a half-table is to have a roving n/s (the guide cards are included in the director's packet for this n/s pair, for each possible number of tables). Is there a reason this is stressed over the e/w sitout method (a phantom n/s at the highest table)?

Thanks,
Dan

Frances

Re: roving n/s ( 10:47:51 FriJul 11 2003 )

Country: UK

I know nothing (Barcelonan accent) about the ACBL international fund game, but I would always choose between a rover and a sitout table depending on the number of tables I have and number of boards I wish to play. I wish to minimise the amount of board sharing & the total number of boards in play while having more rounds rather than fewer. All other things being equal (which they never are), I'd have thought a sit-out is preferable as there's less chance of it going wrong.

bluejak

427 posts
Forum Host

Reply

Re: roving n/s ( 12:05:08 FriJul 11 2003 )

I think the differences are based on nothing more than what is the flavour of the month!

Personally, I believe a n/s sitout is best for most numbers of tables. Since n/s have the benefit of being stationary they should not get the benefit of not sitting out as well.

But all these methods work. As they have sent you guide cards then I should follow their method.

---
David Stevenson <laws2@blakjak.com>
Liverpool, England, UK
http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm

Guest

Re: roving n/s ( 14:01:44 FriJul 11 2003 )

For large number of tables I think a roving NS is better in that in some emergency you can curtail the play. Imagine a 18 tables 36 boards movement, with 18 NS phantom. you have a phantom NS, you have to complete the movement or some boards will have less scores then the others, that's not really desirable. With NS Roving you can perhaps stop at round 14 if you are running short of time.

bluejak

427 posts
Forum Host

Reply

Re: roving n/s ( 17:16:11 FriJul 11 2003 )

Boards with fewer scores than others hardly matters except with very poor software.

All incomplete movements are somewhat inferior to complete movements anyway: that is a rather more serious deficiency.

---
David Stevenson <laws2@blakjak.com>
Liverpool, England, UK
http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm

mycroft

67 posts
bridgetalk member

Re: roving n/s ( 19:23:12 SatJul 12 2003 )

I don't like sitout and skip. Of course, that can be dealt with with a bye-stand and non-relay (with the sitout table), but at least over here in ACBLland, nobody runs a bye-stand and relay movement, so nobody knows how to play in one, so at least one time in two, there's a board movement error (even when you take pains to make it *really hard* to move the boards to the next lower table and miss the byestand). So, for 13 1/2 tables, I'd rather run a N/S bump (over 13 tables) than a E/W sitout (over 14), but with 14 1/5, an E/W sitout with 15 tables feels better than a N/S bump and skip.

Of course, as always, David has the right idea - if you want to sit stationary, you shouldn't get the "no sitout" bonus as well :-).

Michael (edit to get rid of that BUN-AG). [1 edits; Last edit by mycroft at 19:24:15 Sat Jul 12 2003]

Val

17 posts
bridgetalk member

Re: roving n/s ( 01:11:22 SunJul 13 2003 )

Don't know where you play mycroft, but at my clubs, I quite often run a bye-stand and relay. Have had no trouble at all with it.

bluejak

427 posts
Forum Host

Reply

Re: roving n/s ( 10:43:46 MonJul 14 2003 )

I think you will find your opinion that no-one runs it is slightly optimistic! :smile:

A lot of these type of choices tend to be geographical. I have no doubt that no-one plays these things within 200 miles of you, but whether you are really sure of Florida, Alaska, Saskatchewan, Tijuana, Bermuda and Maine I doubt! :sheep:

It is true that if you are in a club which is used to N/S bumps then in general it is better to play them than a share and relay. However, my experience is that players do not make silly mistakes over boards so long as the TD is careful.

For example, if there is a relay [which I think is what you call a bye-stand] then it must be phsically between the two tables, and must be on a chair or table. If the TD expects players to moce the boards to somewhere on the edge of the room or the floor then when it goes wrong it is the TD's fault.

---
David Stevenson <laws2@blakjak.com>
Liverpool, England, UK
http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm

6 bridge player(s) online in the last 15 minutes - 1 bridgetalk member(s), 0 incognito and 5 guest(s).
(The most ever was 52 09:45:43 Fri Feb 14 2003)
bluejak

Total Members: 393, Newest Member: edm.

International Bridge Laws Forum

If you need help with the Laws or rulings from
any country in the world, this is the place!

Hosted by David Stevenson
Senior Consultant Director
English Bridge Union

International Bridge Laws Forum

If you need help with the Laws or rulings from any country in the world, this is the place!Hosted by David StevensonSenior Consultant DirectorEnglish Bridge Union

If you need help with the Laws or rulings from
any country in the world, this is the place!

Hosted by David Stevenson
Senior Consultant Director
English Bridge Union