Movement for Covid-secure teams of four
I'm new to EBUScore and want to do something that was probably not anticipated when the software was written.
I'm going to run three teams-of-four matches simultaneously. I've worked out how to create separate sections and merge them. But I'd appreciate help with the movement.
To keep to the Rule of Six, there will be no half-way switch of opponents - that will have to wait until another day. How do I set a movement of 24 boards without a switch?
Every table will have its own (identical) set of boards so, ideally, each table should play them in the order 1 to 24. This isn't essential, but is there a way of setting the movement so that the scoring devices expect them in that order?
Many thanks for your help.
David Dunford
Comments
You don't need separate sections, just a one-round movement with everyone playing the same set of 24 boards. You can set it up in the in-built movement creator very simply. Or you can put this one I have just created into your TSUserMovements.txt file in the folder where EBUScore Teams runs from:
Many thanks, Gordon
As a suggestion, it might even be preferable to have tables playing different boards, say start table 1 from board 1, table 2 from board 5 etc - so that there is less chance of people overhearing some comment about a board they are looking at?
Bridgemates don't require the boards be played in order, and can be set to expect the first board as any number but subsequent boards are expected to follow in order.
(Starting with different boards at different tables means you only need one set of boards. But the point of the exercise was not share boards.)
I was thinking more that every table has their own set of board, but start on different boards...
Yes, we do that with barometer movements in live events and it does reduce UI problems. As Robin says, you can do that just by telling the tables to start with different boards.
A diligent TD would not just tell them which board to start with, but give them a stack of board with board N on top: N .. 24, 1 .. N-1. So the players don't need to listen to the TD!
And better not to have announced it out loud so the other tables don't know which board any overheard conversation relates to.
At this stage, it's more about giving people confidence to come out and play face-to-face rather than running a serious competition. We normally moan about the fact that we play in a converted house with several rooms, but this is now helping us with our social distancing as well as reducing the risk of overhearing what is happening at other tables.
great stuff - good luck.
We are not currently planning anything until 21st June onwards, however, last year during some of the easing of lockdown, we did open up for teams with no movement between tables. We put 4 tables together to create distance, each table had the same boards (played in random starting order) and we had other safety precautions in place too. It worked well enough, but now that there is an end in sight and most members are playing online now, there is less of a push to get back.
Good hint, duly adopted.
Veering off topic.
When playing 7-board matches in Swiss, with boards flowing round the tables, every seventh table gets given the first and last boards in the set (e.g. 35 and 29), with 35 on top, and get told to play 35 first. Some North's "sort" the boards into order and put the lower numbered on top. If I notice that they are the sort of player to do this, in later rounds I put the board they should play first on the table and the other board on the floor.
In reply to Robin's off-topic comment
Once when playing in an EBL event, when each table got its own boards, the stack of boards at our table was numbered 1,2,3,5,4,6,7,8....
After scoring up we discovered that 4 and 5 had been switched, so the cards intended for board 4 were in board 5 and vice versa. The difference in dealer/vulnerability was not only a technical difference but made a massive actual difference to the table result.
As an initial gambit the TD told North (who was looking after the boards) that they were considered at fault for not calling the TD when the boards were given to them out of order rather than playing them. This wasn't held up on reflection.