It's clear and completely understandable that there are a wide range of opinions, and I think that mainly reflects the fact that every club's membership, aims and interests are very different. It's not helped by the fact that the "rule of 6" remains open to interpretation for our purposes. Interpretations include:
Socially distanced play at 1 table only in any venue (with an additional limit of 6 on the total number of people in the venue, probably a private home)
Socially distanced play at multiple tables (up to the venue's Covid-19 maximum capacity) but no moving between tables in a session
Socially distanced play at multiple tables (up to the venue's Covid-19 maximum capacity) but tables are in groups of 3 with the stationary NS pairs being a group of 6 and the moving EW pairs being a group of 6
Socially distanced play at multiple tables (up to the venue's Covid-19 maximum capacity) with moving
The common theme of course is that 2m distancing (or 1m with precautions) must be adhered to, and anyone thinking of having multiple tables can only do so in a Covid-19 Secure venue. The first 2 cases are explicitly permitted, while points 3 and 4 depend on an interpretation that the government hasn't clarified as far as I am aware.
The EBU's approach is entirely understandable - the organisation is quite right to assume that the rules are as strict as the strictest interpretation, so only cases 1 and 2 would then be permitted. In that case, club bridge face-to-face is just not a realistic proposition and case 2 would probably not be of any interest to the vast majority of the bridge population anyway. Meanwhile, it's not just following the rules that is important, but also the risk of spreading the virus and the potential for a member to be hospitalised.
You then have those members (e.g. CMOT_Dibbler in this forum) who might agree that cases 3 and 4 are permissible in the rules but online bridge is still more attractive than the face-to-face alternative that can currently be offered. BBO and BCL don't replace face-to-face bridge but do a reasonable job at filling that gap. RealBridge is still in the trial phase but the webcam integration will offer an even more valuable solution.
Finally, you have members such as Martin who also agree that cases 3 and 4 are permissible in the rules and would prefer those to any of the online solutions that are on offer. If a club has enough members like Martin that it becomes viable to run such a face-to-face session then, accepting the uncertainty surrounding both the risks and the rules, a club may well wish to restart face-to-face sessions of this kind (and a few have as we know).
There's no one-size-fits-all solution and each will have their own opinion. Given the fact that we are following an increase in restrictions, there might be more scrutiny over a decision to reopen, whereas if the lockdown had eased to this point then reopening might have more of a case. That's just my personal view though, and I do think it's worth each club keeping up to date with any changes in restrictions to make their own decision, in the knowledge that the EBU can't take any responsibility for clubs that choose to trial face-to-face sessions.
Socially distanced play at multiple tables (up to the venue's Covid-19 maximum capacity) but tables are in groups of 3 with the stationary NS pairs being a group of 6 and the moving EW pairs being a group of 6
As described, this creates a group of twelve with a direct connection between eight of them and indirect contact with the other four.
@495670 said: Finally, you have members such as Martin who also agree that cases 3 and 4 are permissible in the rules and would prefer those to any of the online solutions that are on offer.
I think you have perhaps misunderstood. I would say that your 'cases 3 and 4' are absolutely against the law as it stands! The law states that groups can only be up to 6, with no mingling - moving from table to table is clearly mingling.
Say in a teams game you swap opponents, you may think that his is a group of 6, your partnership and the 2 ops, however, your 2nd opponents have been with your team mates, so it is really a group of 8
The way we will be running our trial and hopefully into the future will be your option 2 - played as teams with no movement (so 18/20 boards against the same ops), duplicated boards so each table has their own full set - plus other interventions to mitigate the risk.
It is also not down to whether I think it worthwhile opening or not, but rather it's down to the individual members to make that judgement call for themselves.
Finally, regarding your point, "Meanwhile, it's not just following the rules that is important, but also the risk of spreading the virus and the potential for a member to be hospitalised." Bridge and life itself is full of risks... I think I saw that if you are man over 75, there is an 11% chance of death this year (every year, just from being an old man and all the problems that comes with that). I was looking at the ONS data yesterday on deaths up to the week ending 04/09/2020, if you selected a random death this year, there was a 89% chance that that person did not have covid mentioned on their death certificate. If you chose a random death from the week ending 04/09 then there was a 99% chance that that person did not have covid mentioned on their death certificate.
For me, balance is key. Sure there are risks, but then there are risks with everything we do. It is important to weigh up the risk versus reward. The only person in any kind of reasonable position to make that assessment is the person themselves. When the government and regulations are involved, we can only work within both the letter and spirit of the law.
Apologies Martin, you did say that regarding cases 3 and 4 so I've grouped you incorrectly there. Whether it's clearly mingling is a different matter but I was trying to stray clear of that argument (very unsuccessfully!).
I would also agree with you Gordon in that it seems to make a group of 12, and similarly your point Martin on teams with opponent switching and groups of 8.
It does admittedly depend on the exact nature of any mitigations in place (not that I'm advocating the ridiculous example to follow!) - for example, say you had 3 large tables in a room, all in a line. Each table is slanted at 45 degrees (so no side is parallel with the walls of the room). Then have one long transparent screen that runs from one end of the room to the other, passing through all 3 tables (a diagram would have been simpler!). Now all the Norths and Easts are on one side of this transparent screen, and all the Souths and Wests are on the other. Suppose all that the Norths and Easts all use a different entrance to the Souths and Wests (they are effectively in two different rooms with a transparent screen down the middle). The EW pairs then move for a 3 round mitchell. I would definitely consider the NEs to form a group of 6 and the SWs to form a group of 6, with social distancing of course.
Having written it, I'd like to see a mockup :) Not as a serious suggestion of course, just because it's such a weird concept to be thinking about. Anyway...
Hmm as an almost realistic suggestion, you could have screens at each table but extended so that they are connected to the one at the next table, and also joining up with the walls at each end of the room. That would be pretty similar to badminton's solution where you can have 3 courts with 6 people on one side of the net and 6 people on the other side, with the option to then swap courts as long as you stay on your side of the net.
@495670 I don't think that this is how badminton work (I play badminton too and I'm a member of Badminton England) - their latest communication (after the new regulation of 6 for the general population) says that 2 teams can complete as normal. This means a team of 6 (3 pairs) each plays against another team of 6.
There is not the same amount of closeness as there is in bridge, but you can get close to the ops at the net - plus you share a shuttlecock!
The regulations also allow for 1 coach and 15 players!
Badminton England have consulted with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and Sport England, to rule on these exceptions... Though to be honest I no longer run a club, so I have not read through every rule!
Thanks 495670, that is similar to the email I saw - there is no requirement for the teams to stay on one side of the net, just cant pair up with a player from the other team, but you can play against them.
Essentially this makes a group of 12 mingling, but hey ho
@Martin said:
If it is safe enough for 6 people to enter a pub or restaurant for 2 or 3 hours sitting next to each other with no face coverings. Served by people who are serving others, drinking from glasses touched by others etc. Then it has to be safer for a group of 4 to enter a building that has not been entered for 3 days, touch only your cards and no one elses, sit over a 1m apart with face coverings.
The trade-off in a pub/restaurant is between (a) spreading the disease and (b1) economic shutdown and the (health & other) effects of recession.
The trade-off in a bridge club is between (a) spreading the disease and (b2) continuation of loneliness and the mental health effects of that.
@patricks you are absolutely right. Just add in to the equation that the metal health/loneliness aspect is 100% happening, whereas there is only a limited chance of spreading covid, particularly with the measures we will have in place.
We are fortunate in that we own our premises and normally only share with a chess club, which will not be meeting this year.
Well, we completed the trial last Monday and it was an enjoyable evening - really nice to be back playing at the club after a 6 month hiatus.
Certainly everyone felt safe at the club and all the rules were followed at all times by all people. We will now be extending this out to the membership and we shall see where we go from there. We will start with a Monday evening only for now, with a view to having a second session on a Friday, if there is sufficient demand. This will give time for the cards to self-clean, so that on Monday we can deal 4 sets of boards to be played on the Friday, on the Friday we deal a different set of 4 boards to be used on the following Monday.
Couple points to note... the cards are a lot further away than normal and one of our members (second youngest there at 50) struggled to see the cards. Others who are much older did not have that problem - so it is not specifically an age thing, so I would expect it to be generally to be an issue for some members.
Wearing visors was fine from a visibility aspect, however, they really change the acoustics and essentially your own voice is bounced back at you and other peoples voices seem to flow past. One member with hearing aids found it difficult to hear properly using the visors.
We played 20 boards and as previously mentioned, there was no movement and no return to the 'home table' for scoring - I was concerned that it would be boring. However, it added to the feeling that it was a social occasion and not 'proper bridge'. As there was no moving, time really flew by and at my table we completed the 20 boards in just shy of 2 hours. The other table was about 10 minutes behind.
The experience of playing with physical cards with partner and the ops in the room is a very different one to playing online - not necessarily better (at least for someone that has played online bridge for as long as they have played bridge face-to-face), but very different. It feels to be less about the cards/results/scores and more about being in that space with others.
I am not sure how this complies with Rule of 6
From Monday 14 September, when meeting friends and family you do not live with you
must not meet in a group of more than 6, indoors or outdoors.
_
This is like going to a pub, sitting at a table with 3 others and playing rubber bridge. At another table another group of 4 sit down and play rubber bridge.
Only, the way we are doing it means that the cards were pre-dealt 72+ hour prior and are not touched by anyone else that night. We are further apart than if we were at a pub, plus we have mandated the use of face coverings at all times in the club (not just when standing up). There are a whole host of other rules that I shan't list again, but were detailed earlier in this thread
I am sorry I do not think that is the point as I assume it is not only one table and I am afraid you have more than six meeting inside and you run the risk of being prosecuted as it is against the law
Restrictions on [F30participation in] gatherings
5.—[F31(1) During the emergency period, no person may participate in a gathering which consists of more than six people unless—
(a)all the people in the gathering are from the same household, or are members of two households which are linked households in relation to each other,
(b)the gathering is one to which paragraph (2) or (2A) applies and the person concerned participates in the gathering alone or as a member of a qualifying group, or
(c)paragraph (3) applies.
From here we check out paragraph 2 (2A is for outdoor spaces):
(2) This paragraph applies to a gathering if it takes place on or at premises, other than a private dwelling, which are—
(a)operated by a business, a charitable, benevolent or philanthropic institution or a public body, or
(b)part of premises used for the operation of a business, a charitable, benevolent or philanthropic institution or a public body.
As an aside I find it interesting that the regulations are very badly written and convoluted. It makes the EBU rules and the WBO laws look easy and simple by comparison.
Yes, we could have better/simpler rules, but compared with the actual laws of the land, they are wonderful :)
@StewartPye said:
I am sorry I do not think that is the point as I assume it is not only one table and I am afraid you have more than six meeting inside and you run the risk of being prosecuted as it is against the law
Yes the laws could be easier to understand but as long as you are at the same table of 4 for the entire session (as is the case here), this is 100% within the law in Covid-secure venues like restaurants etc. The rule of 6 applies for the social group you are visiting, socialising or mingling with at any given time in this context, whereas the rule of 6 applies for your home in private residences.
I do not accept that F2F duplicate bridge is impossible under the latest Covid-19 rules.
Many bridge players are missing desperately the feel of real cards in their hands, the social interaction with partners and opponents alike and the fellowship of belonging. Online bridge can satisfy the competitive nature of most bridge players but can never make up for the human experience.
Therefore, I have turned my mind – as I know have others – to how we might regain some of that ‘club’ feeling safely whilst still retaining an element of duplicate competition. Can we accomplish some F2F bridge and keep within the “Rule of Six”… and all the latest guidelines? I believe it is possible - but not with multiple pairs, just six - and would like to put my ideas to the test with fellow bridge enthusiasts.
My suggestion involves 12 players sitting at two well-separated large round tables. Pairs A, B & C sit at Table ABC and Pairs X, Y & Z sit at Table XYZ. The two tables could be in separate rooms, well apart in the same room or in an accommodating pub/ restaurant, a community centre or possibly in two domestic houses. Wherever they are situated they would need to meet Covid-19 secure regulations fully. There would be no physical contact between the two groups of six at any time.
There would be three pairs at each table (obviously with partners opposite each other) and each pair would play four matches of 4 boards according to a proscribed movement and would sit out for 8 boards. During the time when they were not playing these pairs could dine while they kibbed.
Each player would have his/her own segment of the table with a personal pack of playing cards, a bidding box, a tea towel, a scorecard and a personal hand sheet emailed to him/her for printing out in advance. These would be brought to the venue in a canvas bag together with hand sanitizer and face mask. All the kit would be laid out on the personal tea towel as a place-setting with the hand sheet stuck to it and draped into his/her lap.
Following the instructions, each round would begin with the four playing taking part sorting their first hand according to the printed hand sheet. Bridge would then proceed as usual.
The NS on the ABC table would be teammates with the EW on the XYZ table for each round. After each round (4 boards) scores would be agreed, entered on his/her personal scorecard and compared to one’s teammates in the normal way. Scorecards would be photographed and texted between N and E and, to make sure mistakes are avoided, between S and W.
At the end of the evening the Pair that has accumulated the highest number of IMPs will be declared the winners and congratulated at a safe distance in the car park!
I have prepared a short paper on the “Rule of Six” Movement as I see it and would be happy to email it to anyone if they send me their email address to antonyphilpott39@gmail.com.
My suggestion involves 12 players sitting at two well-separated large round tables. Pairs A, B & C sit at Table ABC and Pairs X, Y & Z sit at Table XYZ [...] to meet Covid-19 secure regulations fully. There would be no physical contact between the two groups of six at any time.
Tony - there are some imaginative ideas here but also a few pitfalls. You need to find a venue with two large round tables - not usually the case at bridge clubs. The person organising and preparing everything cannot mingle with either group of six, unless they are playing. Same for a TD.
each pair would sit out for 8 boards.
Might need very patient and tolerant players for this!
Each player would have a personal pack of playing cards and [...] sort their first hand according to the printed hand sheet.
As Sandra mentioned on the first page of this discussion, people don't always get this right - they might pick out the ten of hearts instead of diamonds, or they may assemble hand six instead of five. Need to agree how these are dealt with. Three IMP penalty per affected board? A couple of spare deals on stand-by plus communicate to the other team?
Gordon suggested having a card in the middle of the table indicating the dealer and vulnerability.
Scorecards would be photographed and texted between N and E and, to make sure mistakes are avoided, between S and W.
So everyone needs smartphones or tablets, the wi-fi password and their team-mates' phone numbers or email addresses.
My intention is to try to show a way in which sociable, duplicate bridge could be played even with the Covid-19 restrictions. My full article contains more detail and I will be very happy to share it with you if you send your email address to mine given above.
Many venues have large round tables for functions and I feel sure that some would welcome selling 12 meals in these difficult times. The organizer would not play nor need to attend but in contact via a smart phone, as could be a director if one was felt to be needed. This is suggested as a fun, but competitive, evening out, not the Gold Cup.
During the 8 board sit-out the pair on each table could eat a meal or just kib while enjoying the conviviality of the evening. If played in two houses, with 6 people in each, the Hosts could provide running buffets. Incidentally the format could also be used for Teams of Four in two houses ... with or without the away team changing houses at half-time.
I do agree that players could make mistakes sorting their cards, but in my opinion that would be a small price to pay should it happen.
Latest survey figures show that 4 out of 5 people over18 in the UK have a smart phone so I don't think this would be a problem.
I am hoping that one of my F2F clubs decide to take the idea on board!
Comments
It's clear and completely understandable that there are a wide range of opinions, and I think that mainly reflects the fact that every club's membership, aims and interests are very different. It's not helped by the fact that the "rule of 6" remains open to interpretation for our purposes. Interpretations include:
The common theme of course is that 2m distancing (or 1m with precautions) must be adhered to, and anyone thinking of having multiple tables can only do so in a Covid-19 Secure venue. The first 2 cases are explicitly permitted, while points 3 and 4 depend on an interpretation that the government hasn't clarified as far as I am aware.
The EBU's approach is entirely understandable - the organisation is quite right to assume that the rules are as strict as the strictest interpretation, so only cases 1 and 2 would then be permitted. In that case, club bridge face-to-face is just not a realistic proposition and case 2 would probably not be of any interest to the vast majority of the bridge population anyway. Meanwhile, it's not just following the rules that is important, but also the risk of spreading the virus and the potential for a member to be hospitalised.
You then have those members (e.g. CMOT_Dibbler in this forum) who might agree that cases 3 and 4 are permissible in the rules but online bridge is still more attractive than the face-to-face alternative that can currently be offered. BBO and BCL don't replace face-to-face bridge but do a reasonable job at filling that gap. RealBridge is still in the trial phase but the webcam integration will offer an even more valuable solution.
Finally, you have members such as Martin who also agree that cases 3 and 4 are permissible in the rules and would prefer those to any of the online solutions that are on offer. If a club has enough members like Martin that it becomes viable to run such a face-to-face session then, accepting the uncertainty surrounding both the risks and the rules, a club may well wish to restart face-to-face sessions of this kind (and a few have as we know).
There's no one-size-fits-all solution and each will have their own opinion. Given the fact that we are following an increase in restrictions, there might be more scrutiny over a decision to reopen, whereas if the lockdown had eased to this point then reopening might have more of a case. That's just my personal view though, and I do think it's worth each club keeping up to date with any changes in restrictions to make their own decision, in the knowledge that the EBU can't take any responsibility for clubs that choose to trial face-to-face sessions.
As described, this creates a group of twelve with a direct connection between eight of them and indirect contact with the other four.
I think you have perhaps misunderstood. I would say that your 'cases 3 and 4' are absolutely against the law as it stands! The law states that groups can only be up to 6, with no mingling - moving from table to table is clearly mingling.
Say in a teams game you swap opponents, you may think that his is a group of 6, your partnership and the 2 ops, however, your 2nd opponents have been with your team mates, so it is really a group of 8
The way we will be running our trial and hopefully into the future will be your option 2 - played as teams with no movement (so 18/20 boards against the same ops), duplicated boards so each table has their own full set - plus other interventions to mitigate the risk.
It is also not down to whether I think it worthwhile opening or not, but rather it's down to the individual members to make that judgement call for themselves.
Finally, regarding your point, "Meanwhile, it's not just following the rules that is important, but also the risk of spreading the virus and the potential for a member to be hospitalised." Bridge and life itself is full of risks... I think I saw that if you are man over 75, there is an 11% chance of death this year (every year, just from being an old man and all the problems that comes with that). I was looking at the ONS data yesterday on deaths up to the week ending 04/09/2020, if you selected a random death this year, there was a 89% chance that that person did not have covid mentioned on their death certificate. If you chose a random death from the week ending 04/09 then there was a 99% chance that that person did not have covid mentioned on their death certificate.
For me, balance is key. Sure there are risks, but then there are risks with everything we do. It is important to weigh up the risk versus reward. The only person in any kind of reasonable position to make that assessment is the person themselves. When the government and regulations are involved, we can only work within both the letter and spirit of the law.
Apologies Martin, you did say that regarding cases 3 and 4 so I've grouped you incorrectly there. Whether it's clearly mingling is a different matter but I was trying to stray clear of that argument (very unsuccessfully!).
I would also agree with you Gordon in that it seems to make a group of 12, and similarly your point Martin on teams with opponent switching and groups of 8.
It does admittedly depend on the exact nature of any mitigations in place (not that I'm advocating the ridiculous example to follow!) - for example, say you had 3 large tables in a room, all in a line. Each table is slanted at 45 degrees (so no side is parallel with the walls of the room). Then have one long transparent screen that runs from one end of the room to the other, passing through all 3 tables (a diagram would have been simpler!). Now all the Norths and Easts are on one side of this transparent screen, and all the Souths and Wests are on the other. Suppose all that the Norths and Easts all use a different entrance to the Souths and Wests (they are effectively in two different rooms with a transparent screen down the middle). The EW pairs then move for a 3 round mitchell. I would definitely consider the NEs to form a group of 6 and the SWs to form a group of 6, with social distancing of course.
Having written it, I'd like to see a mockup :) Not as a serious suggestion of course, just because it's such a weird concept to be thinking about. Anyway...
Hmm as an almost realistic suggestion, you could have screens at each table but extended so that they are connected to the one at the next table, and also joining up with the walls at each end of the room. That would be pretty similar to badminton's solution where you can have 3 courts with 6 people on one side of the net and 6 people on the other side, with the option to then swap courts as long as you stay on your side of the net.
@495670 I don't think that this is how badminton work (I play badminton too and I'm a member of Badminton England) - their latest communication (after the new regulation of 6 for the general population) says that 2 teams can complete as normal. This means a team of 6 (3 pairs) each plays against another team of 6.
There is not the same amount of closeness as there is in bridge, but you can get close to the ops at the net - plus you share a shuttlecock!
The regulations also allow for 1 coach and 15 players!
Badminton England have consulted with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and Sport England, to rule on these exceptions... Though to be honest I no longer run a club, so I have not read through every rule!
Pages 8 and 9 here https://www.badmintonengland.co.uk/media/8985/rtp-clubs-competition-v5.pdf for reference.
Thanks 495670, that is similar to the email I saw - there is no requirement for the teams to stay on one side of the net, just cant pair up with a player from the other team, but you can play against them.
Essentially this makes a group of 12 mingling, but hey ho
The trade-off in a pub/restaurant is between (a) spreading the disease and (b1) economic shutdown and the (health & other) effects of recession.
The trade-off in a bridge club is between (a) spreading the disease and (b2) continuation of loneliness and the mental health effects of that.
These are difficult but different calculations.
We are fortunate in that we own our premises and normally only share with a chess club, which will not be meeting this year.
Well, we completed the trial last Monday and it was an enjoyable evening - really nice to be back playing at the club after a 6 month hiatus.
Certainly everyone felt safe at the club and all the rules were followed at all times by all people. We will now be extending this out to the membership and we shall see where we go from there. We will start with a Monday evening only for now, with a view to having a second session on a Friday, if there is sufficient demand. This will give time for the cards to self-clean, so that on Monday we can deal 4 sets of boards to be played on the Friday, on the Friday we deal a different set of 4 boards to be used on the following Monday.
Couple points to note... the cards are a lot further away than normal and one of our members (second youngest there at 50) struggled to see the cards. Others who are much older did not have that problem - so it is not specifically an age thing, so I would expect it to be generally to be an issue for some members.
Wearing visors was fine from a visibility aspect, however, they really change the acoustics and essentially your own voice is bounced back at you and other peoples voices seem to flow past. One member with hearing aids found it difficult to hear properly using the visors.
We played 20 boards and as previously mentioned, there was no movement and no return to the 'home table' for scoring - I was concerned that it would be boring. However, it added to the feeling that it was a social occasion and not 'proper bridge'. As there was no moving, time really flew by and at my table we completed the 20 boards in just shy of 2 hours. The other table was about 10 minutes behind.
The experience of playing with physical cards with partner and the ops in the room is a very different one to playing online - not necessarily better (at least for someone that has played online bridge for as long as they have played bridge face-to-face), but very different. It feels to be less about the cards/results/scores and more about being in that space with others.
I am not sure how this complies with Rule of 6
From Monday 14 September, when meeting friends and family you do not live with you
must not meet in a group of more than 6, indoors or outdoors.
_
A table is a group of 4!
This is like going to a pub, sitting at a table with 3 others and playing rubber bridge. At another table another group of 4 sit down and play rubber bridge.
Only, the way we are doing it means that the cards were pre-dealt 72+ hour prior and are not touched by anyone else that night. We are further apart than if we were at a pub, plus we have mandated the use of face coverings at all times in the club (not just when standing up). There are a whole host of other rules that I shan't list again, but were detailed earlier in this thread
I am sorry I do not think that is the point as I assume it is not only one table and I am afraid you have more than six meeting inside and you run the risk of being prosecuted as it is against the law
Does a public house or restaurant have only 1 table of 6 allowed?
The bridge club is a business (we pay business rates etc)
We are also a hospitality venue
From the regulations themselves... https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/684
Restrictions on [F30participation in] gatherings
5.—[F31(1) During the emergency period, no person may participate in a gathering which consists of more than six people unless—
(a)all the people in the gathering are from the same household, or are members of two households which are linked households in relation to each other,
(b)the gathering is one to which paragraph (2) or (2A) applies and the person concerned participates in the gathering alone or as a member of a qualifying group, or
(c)paragraph (3) applies.
From here we check out paragraph 2 (2A is for outdoor spaces):
(2) This paragraph applies to a gathering if it takes place on or at premises, other than a private dwelling, which are—
(a)operated by a business, a charitable, benevolent or philanthropic institution or a public body, or
(b)part of premises used for the operation of a business, a charitable, benevolent or philanthropic institution or a public body.
As an aside I find it interesting that the regulations are very badly written and convoluted. It makes the EBU rules and the WBO laws look easy and simple by comparison.
Yes, we could have better/simpler rules, but compared with the actual laws of the land, they are wonderful :)
Yes the laws could be easier to understand but as long as you are at the same table of 4 for the entire session (as is the case here), this is 100% within the law in Covid-secure venues like restaurants etc. The rule of 6 applies for the social group you are visiting, socialising or mingling with at any given time in this context, whereas the rule of 6 applies for your home in private residences.
I do not accept that F2F duplicate bridge is impossible under the latest Covid-19 rules.
Many bridge players are missing desperately the feel of real cards in their hands, the social interaction with partners and opponents alike and the fellowship of belonging. Online bridge can satisfy the competitive nature of most bridge players but can never make up for the human experience.
Therefore, I have turned my mind – as I know have others – to how we might regain some of that ‘club’ feeling safely whilst still retaining an element of duplicate competition. Can we accomplish some F2F bridge and keep within the “Rule of Six”… and all the latest guidelines? I believe it is possible - but not with multiple pairs, just six - and would like to put my ideas to the test with fellow bridge enthusiasts.
My suggestion involves 12 players sitting at two well-separated large round tables. Pairs A, B & C sit at Table ABC and Pairs X, Y & Z sit at Table XYZ. The two tables could be in separate rooms, well apart in the same room or in an accommodating pub/ restaurant, a community centre or possibly in two domestic houses. Wherever they are situated they would need to meet Covid-19 secure regulations fully. There would be no physical contact between the two groups of six at any time.
There would be three pairs at each table (obviously with partners opposite each other) and each pair would play four matches of 4 boards according to a proscribed movement and would sit out for 8 boards. During the time when they were not playing these pairs could dine while they kibbed.
Each player would have his/her own segment of the table with a personal pack of playing cards, a bidding box, a tea towel, a scorecard and a personal hand sheet emailed to him/her for printing out in advance. These would be brought to the venue in a canvas bag together with hand sanitizer and face mask. All the kit would be laid out on the personal tea towel as a place-setting with the hand sheet stuck to it and draped into his/her lap.
Following the instructions, each round would begin with the four playing taking part sorting their first hand according to the printed hand sheet. Bridge would then proceed as usual.
The NS on the ABC table would be teammates with the EW on the XYZ table for each round. After each round (4 boards) scores would be agreed, entered on his/her personal scorecard and compared to one’s teammates in the normal way. Scorecards would be photographed and texted between N and E and, to make sure mistakes are avoided, between S and W.
At the end of the evening the Pair that has accumulated the highest number of IMPs will be declared the winners and congratulated at a safe distance in the car park!
I have prepared a short paper on the “Rule of Six” Movement as I see it and would be happy to email it to anyone if they send me their email address to antonyphilpott39@gmail.com.
Tony - there are some imaginative ideas here but also a few pitfalls. You need to find a venue with two large round tables - not usually the case at bridge clubs. The person organising and preparing everything cannot mingle with either group of six, unless they are playing. Same for a TD.
Might need very patient and tolerant players for this!
As Sandra mentioned on the first page of this discussion, people don't always get this right - they might pick out the ten of hearts instead of diamonds, or they may assemble hand six instead of five. Need to agree how these are dealt with. Three IMP penalty per affected board? A couple of spare deals on stand-by plus communicate to the other team?
Gordon suggested having a card in the middle of the table indicating the dealer and vulnerability.
So everyone needs smartphones or tablets, the wi-fi password and their team-mates' phone numbers or email addresses.
My intention is to try to show a way in which sociable, duplicate bridge could be played even with the Covid-19 restrictions. My full article contains more detail and I will be very happy to share it with you if you send your email address to mine given above.
Many venues have large round tables for functions and I feel sure that some would welcome selling 12 meals in these difficult times. The organizer would not play nor need to attend but in contact via a smart phone, as could be a director if one was felt to be needed. This is suggested as a fun, but competitive, evening out, not the Gold Cup.
During the 8 board sit-out the pair on each table could eat a meal or just kib while enjoying the conviviality of the evening. If played in two houses, with 6 people in each, the Hosts could provide running buffets. Incidentally the format could also be used for Teams of Four in two houses ... with or without the away team changing houses at half-time.
I do agree that players could make mistakes sorting their cards, but in my opinion that would be a small price to pay should it happen.
Latest survey figures show that 4 out of 5 people over18 in the UK have a smart phone so I don't think this would be a problem.
I am hoping that one of my F2F clubs decide to take the idea on board!