[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

the number of tables play occurs at our club is rising, and we are reaching
new highs, ...,

I was asked to look for a Howell movement for 9 tables, has anyone a internet source,
where I can find this kind of stuff?

Thanks for your help.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[pescetom]

Google will surely turn it up.

But do you really need it?
A 9 table Mitchell is near perfect, easy to run and to play.
Arrow switch the last round if you want a single winner.
Two boards per round is enough to keep the average club happy, three if you want a serious result. You can always cut it to 8x3 if under time pressure.

[P_Marlowe]

pescetom, on 2025-November-05, 03:00, said:

Google will surely turn it up.

But do you really need it?
A 9 table Mitchell is near perfect, easy to run and to play.
Arrow switch the last round if you want a single winner.
Two boards per round is enough to keep the average club happy, three if you want a serious result. You can always cut it to 8x3 if under time pressure.

We used yesterday a Mitchell with scrambling, last 3 rounds, 3 Bords, it worked fine.
I was asked to look for a Howel, so I did.

I think Howell reduces the number of stationary pairs somewhat.

The 8 1/2 table was a decade all time high for normal club night, ..., we are a small club.

I did a quick search, found 8 table Howell, but not 9, seems 8 is the cut off?

[Stephen Tu]

For a 9 table scrambled Mitchell you should only be switching one round, not 3. Too many switch throws off the balance of the competition, you want more comparison against the pairs you do not face at the table.

Look at software at https://www.asecompu....com/Jeanie.htm
for tons of movements including larger Howells of various sizes and rounds. You may want to tweak the arrow switching schedule for built in movements with the software's built in balance optimizer.

Howells reduce stationary tables A LOT. Basically a full Howell where you play everyone has only one stationary. For a partial Howell, stationary tables are increased by one for each pair missed. So for say 8 table Howell 13 rounds, you'd have 3 stationary. For 9 tables 13 rounds you'd have 5 stationary.

I personally would not want to run Howell for 8 or 9 tables as Mitchell is much easier and faster, and is well balanced competition with the single switch, plus there is large demand for stationary tables at my club. For 10 tables there is stronger argument for Howell if one winner movement is necessary, and if 10x3 boards is too long, 10x2 boards too short. A 13x2 Howell can be done in that case. I only in practice run Howell for 6.5 tables and fewer at my games.

[P_Marlowe]

Thanks a lot.

[mycroft]

If you really want it, I can get you a 9x13 Howell (cards, or ACBL MOV file). But the comments made above are correct - almost always the Mitchell is better.

I've run it more than once in a second session where my first was a 17 to 19 table web and I wanted no playbacks and 2-board rounds.

8.5 might be the only reason to run it in one session over a Scrambled Mitchell, so you have only 2 board sitout. But most don't mind 3.

But the downsides are - it's SLOW, there are 4 stationary pairs that (forget to) swap directions on a weird schedule, and only 5 stationaries in total. And like any Howell, people don't move the boards down, they can't find the next table they need to go to, sit the wrong direction, ...

But it's good to hear of a club growing! Nice problem to have.

[P_Marlowe]

mycroft, on 2025-November-05, 06:48, said:

But it's good to hear of a club growing! Nice problem to have.

We are the only club that playes in evening.
Due to historic reasons, the club has also a history of trying to not
forget the competitive side, but we still have a fairly open social climate,
winning is not everything.
It also helps that the strong players play there regular, e.g. my partner,
who won (without me) a German championship in recent time, it was billed
a suprise hit, and he gives lectures, and the strong players are open to play
outside there regular partnerships, if asked, ..., in short we collect
partially from the declining rest.

[P_Marlowe]

mycroft, on 2025-November-05, 06:48, said:

If you really want it, I can get you a 9x13 Howell (cards, or ACBL MOV file). But the comments made above are correct - almost always the Mitchell is better.

<snip>

Send it (TXT file?)
If one can read ACBL MOV File via Notepad, this is also fine.
I am a Windows guy.

I will send this to the ones, to who reg. runs the session and also point out,
that 6/7 table seems to be the usual the cut off for Howell.
And we have to see, if this was just a fluke or stabilizes.

Yesterday did run smoothly, and stationary pairs are also valuable, our members
get older as well.

[pescetom]

 P_Marlowe, on 2025-November-05, 11:05, said:

I will send this to the ones, to who reg. runs the session and also point out,

Also send him a note that an arrow switch of a Mitchell should involve one eight of the rounds: so basically the last round for a Mitchell of up to 12 rounds, the last two rounds of more (and avoid it if possible with 12-13).

Switching too many rounds is a diffuse error in the South of Italy too (and in the North, switching is wrongly repudiated because of "those crazy results down South"). Among other distortions, it benefits NS, which may be one reason such blatant error persists "unnoticed"

[Stephen Tu]

 pescetom, on 2025-November-05, 11:26, said:

Also send him a note that an arrow switch of a Mitchell should involve one eight of the rounds: so basically the last round for a Mitchell of up to 12 rounds, the last two rounds of more (and avoid it if possible with 12-13).

See https://www.pjms.nl/...NS/balance.html among other sources for the math behind this, one eighth being approximately best.

Note it's one arrow switch for 11 rounds or fewer, 2 for 12 or more (wouldn't ever get to 3+ for the usual length of typical bridge games, unless running a specialized Mitchell + Howell 2 session movement to arrange all play all, where I believe more arrow switches in the Mitchell portion is optimal)

There is no reason to avoid switch with 12/13 rounds, switch 2 rounds if want one winner for the session.

[pescetom]

 Stephen Tu, on 2025-November-05, 12:04, said:

See https://www.pjms.nl/...NS/balance.html among other sources for the math behind this, one eighth being approximately best.

Note it's one arrow switch for 11 rounds or fewer, 2 for 12 or more (wouldn't ever get to 3+ for the usual length of typical bridge games, unless running a specialized Mitchell + Howell 2 session movement to arrange all play all, where I believe more arrow switches in the Mitchell portion is optimal)

There is no reason to avoid switch with 12/13 rounds, switch 2 rounds if want one winner for the session.

The mathematics is as the documents say, FWIW I mildly disagree with the rest.

Whether one switches 1 or 2 with 12 is pretty much a coin toss, I at least find it simpler to switch only one round although there is certainly nothing wrong with two.

There is reason to avoid switching if possible with 11-13 rounds, as the mis-proportioned switch slightly falsifies the result for the reasons explained in documents. There are other ways to inter-mix a Mitchell result to elect a single winner if it is really necessary and I would prefer them in this case, although I haven't done the math if it is even possible. Nothing terrible about arrow switching all the same though, agreed.