[shevek]

I'm directing a Mitchell and put a "set" of boards on each table. That's 2-3 boards.

I'm playing a long match where we drop 10 IMPs on the first "set". That's 12 boards.

I'm directing a Swiss teams with pre-ealt boards. 16 teams are playing 4 x 8-bd matches. I work out that I need a minimum of 4 "sets" of 32.


What are your terms?

PS. Also hate that SECTion sounds so much like SESSion.

[aguahombre]

Would tell you what I think, if I had a set.

[blackshoe]

A "board set", to me, is the collection of boards at a particular table for a particular round or match. I've also used "set" to refer to the box(es) of 36 boards that the people running the Duplimate machine deliver for each game. It's not occurred to me to look for a different term.

[barmar]

Where does this word come up in the Laws?

[blackshoe]

It doesn't.

[barmar]

Sounds like this is a case where a thread should be moved TO General Bridge Discussion, rather than the more common case of the other direction.

[gordontd]

shevek, on 2012-February-15, 20:26, said:

I'm directing a Mitchell and put a "set" of boards on each table. That's 2-3 boards.

I'm playing a long match where we drop 10 IMPs on the first "set". That's 12 boards.

I'm directing a Swiss teams with pre-ealt boards. 16 teams are playing 4 x 8-bd matches. I work out that I need a minimum of 4 "sets" of 32.


What are your terms?

PS. Also hate that SECTion sounds so much like SESSion.

I'd say "board-set" in the first instance, "stanza" if I wanted to avoid saying "set" in the second instance (though I think "set" is more commonly used) and "sets of (32) boards" in the final case. To some extent the context clarifies it.

[shevek]

thx all.

I'll try
board set
stanza
set


"Sorry guys, we had a bad stanza." Hmm

Now if we could stop using "set" for going down ....

[gwnn]

It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into the pet peeve thread. (Discuss) Proposed since February 2012.

[gordontd]

shevek, on 2012-February-16, 05:15, said:

Now if we could stop using "set" for going down ....

Over here we don't say "set" - we say "defeat(ed)".

[Zelandakh]

Round - set - match seems to work for these three scenarios. Alternatively just use normal qualifiers: set of boards for 1 and set of the match for 2. Would anyone seriously use the word set for a match in any conversation where this was not 100% obvious?

[gordontd]

Zelandakh, on 2012-February-16, 08:27, said:

Round - set - match seems to work for these three scenarios.

I think if you insert these in the examples in the original post, you'll see that they don't really do the trick.

Zelandakh, on 2012-February-16, 08:27, said:

Alternatively just use normal qualifiers: set of boards for 1 and set of the match for 2.

The problem is that "set of boards" is used in two different ways.

[sfi]

shevek, on 2012-February-15, 20:26, said:

I'm directing a Mitchell and put a "set" of boards on each table. That's 2-3 boards.

Heap?

Quote

I'm playing a long match where we drop 10 IMPs on the first "set". That's 12 boards.

Tribulation?

Quote

I'm directing a Swiss teams with pre-ealt boards. 16 teams are playing 4 x 8-bd matches. I work out that I need a minimum of 4 "sets" of 32.

Persecution?

[Vampyr]

gordontd, on 2012-February-16, 06:34, said:

Over here we don't say "set" - we say "defeat(ed)".

Not always!

I think that "board-set" and "set of boards" can be used with tolerable clarity (although to me the first is the boards on a table and the second is a copy of all the boards for the session; and someone will say that to him, it's the opposite!)

I think that "set" has the longest dictionary entry of any word -- it is an entire page in my Chambers.