Can't figure this one out... ... ... (1 Viewer)

vangogh228

Registered User.
Local time
Yesterday, 19:13
Joined
Apr 19, 2002
Messages
302
How close can you come to solving this?

Eight card-playing people are going to play a game of bridge (2-person teams), with four people each at two tables. They will play seven rounds and rotate partnerships after each round so that each player plays with every other player as a partner exactly once. But, they also want to have each player play each other player exactly twice as opponents. How do you set up the partnerships/opponents each round ot accomplish this?

I can get the partnerships part, but the opponents part... I don't know... is it impossible? How close can you come? Can it be done?
 

Kraj

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 00:13
Joined
Aug 20, 2001
Messages
1,470
I don't think this is possible. Since each player must partner with each other player exactly once, you get 29 team combinations. Divide that by seven rounds and you have one team combination that won't be made.
 

TessB

Plays well with others
Local time
Yesterday, 19:13
Joined
Jan 14, 2002
Messages
906
vangogh228 said:
They will play seven rounds... they also want to have each player play each other player exactly twice as opponents.

If you play with only two tables, then to play someone exactly twice would only limit the game to 4 rounds, wouldn't it? Or am I missing something?
Better bring our bridge expert, Pat in.
 

selenau837

Can still see y'all......
Local time
Yesterday, 19:13
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
2,211
This sounds like a question that I had last night on my math final.

My brain is fried and I don't have my notes, but it appears to be a permuation equation (sp?) instead of a combination equation, since the order is important. (nPr) per table times two, times 7 rounds. *shurgs* Don't know. Perhaps I will copy this and try it out and send it to my math prof to see if he can figure it out. Maybe get some extra credit. *laughs*

We didn't get very far into statistics/ probability, but thought I would give it a try.

Anyways, I am interested in finding out the answer.
 

FoFa

Registered User.
Local time
Yesterday, 18:13
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
3,672
I hate math, but minus yourself there are 7 other people, but 2-3 boards = 1 round. After each round the partners change. 7 people, 7 rounds, if done properly you could have each other player for a partner, and play each person twice (each round you have 1 partner and two opponents). So the math seems to work at least.
 

Kraj

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 00:13
Joined
Aug 20, 2001
Messages
1,470
Hmmm.... this might actually be possible... but its beyond my desire to attempt. My guess is it's all about mixing the 4-player match-ups so no combination is repeated more than twice, but how to do that mathematically I do not know.
 
Last edited:

BarryMK

4 strings are enough
Local time
Today, 00:13
Joined
Oct 15, 2002
Messages
1,350
Shouldn't Pat be responding to this one?:D
 

allan57

Allan
Local time
Today, 00:13
Joined
Nov 29, 2004
Messages
336
If a have read the question right, then is this not some form of round-robin competion ie

Round 1: Player 1 & 2 vs 3 & 4
Round 2: Player 1 & 3 vs 2 & 4
Round 3: Player 1 & 4 vs 2 & 3
Round 4: Player 1 & 5 vs 8 & 7
Round 5: Player 1 & 6 vs 5 & 7
Round 6: Player 1 & 7 vs 6 & 8
Round 7: Player 1 & 8 vs 5 & 6


Allan
 

StevenS

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 01:13
Joined
Apr 14, 2005
Messages
21
Solution?

I think this is the solution. First i tried to solve the partnership part, then i switched the teams around untill i came up with this one: (can someone check if it's correct?)

Round 1: 1&2 vs. 5&6; 3&4 vs. 7&8
Round 2: 1&3 vs. 2&4; 5&7 vs. 6&8
Round 3: 1&4 vs. 5&8; 2&3 vs. 6&7
Round 4: 1&5 vs. 3&7; 2&6 vs. 4&8
Round 5: 1&6 vs. 4&7; 3&8 vs. 2&5
Round 6: 1&7 vs. 2&8; 3&5 vs. 4&6
Round 7: 1&8 vs. 3&6; 2&7 vs. 4&5


Steven
 

vangogh228

Registered User.
Local time
Yesterday, 19:13
Joined
Apr 19, 2002
Messages
302
FANTASTIC !! It works !!

Thanks !! I have been trying to figure this out on and off for a long time. I tried (I thought) every possible combination. Thanks again.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom