Three-column table on two-column page won't balance correctly

[Sesquipedalian Sam]

I am trying to make a simple one-page scoresheet. There are a few
lines of instructions at the top, a table with three columns filling
most of the page, and then a few lines of comments at the bottom.

The table is only about 3" wide, so I created a continuous section
break between the instructions and the table and another one after the
table:

Instructions (one column)
------------- continuous section break ---------------
Three-column table in two-column section
------------- continuous section break ---------------
Few lines of text (one column)

This all works except that the table will not balance correctly.

If it has an odd number of rows, the extra row goes in column one. If
I add one row, it also goes into column one so that the left page
column is two rows longer than the right page column.


What do I need to do to get Word to divide the rows evenly?

I do NOT want to break the table. I want the table to continue into
page column 2 so that if I change the column width, it changes in both
page columns.

 

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

You can apply "Keep with next" to rows to force them into the second column.
Also, Word may have inserted an empty paragraph between the table and the
Continuous break. This can be deleted.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
http://word.mvps.org

 

[Sesquipedalian Sam]

You can apply "Keep with next" to rows to force them into the second column.

That should work, but it's inconvenient and error-prone and shouldn't
be necessary.

Also, Word may have inserted an empty paragraph between the table and the
Continuous break. This can be deleted.

Nope, no extra paragraph.

I guess it's just another Word buglet. Has the counter exceeded the
capacity of a 4-byte integer field (yet)?

 

[win]

"Keep with next" works perfectly with me.

That should work, but it's inconvenient and error-prone and shouldn't
be necessary.


Nope, no extra paragraph.

I guess it's just another Word buglet. Has the counter exceeded the
capacity of a 4-byte integer field (yet)?

 

[Sesquipedalian Sam]

"Keep with next" works perfectly with me.

It works for a specific situation, but has a tendency to come back and
bite you later when you've added or deleted rows elsewhere and now you
don't want those two rows to stay together.

It is *not* a good general solution.