[blackshoe]

Chapter IX of the ACBL Handbook of Rules and Regulations speaks to the "Powers and Duties of an Appeals Committee", among other things. In the aforementioned section, I find this paragraph:

Quote

The Chief Director must inform the committee that its rights and powers include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. Uphold the Director’s ruling.
b. Cancel the Director’s ruling and make any adjustment the committee believes will constitute an equitable solution.
The adjustment may be:
1. Assignment of an Adjusted Total Point Score
The committee may attempt to estimate what final contract would have been played had the infraction in question not occurred and to calculate the probable result that would have been achieved. It may then order the board scored as though that result was actually attained at the table.
2. Award of an Adjusted Score
The committee may adjust the matchpoint score received by either side or both sides.
3. Cancel Results
The committee may cancel the result on the board in ques- tion and award an average, average plus or average minus score to either or both sides.
NOTE: Please note that, while the scores need not balance, except for rare instances, such as the Director having made an error in Law, the total matchpoints should not exceed top on a board.
4. Award Overall Percentages Scores —
The committee may award one or both sides their overall percentage score in the session on the board in question (in effect not permitting the board to affect the disputants’ scores one way or another).

Item 4, in red, bothers me. I can find no basis in law for this assertion. Comments?

[VixTD]

I think it's not legal. If the result obtained is cancelled, the TD must either assign a score or give 60%, 50% or 40% of the matchpoints (or IMP or other equivalents) if no score can be obtained (law 12C).

[jallerton]

I think this may now be legal, because the 2007 Laws added:

Quote

Law12C. Awarding an Adjusted Score
1. (d) If the possibilities are numerous or not obvious, the Director may award an artificial adjusted score.

This doesn't give any indication as to how the artificial adjusted score has to be calculated!

[blackshoe]

You've got to be kidding.

Quote

Law 12C2: {a} When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained (and see C1(d) above), the Director awards an artificial adjusted score according to responsibility for the irregularity: average minus (at most 40% of the available matchpoints in pairs) to a contestant directly at fault, average (50% in pairs) to a contestant only partly at fault, and average plus (at least 60% in pairs) to a contestant in no way at fault.
{b} When the Director awards an artificial adjusted score of average plus or minus at international matchpoints, that score is normally plus or minus 3 IMPs, but this may be varied as Law 86A allows.
{c} The foregoing is modified for a non-offending contestant who obtains a session score exceeding 60% of the available matchpoints or for an offending contestant who obtains a session score that is less than 40% of the available matchpoints (or the equivalent in IMPs). Such contestants are awarded the percentage obtained (or the equivalent in IMPs) on the other boards of that session.*

* In ACBL sanctioned events, when there is a non-offending and an offending contestant, the non-offending contestant receives the score specified by 12C2{c} above. Their opponents shall receive the difference between that score and 100%, regardless of their score on the other boards of that session. For example, if the non-offending contestant receives 64% on the adjusted deal, the offending contestant receives 36%.

The footnote does not appear in the WBF version of the laws.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2013-June-15, 12:41, said:

You've got to be kidding.


The footnote does not appear in the WBF version of the laws.

And thanks God for that! The ACBL footnote is completely unreasonable.

Example: A contestant at fault who has a session average of 25% will under ACBL rules still be awarded 40% artificial score if their opponents has less than 60% session average. (WBF dictates 25% artificial score in this case regardless of opponents' session average.)

[blackshoe]

Of course. But that has nothing to do with whether you can use "not played" in a 12C1{d} situation.

[jallerton]

Quote

Law 12C2: {a} When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained (and see C1(d) above), the Director awards an artificial adjusted score according to responsibility for the irregularity: average minus (at most 40% of the available matchpoints in pairs) to a contestant directly at fault, average (50% in pairs) to a contestant only partly at fault, and average plus (at least 60% in pairs) to a contestant in no way at fault.

I don't understand the "(and see C1(d) above)" part. 12C2 says it applies "where no result can be obtaned" whereas 12C1(d) only applies where a result already has been obtained but it's not at all clear what the score should be adjusted to.

Maybe it's intended to mean:

"When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained, or if the Director applies C1(d) above, the Director awards an artificial adjusted score according to responsibility for the irregularity....."

but the actual wording doesn't say that!

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2013-June-15, 15:22, said:

Of course. But that has nothing to do with whether you can use "not played" in a 12C1{d} situation.

Quite true.
And I addressed the ACBL footnote, not Law 12.

As for the use of "not played", I have only met that option with Bridgemate where the intention is to allow late plays without creating havoc in the scoring program.

However, we use barometer in (practically) all our events and late play is never an option here. Artificial scores are assigned (and entered on the Bridgemate) when a board cannot be played as scheduled.

[pran]

jallerton, on 2013-June-15, 15:52, said:

I don't understand the "(and see C1(d) above)" part. 12C2 says it applies "where no result can be obtaned" whereas 12C1(d) only applies where a result already has been obtained but it's not at all clear what the score should be adjusted to.

Maybe it's intended to mean:

"When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained, or if the Director applies C1(d) above, the Director awards an artificial adjusted score according to responsibility for the irregularity....."

but the actual wording doesn't say that!

The way I read 12C2 is that artificial adjusted scores shall be assigned when no result can be obtained including the situations when the possibilities are numerous or not obvious

That makes the clause [and see C1(d)] meaningful.

[blackshoe]

I agree with Sven's reading.