Help
Yesterday at my club game the pairs at one table started out playing the wrong set of 4 boards: they had deal 1-4 where they should be playing 9-12.
When they had finished playing board 1 they found out about their error (because the Bridgemate refused to accept the score for hand 1).
They informed me about their error and continued playing the correct set of boards.
Since they both hadn't played board 1 yet, I ended up assigning both pairs Ave-, and Ave+ to both their opponents who were now unable to play the board against them.
What I am wondering is, is this: since the two pairs actually reached a result on the board, should I be scoring the board as played for the both of them (with the score achieved), even though they shouldn't have been playing this board against each other?
Wrong board played at a table
#1
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 50
- Joined: 2006-February-15
- Gender:Male
- Location:Haarlem, The Netherlands
Posted 2014-January-22, 05:40
Frans Buijsen
Haarlem, The Netherlands
Haarlem, The Netherlands
#2
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 4,485
- Joined: 2009-July-14
- Gender:Male
- Location:London
Posted 2014-January-22, 06:08
fbuijsen, on 2014-January-22, 05:40, said:
Yesterday at my club game the pairs at one table started out playing the wrong set of 4 boards: they had deal 1-4 where they should be playing 9-12.
When they had finished playing board 1 they found out about their error (because the Bridgemate refused to accept the score for hand 1).
They informed me about their error and continued playing the correct set of boards.
Since they both hadn't played board 1 yet, I ended up assigning both pairs Ave-, and Ave+ to both their opponents who were now unable to play the board against them.
What I am wondering is, is this: since the two pairs actually reached a result on the board, should I be scoring the board as played for the both of them (with the score achieved), even though they shouldn't have been playing this board against each other?
When they had finished playing board 1 they found out about their error (because the Bridgemate refused to accept the score for hand 1).
They informed me about their error and continued playing the correct set of boards.
Since they both hadn't played board 1 yet, I ended up assigning both pairs Ave-, and Ave+ to both their opponents who were now unable to play the board against them.
What I am wondering is, is this: since the two pairs actually reached a result on the board, should I be scoring the board as played for the both of them (with the score achieved), even though they shouldn't have been playing this board against each other?
Yes - L15A1
Gordon Rainsford
London UK
London UK
#3
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 218
- Joined: 2006-February-05
- Gender:Male
- Location:Chevy Chase, MD, USA
Posted 2014-January-22, 06:33
If time allows and the pairs to whom you gave A+ are able, you may also consider having them play the board against each other to achieve a real result instead. You shouldn't force them to if it would cause them to be unreasonably late, but in my experience most pairs who have been deprived a board in this way would rather play it than take an A+ if it is possible to do so.
The practicalities vary depending on whether both offending pairs are scheduled to play that board later on (as seems to be the case in the OP, since there were two opponent pairs to whom you gave A+), and whether in the scheduled play, the offending pairs were due to sit opposite each other or in the same direction (as could happen in a Howell or arrow-switched Mitchell). However, most scoring programs will allow you to make the necessary manual edits to the schedule of boards on the fly. If you get lucky, with both pairs scheduled to play the board sitting the same way that they sat when playing it against each other, you can shortcut the process by manually assigning asymmetric results. For example, if the board was scheduled to be played by A vs X and B vs Y, but was actually played by A vs Y, enter scores of (Table-result)/Ave+ for A vs X and Ave+/(Table-result) for B vs Y. If you can fit in a play by B vs X, you can enter the score as (AY Table-result)/(BX Table-result) for A vs X and (BX Table-result)/(AY Table-result) for B vs Y. Whether this is easier than editing the movement depends on your scoring program; it is the way I use with ACBLscore whenever possible.
The practicalities vary depending on whether both offending pairs are scheduled to play that board later on (as seems to be the case in the OP, since there were two opponent pairs to whom you gave A+), and whether in the scheduled play, the offending pairs were due to sit opposite each other or in the same direction (as could happen in a Howell or arrow-switched Mitchell). However, most scoring programs will allow you to make the necessary manual edits to the schedule of boards on the fly. If you get lucky, with both pairs scheduled to play the board sitting the same way that they sat when playing it against each other, you can shortcut the process by manually assigning asymmetric results. For example, if the board was scheduled to be played by A vs X and B vs Y, but was actually played by A vs Y, enter scores of (Table-result)/Ave+ for A vs X and Ave+/(Table-result) for B vs Y. If you can fit in a play by B vs X, you can enter the score as (AY Table-result)/(BX Table-result) for A vs X and (BX Table-result)/(AY Table-result) for B vs Y. Whether this is easier than editing the movement depends on your scoring program; it is the way I use with ACBLscore whenever possible.
#4
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 5,344
- Joined: 2009-September-14
- Location:Ski, Norway
Posted 2014-January-22, 09:01
chrism, on 2014-January-22, 06:33, said:
If time allows and the pairs to whom you gave A+ are able, you may also consider having them play the board against each other to achieve a real result instead. You shouldn't force them to if it would cause them to be unreasonably late, but in my experience most pairs who have been deprived a board in this way would rather play it than take an A+ if it is possible to do so.
The practicalities vary depending on whether both offending pairs are scheduled to play that board later on (as seems to be the case in the OP, since there were two opponent pairs to whom you gave A+), and whether in the scheduled play, the offending pairs were due to sit opposite each other or in the same direction (as could happen in a Howell or arrow-switched Mitchell). However, most scoring programs will allow you to make the necessary manual edits to the schedule of boards on the fly. If you get lucky, with both pairs scheduled to play the board sitting the same way that they sat when playing it against each other, you can shortcut the process by manually assigning asymmetric results. For example, if the board was scheduled to be played by A vs X and B vs Y, but was actually played by A vs Y, enter scores of (Table-result)/Ave+ for A vs X and Ave+/(Table-result) for B vs Y. If you can fit in a play by B vs X, you can enter the score as (AY Table-result)/(BX Table-result) for A vs X and (BX Table-result)/(AY Table-result) for B vs Y. Whether this is easier than editing the movement depends on your scoring program; it is the way I use with ACBLscore whenever possible.
The practicalities vary depending on whether both offending pairs are scheduled to play that board later on (as seems to be the case in the OP, since there were two opponent pairs to whom you gave A+), and whether in the scheduled play, the offending pairs were due to sit opposite each other or in the same direction (as could happen in a Howell or arrow-switched Mitchell). However, most scoring programs will allow you to make the necessary manual edits to the schedule of boards on the fly. If you get lucky, with both pairs scheduled to play the board sitting the same way that they sat when playing it against each other, you can shortcut the process by manually assigning asymmetric results. For example, if the board was scheduled to be played by A vs X and B vs Y, but was actually played by A vs Y, enter scores of (Table-result)/Ave+ for A vs X and Ave+/(Table-result) for B vs Y. If you can fit in a play by B vs X, you can enter the score as (AY Table-result)/(BX Table-result) for A vs X and (BX Table-result)/(AY Table-result) for B vs Y. Whether this is easier than editing the movement depends on your scoring program; it is the way I use with ACBLscore whenever possible.
As far as I know a pair that receives an artificial adjusted score on a board because they have previously completed an auction on this board against incorrect opponents may never (legally) be given the opportunity to receive a real result on this board against the correct opponents later in the event.
Situations like this can easily be avoided if the players make a routine of always entering the board number on the bridgemate before removing any cards from the board!
#5
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,627
- Joined: 2009-November-30
- Location:Oxfordshire, England
Posted 2014-January-22, 09:36
pran, on 2014-January-22, 09:01, said:
As far as I know a pair that receives an artificial adjusted score on a board because they have previously completed an auction on this board against incorrect opponents may never (legally) be given the opportunity to receive a real result on this board against the correct opponents later in the event.
I think you have misunderstood. Chrism is postulating a situation in which a pair who would otherwise receive an artificial adjusted score because THEIR OPPONENTS have previously completed the board against incorrect opponents may be given an opportunity to receive a real score on the board against other opponents.
#6
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,619
- Joined: 2006-April-17
- Gender:Male
- Location:Rochester, NY
Posted 2014-January-22, 09:58
A and B incorrectly play board N. A was scheduled to play N vs. C, and B was scheduled to play N vs. D. The law says C and D get Avg+ on board N. Chris is suggesting allowing C and D to play the board against each other, and recording the table result. Not legal, of course, but if you don't care about that…
In the very unlikely event I were going to do this, I would be sure to explain to both C and D that they are both entitled to 60% of a top, and that if they play it, at least one of them will get a worse (perhaps much worse) score than that. If either pair then declines, it won't get played - at least not for the record.
In the very unlikely event I were going to do this, I would be sure to explain to both C and D that they are both entitled to 60% of a top, and that if they play it, at least one of them will get a worse (perhaps much worse) score than that. If either pair then declines, it won't get played - at least not for the record.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#7
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 10,611
- Joined: 2009-September-15
- Gender:Female
- Location:London
Posted 2014-January-22, 11:12
blackshoe, on 2014-January-22, 09:58, said:
A and B incorrectly play board N. A was scheduled to play N vs. C, and B was scheduled to play N vs. D. The law says C and D get Avg+ on board N. Chris is suggesting allowing C and D to play the board against each other, and recording the table result. Not legal, of course, but if you don't care about that…
In the very unlikely event I were going to do this, I would be sure to explain to both C and D that they are both entitled to 60% of a top, and that if they play it, at least one of them will get a worse (perhaps much worse) score than that. If either pair then declines, it won't get played - at least not for the record.
In the very unlikely event I were going to do this, I would be sure to explain to both C and D that they are both entitled to 60% of a top, and that if they play it, at least one of them will get a worse (perhaps much worse) score than that. If either pair then declines, it won't get played - at least not for the record.
Well, if you weren't concerned about the legality, then you could let them play it to see if one side scored more than 60%, and give the other pair their 60%.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
#8
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 642
- Joined: 2007-October-30
- Gender:Male
- Location:Redmond, WA
Posted 2014-January-22, 14:12
blackshoe, on 2014-January-22, 09:58, said:
Not legal, of course, but if you don't care about that…
Sure it is. The director is in charge of the movement, and so can change it.
#9
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 218
- Joined: 2006-February-05
- Gender:Male
- Location:Chevy Chase, MD, USA
Posted 2014-January-22, 14:23
I don't think my suggestion is as clearly illegal as Ed suggests. "Scheduled" does not necessarily mean "according to a schedule that was set in stone prior to the start of round 1"; if it did then many of the on-the-fly fixes for movement problems would be illegal. Examples: after a forgotten skip in a Mitchell, skipping the boards an extra table; use of a substitute board when a pair inadvertently gets a wire in a BAM; adding a bump for a pair arriving late, and an appendix table when a second pair arrives later ...
So I would argue that it is in the director's powers to reschedule boards while play is in progress under some circumstances, and I see nothing that would make this case a specific exception.
If the non-offending pairs are indeed unable to play the board against each other, then of course they should get Average+ (which may be more than 60% if they are having a good game, 12C2{c}), but in my experience most pairs would still rather play bridge if they can. I do explain that they have a choice, and that they are foregoing a guaranteed Average+ by choosing to play.
So I would argue that it is in the director's powers to reschedule boards while play is in progress under some circumstances, and I see nothing that would make this case a specific exception.
If the non-offending pairs are indeed unable to play the board against each other, then of course they should get Average+ (which may be more than 60% if they are having a good game, 12C2{c}), but in my experience most pairs would still rather play bridge if they can. I do explain that they have a choice, and that they are foregoing a guaranteed Average+ by choosing to play.
#10
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,436
- Joined: 2007-October-15
Posted 2014-January-22, 14:35
blackshoe, on 2014-January-22, 09:58, said:
In the very unlikely event I were going to do this, I would be sure to explain to both C and D that they are both entitled to 60% of a top, and that if they play it, at least one of them will get a worse (perhaps much worse) score than that. If either pair then declines, it won't get played - at least not for the record.
gordontd's answer as usual is correct. 15A2 also states: The Director may require both pairs to play the correct board against one another later. So, it seems that the Director can endeavour to get boards played. I don't think they have an "entitlement" to 60% when a fairer outcome is possible.
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar
#11
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,619
- Joined: 2006-April-17
- Gender:Male
- Location:Rochester, NY
Posted 2014-January-22, 15:29
lamford, on 2014-January-22, 14:35, said:
gordontd's answer as usual is correct. 15A2 also states: The Director may require both pairs to play the correct board against one another later. So, it seems that the Director can endeavour to get boards played. I don't think they have an "entitlement" to 60% when a fairer outcome is possible.
It's not a matter of entitlement, it's a question of what the laws tell the TD to do. Aside from that, I don't see how a table result is "fairer" than a result mandated by law. "Fair," after all, means "in accordance with the rules".
jeffford76, on 2014-January-22, 14:12, said:
Sure it is. The director is in charge of the movement, and so can change it.
Hm. He has the power, certainly. I'm not sure this change is necessarily the right thing to do, within the constraints of the law. "the Director shall award an artificial adjusted score to the contestants deprived of the opportunity to earn a valid score" seems pretty clear. Okay, you are arguing that they need not be deprived of that opportunity. Maybe, but I'm not convinced.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#12
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,347
- Joined: 2009-July-21
Posted 2014-January-22, 17:04
blackshoe, on 2014-January-22, 15:29, said:
Hm. He has the power, certainly. I'm not sure this change is necessarily the right thing to do, within the constraints of the law. "the Director shall award an artificial adjusted score to the contestants deprived of the opportunity to earn a valid score" seems pretty clear. Okay, you are arguing that they need not be deprived of that opportunity. Maybe, but I'm not convinced.
The bit you quote is perfectly clear, but it comes from law 15B, which doesn't apply here. It comes into play when a pair plays the same board twice, so their second opponents can no longer get a score on it at all.
#13
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 5,344
- Joined: 2009-September-14
- Location:Ski, Norway
Posted 2014-January-22, 17:04
pran, on 2014-January-22, 09:01, said:
As far as I know a pair that receives an artificial adjusted score on a board because they have previously completed an auction on this board against incorrect opponents may never (legally) be given the opportunity to receive a real result on this board against the correct opponents later in the event.
WellSpyder, on 2014-January-22, 09:36, said:
I think you have misunderstood. Chrism is postulating a situation in which a pair who would otherwise receive an artificial adjusted score because THEIR OPPONENTS have previously completed the board against incorrect opponents may be given an opportunity to receive a real score on the board against other opponents.
Apparently yes.
blackshoe, on 2014-January-22, 09:58, said:
A and B incorrectly play board N. A was scheduled to play N vs. C, and B was scheduled to play N vs. D. The law says C and D get Avg+ on board N. Chris is suggesting allowing C and D to play the board against each other, and recording the table result. Not legal, of course, but if you don't care about that…
In the very unlikely event I were going to do this, I would be sure to explain to both C and D that they are both entitled to 60% of a top, and that if they play it, at least one of them will get a worse (perhaps much worse) score than that. If either pair then declines, it won't get played - at least not for the record.
In the very unlikely event I were going to do this, I would be sure to explain to both C and D that they are both entitled to 60% of a top, and that if they play it, at least one of them will get a worse (perhaps much worse) score than that. If either pair then declines, it won't get played - at least not for the record.
IMO this is perfectly legal, I know of no Law that prevents the director from rearranging the schedule for cause, in fact I have often done it this way (have the board played by C vs D) and neither C nor D has any "right" to Ave+ instead of the actual result they make on the Board this way.
#14
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 5,344
- Joined: 2009-September-14
- Location:Ski, Norway
Posted 2014-January-22, 17:09
chrism, on 2014-January-22, 14:23, said:
I don't think my suggestion is as clearly illegal as Ed suggests. "Scheduled" does not necessarily mean "according to a schedule that was set in stone prior to the start of round 1"; if it did then many of the on-the-fly fixes for movement problems would be illegal. Examples: after a forgotten skip in a Mitchell, skipping the boards an extra table; use of a substitute board when a pair inadvertently gets a wire in a BAM; adding a bump for a pair arriving late, and an appendix table when a second pair arrives later ...
So I would argue that it is in the director's powers to reschedule boards while play is in progress under some circumstances, and I see nothing that would make this case a specific exception.
If the non-offending pairs are indeed unable to play the board against each other, then of course they should get Average+ (which may be more than 60% if they are having a good game, 12C2{c}), but in my experience most pairs would still rather play bridge if they can. I do explain that they have a choice, and that they are foregoing a guaranteed Average+ by choosing to play.
So I would argue that it is in the director's powers to reschedule boards while play is in progress under some circumstances, and I see nothing that would make this case a specific exception.
If the non-offending pairs are indeed unable to play the board against each other, then of course they should get Average+ (which may be more than 60% if they are having a good game, 12C2{c}), but in my experience most pairs would still rather play bridge if they can. I do explain that they have a choice, and that they are foregoing a guaranteed Average+ by choosing to play.
They have no choice to refuse the director's instruction to play the board between them when this is possible without delaying the event.
#15
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 5,344
- Joined: 2009-September-14
- Location:Ski, Norway
Posted 2014-January-22, 17:11
blackshoe, on 2014-January-22, 15:29, said:
It's not a matter of entitlement, it's a question of what the laws tell the TD to do. Aside from that, I don't see how a table result is "fairer" than a result mandated by law. "Fair," after all, means "in accordance with the rules".
Hm. He has the power, certainly. I'm not sure this change is necessarily the right thing to do, within the constraints of the law. "the Director shall award an artificial adjusted score to the contestants deprived of the opportunity to earn a valid score" seems pretty clear. Okay, you are arguing that they need not be deprived of that opportunity. Maybe, but I'm not convinced.
Hm. He has the power, certainly. I'm not sure this change is necessarily the right thing to do, within the constraints of the law. "the Director shall award an artificial adjusted score to the contestants deprived of the opportunity to earn a valid score" seems pretty clear. Okay, you are arguing that they need not be deprived of that opportunity. Maybe, but I'm not convinced.
the contestants are not "deprived of the opportunity to earn a valid score" when this score can be earned by playing against a substitute.
#16
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 50
- Joined: 2006-February-15
- Gender:Male
- Location:Haarlem, The Netherlands
Posted 2014-January-23, 05:45
gordontd, on 2014-January-22, 06:08, said:
Yes - L15A1
Apart from the rest of the discussion, this is indeed clearcut. I will be re-scoring the board so that the 2 pairs that played it get their actual score.
This will need some wrangling, since both pairs were supposed to be seated NS on the board, but I think I know how to get the NBB-Rekenprogramma program to change this.
Frans Buijsen
Haarlem, The Netherlands
Haarlem, The Netherlands
#17
- Secretary Bird
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 7,187
- Joined: 2003-July-12
- Gender:Male
- Location:Calgary, D18; Chapala, D16
Posted 2014-January-23, 11:29
I would, at the game, have designated boards 1-4 as "9-12" in the movement and vice versa. Warned everybody that was going to happen, tried to keep an eye on it when it happened, fixed the movement in the scoring program and (if not automatic) the Bridgemate server, and gone on from there.
Just replacing board set C with Board set A.
Of course this only works if it was the first round (these boards have been played). Yes, I've misboarded 4-table howells before. How can you tell?
Otherwise yeah, A+ to the opponents who don't get to play it, board scored as played for the pair that played it, A-/A- on any board they don't get to play out of 9-12, try to get them to play it. If possible, instead of the A+'es, see if I can get the pairs to play board 1 against each other (it can't be too much worse hacking the movement than the first one!)
Just replacing board set C with Board set A.
Of course this only works if it was the first round (these boards have been played). Yes, I've misboarded 4-table howells before. How can you tell?
Otherwise yeah, A+ to the opponents who don't get to play it, board scored as played for the pair that played it, A-/A- on any board they don't get to play out of 9-12, try to get them to play it. If possible, instead of the A+'es, see if I can get the pairs to play board 1 against each other (it can't be too much worse hacking the movement than the first one!)
When I go to sea, don't fear for me, Fear For The Storm -- Birdie and the Swansong (tSCoSI)
#18
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 50
- Joined: 2006-February-15
- Gender:Male
- Location:Haarlem, The Netherlands
Posted 2014-January-25, 17:33
mycroft, on 2014-January-23, 11:29, said:
I would, at the game, have designated boards 1-4 as "9-12" in the movement and vice versa. Warned everybody that was going to happen, tried to keep an eye on it when it happened, fixed the movement in the scoring program and (if not automatic) the Bridgemate server, and gone on from there.
Just replacing board set C with Board set A.
Of course this only works if it was the first round (these boards have been played). Yes, I've misboarded 4-table howells before. How can you tell?
Otherwise yeah, A+ to the opponents who don't get to play it, board scored as played for the pair that played it, A-/A- on any board they don't get to play out of 9-12, try to get them to play it. If possible, instead of the A+'es, see if I can get the pairs to play board 1 against each other (it can't be too much worse hacking the movement than the first one!)
Just replacing board set C with Board set A.
Of course this only works if it was the first round (these boards have been played). Yes, I've misboarded 4-table howells before. How can you tell?
Otherwise yeah, A+ to the opponents who don't get to play it, board scored as played for the pair that played it, A-/A- on any board they don't get to play out of 9-12, try to get them to play it. If possible, instead of the A+'es, see if I can get the pairs to play board 1 against each other (it can't be too much worse hacking the movement than the first one!)
This was the 3rd round or so of 6, so moving the boards around was no option (never mind that the program I use has no good provisioning for it -- it did have one for moving pairs on just one board).
In The Netherlands we nearly always play Scheveningen (a Howell, but the board stay at the same table rather than NS). Since we had fewer than 6 tables for a 6x4 session, boards also had to be moved here.
Sven Pran is right -- people should check their bridgemate before playing, but sometimes they don't, evne when they've been warned beforehand, and north was a super experienced tournament director. Its just easy to go wrong, is my conclusion.
Frans Buijsen
Haarlem, The Netherlands
Haarlem, The Netherlands
#19
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 10,667
- Joined: 2006-May-18
- Gender:Not Telling
Posted 2014-February-26, 08:11
Here's an extreme example of why it might be extremely unfair to reschedule the board between the 2 NOPs. Let us say that one of those pairs (A) consists of the club experts who routinely score 70%; the other (B) is an average pair who were due to play the board against the weakest pair © in the event who average 30%. Before the fouling the expected scores would be something like A 70, B 70, C 30, D 30. After C and D play the wrong board the new expectation changes to A 60, B 60, C 30, D 70. If A and B subsequently play the hand we get A 70, B 30, C 30, D 70. The point here is that whenever one or more of the 4 pairs involved is much stronger or weaker than the others it has the potential to have a serious impact on the results. In some cases this might make it advantageous to "accidentally" pick up the wrong set of boards.
(-: Zel :-)
#20
- Group: Admin
- Posts: 21,470
- Joined: 2004-August-21
- Gender:Male
Posted 2014-February-26, 16:21
There's always an element of randomness in who plays which boards against whom, and sometimes it can be advantageous to one pair, or it could be advantageous to the other. Since it can go either way, and there's no way for the offender to know ahead of time or influence it one way or the other, I don't see how it's unfair. It's just as random as the original assignment of boards to opponents.