[jillybean]

Another day at the bridge club, we start the session today with boards 1 & 2

After playing board#1 the cards are taken out of board#2 and we discover the same hand (1) has been duplicated in board#2
The director is called and we are told this board will be skipped, we are given the hand record to recreate the correct board#2.

When I query the director suggesting that we should both be given Avg+, I am told that they don't do this here. I know better than to question a playing director further and have learned that it's better to follow up with an email later.

I can't find specific mention of this situation in the Laws, it does not come under Law87 Fouled Board. Law12 gives the Director the power to award an artificial score if "no rectification can be made", and the non offending side shall be awarded Avg+.

It seems that both pairs should have received Avg+, can someone please clarify which laws and ruling should apply here?

Thank you,

[pran]

jillybean, on 2021-April-19, 02:05, said:

Another day at the bridge club, we start the session today with boards 1 & 2

After playing board#1 the cards are taken out of board#2 and we discover the same hand (1) has been duplicated in board#2
The director is called and we are told this board will be skipped, we are given the hand record to recreate the correct board#2.

When I query the director suggesting that we should both be given Avg+, I am told that they don't do this here. I know better than to question a playing director further and have learned that it's better to follow up with an email later.

I can't find specific mention of this situation in the Laws, it does not come under Law87 Fouled Board. Law12 gives the Director the power to award an artificial score if "no rectification can be made", and the non offending side shall be awarded Avg+.

It seems that both pairs should have received Avg+, can someone please clarify which laws and ruling should apply here?

Thank you,

'They' should know better

Law12C2a said:

When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained [see also C1(d)] 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.

(My enhancement)

[jillybean]

Thanks. I think the Director should have taken the board away, corrected it and returned it for us to play but failing that, awarded Avg+.
For my benefit, under what circumstances would a Director change a board to 'not played', as was the case here?

[mycroft]

Depends on the regulations.

ACBL frequently does this for boards not played due to time (which I am not the biggest fan of).

Clear case for assigning "Not played" - we've set up a 4-table Howell to run 28 boards. But we know the players in this game are slow, and the other games going on at the same time are 26 or 27 boards. But it's 6 changes instead of 8 or 12, so maybe that will help...Set the game for 28. If they won't get them all in without waiting 20 minutes after everyone else, pull two boards from each set for round 7, and mark them "Not Played"; if they play to time, then they get all four.

Similar force majeure issues apply to other cases (all of which I've seen, or at least been around for the aftermath):

• fire alarm caused a 30 minute delay (In November. In Calgary. In -30.)
  
• power outage
  
• medical emergency (Took about 20 minutes to deal with all the hassle, so they just killed the last round.)

[jillybean]

mycroft, on 2021-April-19, 12:20, said:

medical emergency (Took about 20 minutes to deal with all the hassle, so they just killed the last round.)

I'm glad it was just the round that was "killed".

[blackshoe]

mycroft, on 2021-April-19, 12:20, said:

Depends on the regulations.

ACBL frequently does this for boards not played due to time (which I am not the biggest fan of).

Clear case for assigning "Not played" - we've set up a 4-table Howell to run 28 boards. But we know the players in this game are slow, and the other games going on at the same time are 26 or 27 boards. But it's 6 changes instead of 8 or 12, so maybe that will help...Set the game for 28. If they won't get them all in without waiting 20 minutes after everyone else, pull two boards from each set for round 7, and mark them "Not Played"; if they play to time, then they get all four.

Similar force majeure issues apply to other cases (all of which I've seen, or at least been around for the aftermath):

• fire alarm caused a 30 minute delay (In November. In Calgary. In -30.)
  
• power outage
  
• medical emergency (Took about 20 minutes to deal with all the hassle, so they just killed the last round.)

Off the top of my head, I think if you're going to cancel the last two boards of a round due to time constraints, you should cancel those boards for everybody, not just some of the field.

[blackshoe]

jillybean, on 2021-April-19, 11:26, said:

Thanks. I think the Director should have taken the board away, corrected it and returned it for us to play but failing that, awarded Avg+.
For my benefit, under what circumstances would a Director change a board to 'not played', as was the case here?

A playing director has to choose between taking time out from his play to correct the problem, or doing what he did. If he corrects the board himself, he may not be able to play all the boards he's supposed to play at his table, and then he's got more score adjustments to make. If he does what he did (the part about instructing your table to correct board 2), then he should award both pairs at your table average plus. That's the law, as Sven points out.

As playing director, I would have asked you to correct the board, and given both pairs average plus. The other just complicates things unnecessarily.

As Mycroft points out "not played" is appropriate when the last round, or the last n boards in the last round, are cancelled. Everybody gets "not played". I can't think of a situation where it would be appropriate to give one or two tables "not played" on a board that everybody else played.

[paulg]

The EBU White Book has the following information on the subject:

Quote

8.12.9 'Not played'

Computer software usually has a possibility of inputting 'not played' for a table on a specific board. Some TDs or scorers use this when a table loses a board for slow play, late arrival or other similar reasons but this is illegal. At such a time the TD should decide whether to give AVE+, AVE or AVE− to each side as is required by Law 12C2 (a).

'Not played' should only be used when a board is not played as part of the general movement. Suppose the TD sets the computer up to play nine three board rounds, but because the evening is slow decides to stop after eight rounds. The TD should now enter 'not played' for all the scores for round nine that the computer is expecting.

Suppose a movement is set up for nine tables, but there are only eight and a half. When a pair sits out 'not played' is entered because this is part of the movement. In this case, it is usually possible to get the half table into the movement in the scoring program, so the Bridgemates will not expect anything to be entered.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2021-April-19, 16:47, said:

I can't think of a situation where it would be appropriate to give one or two tables "not played" on a board that everybody else played.

Say that an innocent pair has to skip three or more boards due to the fault of another pair?
Even our F2F regulations allow them 60% only for the first two such boards, for the remainder they get 'not played'.
It seems appropriate and in line with 12C2d.

[blackshoe]

pescetom, on 2021-April-20, 06:33, said:

Say that an innocent pair has to skip three or more boards due to the fault of another pair?
Even our F2F regulations allow them 60% only for the first two such boards, for the remainder they get 'not played'.
It seems appropriate and in line with 12C2d.

I don't agree. The thing is, "not played" doesn't vary the score, it assigns no score, because it's "this board is no longer in the schedule of boards to be played". I think 12C2d means that you can assign some artificial score that isn't 40, 50, or 60% of a top or ±3 imps. But I'm not in charge, and if your RA has a regulation, then TDs in that jurisdiction should follow it. I suppose someone could contest it. Outside the ACBL, it would require a determination by the WBFLC to determine the legality of such a regulation. Inside the ACBL it would be the ACBLLC, though the ACBL has no such regulation, as far as I'm aware.

[jillybean]

2 Adjusted. MP 0.0 Percentage %

For clarification, this is the entry on our results page for the board. I assume this is how a 'skipped' board would appear.

[blackshoe]

You should probably show your director this thread. :-)

[jillybean]

blackshoe, on 2021-April-20, 15:40, said:

You should probably show your director this thread. :-)

I can't take that route, the "directors" are unpaid, playing volunteers, doing the best they can.
My hope is that I will convince the committee to look at hiring a qualified, non playing director for their 20+ table games.

[blackshoe]

Treat it as a teaching moment. Unless you're pretty sure this director doesn't want to learn, this should be acceptable. Would if it were me, anyway. I do understand, though, and good luck (I mean that) getting the committee to hiring a non-playing director for big games.

[mycroft]

When I direct at the Méxican club (same style, and paying is ... a legal issue), I said "I'd run one of the big games, if you would like, and not play (except as a last spare, if necessary); may I have one regular game for free in exchange?" The club was happy for that, and I think the players prefer me having 100% attention to the game rather than 40% to the game and 50% to partner. If that is something that might fly with the club and the directors (and the directors' partners)...

[jillybean]

mycroft, on 2021-April-20, 19:03, said:

When I direct at the Méxican club (same style, and paying is ... a legal issue), I said "I'd run one of the big games, if you would like, and not play (except as a last spare, if necessary); may I have one regular game for free in exchange?" The club was happy for that, and I think the players prefer me having 100% attention to the game rather than 40% to the game and 50% to partner. If that is something that might fly with the club and the directors (and the directors' partners)...

What a great solution. Unfortunately, the games here are only $3(NZ) (US$2.15), so there would not be much incentive. Not all clubs charge $3, at some $5 is standard.
I have mentioned raising the table fee to $5 and giving the director a decent payment.

[jillybean]

blackshoe, on 2021-April-20, 16:45, said:

Treat it as a teaching moment. Unless you're pretty sure this director doesn't want to learn, this should be acceptable. Would if it were me, anyway. I do understand, though, and good luck (I mean that) getting the committee to hiring a non-playing director for big games.

The Directors are too busy to learn, they are playing their hands, sorting hands for the guy at the next table and attending to Director Calls at 20+ tables. At times I have suggested that they check the Law Book after the game. My guess is that these unpaid volunteers, who work hard for the club, are more interested in relaxing and having a good glass of wine than reading through the Laws.
I'll keep chipping away at the Committee.

[mycroft]

The standard argument for that is "Well, why not you?"

Frankly for 90% of directors, including many of the best, that's what happened. Wasn't for me, but I'm weird (and not one of the best, because I had another Life I also enjoyed as much).

The thing was that even at that club, there were 5 games a week (now 6). I could take one day off to direct, my partner could find another partner for that day, and I got my "free game" and still got to play as much bridge as I wanted (Note: for me, directing, in a weird way, *is* bridge. Some of the "puzzle-solving" and "get the right answer" bennies I get from playing I also get from directing). If it's only two, and basically the directors do one game every two weeks, the price of one game off is much higher. And money doesn't really help that.

I have noticed that when I came in and did things more technically correct, and gave more nuanced and considered rulings, than were common, some of the other directors came to me and asked about it, and how it works, and were interested in getting it more right themselves, because they could see the advantage. Some of the players noticed that my games ran to time better than some playing directors, and made it known that for them that was a benefit. But also, some of the things I did technically right were only noticed by me and only appreciated by me, and some of them were actively disliked (especially by the pair that had to bring boards in to the back half of the Web). Many prefer what they know, and as a director, I have to cater to them as well.

You have to remember that the job of a director, especially a club director, is primarily a service job, and only tertiary at best technical. That doesn't mean we shouldn't get the rulings right, but player retention (and coffee preparation, but I repeat myself) is paramount. If you have the choice between someone whose games are technically perfect, with absolutely correct rulings, but would rather be doing something else (including playing), and someone who calls people, and finds them partners that might actually work, and is nice to the players, and doesn't have the game drag *too much* or the rulings being *too clearly wrong*, I can tell you which club will still be running 3 years from now.

Yes, that's hard on the serious players and the serious law students. That's what tournaments are for. A potential 10% on one board of 25, that was screwed up and got an 80% solution, in one club game, in terms of life, really isn't that big a deal. I guarantee you I've accepted much worse rulings in clubs - even clubs where I direct, sometimes especially in clubs where I direct - and will again.

If you need Matt Smith-level rulings at your club to be willing to play, well, even Matt Smith doesn't provide them any more. 90% right, 90% of the time, is about the best you can hope for in a club.

[mycroft]

For no reason at all, I pull this quote from the Monastery FAQ (about another job with distinct similarities to directing. Ask me why I know this):

Quote

It starts when you're given a machine on your desk which crashes every five minutes, and you know how to make it crash only once every five days. You get given the root/administrator password. You end up fixing someone else's machine too. As word gets out, you have more and more people calling on you for basic computer administration assistance every week. Eventually you get told that your sysadmin work is more important than what you were doing before. Since you seem to be the only person in your company who is doing any work, you have to agree.

After a while, you quit and go to work for somewhere else, where you're promised you won't have to be a sysadmin.

But the machine on your desk crashes every five minutes...

[jillybean]

Thanks for the reply.

"Well, why not you" - I'm not a Director.

Let's be clear, I am not talking Matt Smith MI/UI/BIT level directing. I think it is important that clubs, where possible, have a non playing, qualified Director to get things more or less right, most of the time and stop the incestous growth of rulings applied and permeated through clubs.
I would imagine the governing body who hand out Master Points would be interested to see this too but perhaps I am wrong and they give clubs full autonomy.

I do tend to forget about all the non technical roles a Director plays, very important service roles perhaps not fulfilled by playing Directors.

Hell, the club pays a non-bridge player to come in and serve the players tea and biscuits. They have partnership stewards for those looking for partners.

Am I hoping for too much?