Playing a team match on same position
#1
Posted 2011-November-14, 09:00
-Is it tournament´s directors fault (partially at least)
-Can the match be replayed with a different set of boards if time permits?
-With duplicated baords awarding a score against the datum or crossIMPs or something against the field makes any sense?
-Is the score for this match suposed o be 15-15 or something less as a penalty?
#2
Posted 2011-November-14, 09:26
#3
Posted 2011-November-14, 13:27
#4
Posted 2011-November-14, 16:05
However, the top two teams misseated themselves so that the two pairs on one team were North-South at both tables and the two pairs on the other team were East-West at both tables. This was not discovered until the match was over, at which time the TD assigned a zero VP score to both teams. My friend's team won their match and the event.
By the way, Alan Truscott invented a very easy way to avoid this disaster, at least a way to notify both tables that there was a problem at the time the boards were passed from one table to the next. He had both pairs at each table put their names on cards indicating their compass directions at the table. When the boards with a card were passed to the other table, if there was a problem it could be caught halfway through the match. These cards were called "Truscott Cards," and were used for many years in the New York area. I have not seen them in use in a long time.
#5
Posted 2011-November-14, 16:29
Assuming the players are at fault, the match is scored 8-8 VP on 20VP scale. This become 13-13 VP on a 25VP scale. (The EBU regards the 25VP scale as a 20-0 scale with 5VP added. If for instance it was regarded as a 0-30 scale with a cap at 25, then perhaps the regulation would be 12-12.)
But the regulation has a final codicil:
Quote
"Robin Barker is a mathematician. ... All highly skilled in their respective fields and clearly accomplished bridge players."
#6
Posted 2011-November-14, 18:13
ArtK78, on 2011-November-14, 16:05, said:
However, the top two teams misseated themselves so that the two pairs on one team were North-South at both tables and the two pairs on the other team were East-West at both tables. This was not discovered until the match was over, at which time the TD assigned a zero VP score to both teams. My friend's team won their match and the event.
By the way, Alan Truscott invented a very easy way to avoid this disaster, at least a way to notify both tables that there was a problem at the time the boards were passed from one table to the next. He had both pairs at each table put their names on cards indicating their compass directions at the table. When the boards with a card were passed to the other table, if there was a problem it could be caught halfway through the match. These cards were called "Truscott Cards," and were used for many years in the New York area. I have not seen them in use in a long time.
Truscott cards are still used in NABC events.
The only time I've seen the wrong seating for a full match in a sectional was in the first round. It was a bracketed RR and in the top bracket two of the top teams sat the same direction. It lead to a quite competitive bracket since the teams didn't even have much of a "swiss strategy" to catch up (the top bracket allowed people to opt up, including my team, so the top bracket had 11 teams for 7 matches of RR).
#7
Posted 2011-November-15, 03:50
#8
Posted 2011-November-15, 04:37
In this particular case, I would've thought both teams should be getting average minus on each board of the match which, depending on the length of the match, could result in a very poor result for both teams (e.g for a 16-board match it would be 4-4).
I ♦ bidding the suit below the suit I'm actually showing not to be described as a "transfer" for the benefit of people unfamiliar with the concept of a transfer
#9
Posted 2011-November-15, 05:36
Fluffy, on 2011-November-14, 09:00, said:
-With duplicated baords awarding a score against the datum or crossIMPs or something against the field makes any sense?
I think this is a very poor idea. I believe team matches should be decided absolutely ignoring the rest of the results in the field in all circumstances.
Actually , for me, this is the main reason why I prefer teams over pairs - my results depend only on my team's performance (and direct opps) rather than on some random LOLs playing in the corridor..
In General , I think the best solution if time permits , is to replay the match, while this does not mean waving the penalties to both teams, if the wrong seating was mostly their fault.
#10
Posted 2011-November-16, 10:13
mich-b, on 2011-November-15, 05:36, said:
Actually , for me, this is the main reason why I prefer teams over pairs - my results depend only on my team's performance (and direct opps) rather than on some random LOLs playing in the corridor..
In General , I think the best solution if time permits , is to replay the match, while this does not mean waving the penalties to both teams, if the wrong seating was mostly their fault.
I think the same but, it can be more fair than 15-15 or 12-12 easilly.
Think for example if one team really crushed their opponents at both tables, comparing with other tables they won 60 IMPs in 10 boards, putting the match 15-15 doesn't look fair. Perhaps you could add some balancing factor like dividing the IMPs in half (or 2/3), or substracting 0.8 IMPs/board from the final result (making it likelly that it will end up 15-15). Calculating the result can be done with computers quite easilly.
#11
Posted 2011-November-16, 10:27
RMB1, on 2011-November-14, 16:29, said:
Assuming the players are at fault, the match is scored 8-8 VP on 20VP scale. This become 13-13 VP on a 25VP scale. (The EBU regards the 25VP scale as a 20-0 scale with 5VP added. But the regulation has a final codicil:
13-13 is very generous. I am surprised that both teams are permitted to win the match.
#12
Posted 2011-November-16, 10:55
Vampyr, on 2011-November-16, 10:27, said:
?
A draw is 15-15 on 25VP scale, so 13-13 is a loss for both sides.
"Robin Barker is a mathematician. ... All highly skilled in their respective fields and clearly accomplished bridge players."
#13
Posted 2011-November-17, 04:12
In the case of teams seated the same way at both tables (or boards played in the wrong direction at one table only) we consider both sides to be at fault.
So say that in a match with 32 boards over 2 rounds we have an IMP result of 20-30 together with a void round. The match result is then an IMP loss of 26 for the home team and an IMP loss of 6 for the away team, and the VP result becomes 11-14 (on the 25VP scale).
Similarly if this had been a single-round match with 8 boards then each team would "lose" the match with 8 IMPs for a match result of 13-13.
#14
Posted 2011-November-17, 06:47
mrdct, on 2011-November-15, 04:37, said:
In this particular case, I would've thought both teams should be getting average minus on each board of the match which, depending on the length of the match, could result in a very poor result for both teams (e.g for a 16-board match it would be 4-4).
In the events the Dutch Bridge League (NBB) organizes, there is a sheet at each table where you fill out the line up for the match. The sheet at the table in the open room would look like:
NS USA 2
North South
Lall O O
Grue O O
Bathhurst O O
Zagorin O O
Wooldridge O O
Hurd O O
EW The Netherlands
East West
Brink O O
Drijver O O
Van Prooijen O O
Verhees O O
De Wijs O O
Muller O O
In the closed room it would be:
NS The Netherlands
North South
Brink O O
Drijver O O
Van Prooijen O O
Verhees O O
De Wijs O O
Muller O O
EW USA 2
East West
Lall O O
Grue O O
Bathhurst O O
Zagorin O O
Wooldridge O O
Hurd O O
I think this works very well.
Rik
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!), but “That’s funny…” – Isaac Asimov
The only reason God did not put "Thou shalt mind thine own business" in the Ten Commandments was that He thought that it was too obvious to need stating. - Kenberg
#15
Posted 2011-November-17, 08:28
#17
Posted 2011-November-18, 06:30