[paulg]

This is loosely based on an SBU event that I did not play in, but the SBU regulations are non-existent limited in this regard. The TD would tend to defer to the EBU White Book in such circumstances and I wanted to test my interpretation of the Laws and EBU practice.

This is a typical multiple teams event, with 13 teams playing two boards against every other team using a normal movement. There is a single set of boards in play.

During round five, the EW hands for one board are switched over but nobody notices until the end of the event. How should the TD score the board?

I believe that you should fine the EW team that fouled the board and every other team who does not have valid comparisons should receive AVE+. However some teams will have valid comparisons as both tables will play the board in its fouled state - should these be scored normally or should I give these AVE+ too as they have not played the 'right' board?

Suppose that a pair who played the board in the first three rounds got a very lucky score, such as bidding and making a slam missing a cashing ace and king that is unlikely to bid elsewhere. Should I give them 12 IMP and their opponents AVE+?

Finally, it is common to run a movement so that teams can score up at half-time. In such an event it would be possible for some teams to have valid comparisons on the board, some teams no valid comparisons, and some teams to have comparisons for the fouled version of the board. Would this make a difference?

Thanks for your assistance!

[Oof Arted]

paulg, on 2014-April-08, 06:37, said:

This is loosely based on an SBU event that I did not play in, but the SBU regulations are non-existent limited in this regard. The TD would tend to defer to the EBU White Book in such circumstances and I wanted to test my interpretation of the Laws and EBU practice.

This is a typical multiple teams event, with 13 teams playing two boards against every other team using a normal movement. There is a single set of boards in play.

During round five, the EW hands for one board are switched over but nobody notices until the end of the event. How should the TD score the board?

I believe that you should fine the EW team that fouled the board and every other team who does not have valid comparisons should receive AVE+. However some teams will have valid comparisons as both tables will play the board in its fouled state - should these be scored normally or should I give these AVE+ too as they have not played the 'right' board?

Suppose that a pair who played the board in the first three rounds got a very lucky score, such as bidding and making a slam missing a cashing ace and king that is unlikely to bid elsewhere. Should I give them 12 IMP and their opponents AVE+?

Finally, it is common to run a movement so that teams can score up at half-time. In such an event it would be possible for some teams to have valid comparisons on the board, some teams no valid comparisons, and some teams to have comparisons for the fouled version of the board. Would this make a difference?

Thanks for your assistance!

I think the TD should investigate to try find out where the Mis-Boarding took place (it is feasable for some of the Teams to have actually played the correct Boards (say it was misboarded 3 rounds from the end then 6 teams would have played it correctly )

The rest get +3 imps I believe which could give 12 12 VP's

[gordontd]

I would allow scores to stand whenever both tables of the match played it in the same form. I think this is supported by the White Book 3.3.3 which says in part "the over-riding requirement is that each board be played in an identical form at both the tables involved in the match, and a valid score (or an assigned adjusted score) be obtained at these tables." It's not really any different than playing a substitute board.

[RMB1]

Scoring normally when the board is fouled at both tables is supported by Law 87 B.

The application of Law 86D to fouled boards is not explicit in the White Book but the application of 8.86.1 could lead to +3 to one the non-offending team and a bigger IMP score for a non-offending team with a favourable result.

[paulg]

Thanks.

My initial reaction was that scoring the fouled board would not be right even when both tables played it, but I now understand the justification for it.

[mycroft]

Given the Matchpoints case, where we find out where it was fouled, score "normal" and "fouled" as two separate fields (and then do something), I think we can safely say "if the board is the same at both tables in this match, score it normally" (which isn't ideal, as some teams will make the obvious 4♠ because the ♣K was onside, and some teams will go down because it's offside; who gets +10 and who gets -10 is strictly up to chance; which is why we penalize the misboarders) is both legal and desired.

Obviously we have to throw out the boards where one half of the match played the cis- rotation and the other played trans-. Unfortunate, that, especially if it's point-a-board style and there are only two boards per match.

[gordontd]

mycroft, on 2014-April-08, 16:20, said:

Unfortunate, that, especially if it's point-a-board style and there are only two boards per match.

Ah that's a different matter - both the ACBL & the EBU have regulations for point-a-board scoring of boards that allow scores to be determined by matchpointing valid scores against the rest of the field. The EBU regs say:

Quote

Fouled Boards
If a board is played in two different forms at the two tables, including if it is played arrow-switched at one table, each score is match-pointed against all results obtained from all the other tables that played the board in the same form. These two scores, converted to percentages, are added together and once again converted back into points, rounded to one decimal place.

[mycroft]

Sorry, what I meant was "it's a team match, scored IMPs, but played with a BAM-style movement, so that each "match" is two boards.

I guess you could cross-imp it in the same way and assign a score, though!

[gordontd]

mycroft, on 2014-April-09, 09:32, said:

Sorry, what I meant was "it's a team match, scored IMPs, but played with a BAM-style movement, so that each "match" is two boards.

Two cultures, divided by a common language.
To my mind the movement & the scoring method are independent of each other.

[barmar]

gordontd, on 2014-April-09, 10:01, said:

To my mind the movement & the scoring method are independent of each other.

While they technically are, it's pretty common to use the movement as an abbreviation for the type of event that usually uses it. E.g. if we say "pairs" without qualification, it's assumed to mean matchpoint pairs because IMP pairs is uncommon.

I think the linguistic term for this is "synecdoche": using a general term to refer to a specific member.

[Vampyr]

mycroft, on 2014-April-09, 09:32, said:

Sorry, what I meant was "it's a team match, scored IMPs, but played with a BAM-style movement, so that each "match" is two boards.

Seriously? Is there something wrong with the simple "multiple teams"?

[mycroft]

Sure. I have *absolutely no idea* what that means. I believe that I would be one of 99.99% of ACBL bridge players. Frankly, without the explanation I would have thought "teams of eight" or the like.

[gordontd]

barmar, on 2014-April-09, 11:32, said:

While they technically are, it's pretty common to use the movement as an abbreviation for the type of event that usually uses it. E.g. if we say "pairs" without qualification, it's assumed to mean matchpoint pairs because IMP pairs is uncommon.

I wouldn't think "pairs" is a movement either - it's a group of scoring methods of which matchpoints is the most common version. We don't say "matchpoints" to indicate a Mitchell movement, which would be the equivalent of what he said.

barmar, on 2014-April-09, 11:32, said:

I think the linguistic term for this is "synecdoche": using a general term to refer to a specific member.

I don't think that's what he did.

[WellSpyder]

gordontd, on 2014-April-10, 05:25, said:

I don't think that's what he did.

Neither do I.

But perhaps the reality is that the only time what we think of as a multiple teams format is ever used in the US is actually for a BAM event? Perhaps any teams event that uses imp scoring is either a KO or run on Swiss lines?? To us, of course, it is entirely normal that if several teams are competing in an event then one way to run it is to play a small number of boards against lots of other teams, and this applies completely independently of how the event is scored.

[pran]

I don't see the point in this discussion (whether it is BAM, multiple teams or whatever)?

If each contestant at this event consists of (at least) two pairs we have an event for teams. In that case the only thing that matters is whether the two affected tables played identical or different versions of the board.

If they played identical versions then the board is scored normally at these tables. (Whether it is the "correct" version or a modified version of the board is immaterial.)

If they played different versions then no result can be obtained on the board at these tables. (Results obtained at other tables are completely irrelevant.)

(If each contestant consists of a single pair we have an event for pairs and Law 87B applies directly.)

[paulg]

pran, on 2014-April-10, 14:13, said:

I don't see the point in this discussion (whether it is BAM, multiple teams or whatever)?

I think it would have been off-topic if I had not used a term in the title that Americans, and perhaps others, did not understand. I learned more than I expected although the correct ruling was more important.

[mycroft]

Well, the first issue (and I'm sorry for dragging this up, now) is that in 2-board match movements, throwing out half the result - effectively making it a 1-board match - is uncomfortable; also then giving both sides A+ for half a match, is uncomfortable (at least to the teams who by luck or bad management, got to play that board fair (or both unfair)).
The second issue is that as a result of that, for BAM / point-a-board games in EBU and ACBL, a way of generating a score for each pair by using the other matches (which, I agree, should never count) has been made. That was gordontd's point.
My point to that, is that - provided it's in the CoC for the event - using the same formula, tweaked to cross-IMPs instead of MPs, might just work as a solution to this problem for the "multiple teams" case.

And gordontd - yes, it's probably wrong. But in the ACBL "BAM movement" is as well-defined as "Mitchell movement" (well, as "Howell Movement", anyway; there are 1-section (weird) and paired-section (Mitchell and Mirror Mitchell) BAM movements) - it's a movement where each NS N and EW N play the same boards, against the same numbered opponents, in the same round, short-board rounds, with the entire movement organized in advance. It's "only" used for BAM-scored Team games; but I've used it for other things (once, and thought about it a second time), so using the name of the event it's used for for the movement is (in NA, at least) not unreasonable.

[Edit: yeah, almost 5 years later. But names are important to get right.]

[blackshoe]

The format of a contest consists of three elements: the number of people (1, 2 - occasionally 3, 4 or more) who make up a contestant, the manner in which boards and contestants are moved, and the form of scoring. North Americans, particularly those who live in the US, are extremely fond (or so it seems to me) of "shortcuts" in terminology which are frequently inaccurate ("pairs" to mean the contestants are pairs, the movement is - usually - a Mitchell or a Howell of some kind, and the scoring is match points). But "pairs" really tells us only how many people make up a contestant. Similarly "teams" only tells us about the contestants - anything else we might say (or think) about the format of the contest is not included in the term. I read "multiple teams" in the thread title as meaning "more than two teams" (because you can't have a contest with only one contestant) and nothing more. <shrug>

Today, I played in a pairs contest with match point scoring. The movement was a 14 table Web, two boards per round. That is a complete description of the contest. IMO, anyway.

[gordontd]

mycroft, on 2014-April-10, 16:07, said:

Well, the first issue (and I'm sorry for dragging this up, now) is that in 2-board match movements, throwing out half the result - effectively making it a 1-board match - is uncomfortable; also then giving both sides A+ for half a match, is uncomfortable (at least to the teams who by luck or bad management, got to play that board fair (or both unfair)).

I'm still not clear why this bothers you: one board out of twenty-four has the same weight whether it is part of a two-board match or a twelve-board match. Presumably you don't victory point two-board matches or use them as knockouts?

mycroft, on 2014-April-10, 16:07, said:

The second issue is that as a result of that, for BAM / point-a-board games in EBU and ACBL, a way of generating a score for each pair by using the other matches (which, I agree, should never count) has been made. That was gnasher's point.

I don't see gnasher having posted in this thread at all. I wonder which point you mean.

mycroft, on 2014-April-10, 16:07, said:

But in the ACBL "BAM movement" is as well-defined as "Mitchell movement" (well, as "Howell Movement", anyway; there are 1-section (weird) and paired-section (Mitchell and Mirror Mitchell) BAM movements) - it's a movement where each NS N and EW N play the same boards, against the same numbered opponents, in the same round, short-board rounds, with the entire movement organized in advance. It's "only" used for BAM-scored Team games; but I've used it for other things (once, and thought about it a second time), so using the name of the event it's used for for the movement is (in NA, at least) not unreasonable.

Then I think we still do not totally understand each other, because one of those features (playing the same opponents in the same round) is not a feature of most multiple-teams movements, only a very specific one known here as a Flower movement.

Yes, I know this is all off-topic, but it's interesting to some of us and the original question has been answered.

[Vampyr]

gordontd, on 2014-April-11, 01:33, said:

Then I think we still do not totally understand each other, because one of those features (playing the same opponents in the same round) is not a feature of most multiple-teams movements, only a very specific one known here as a Flower movement.

Oh, that's so pretty! Can we use it sometime?