[pescetom]

 blackshoe, on 2023-May-03, 12:47, said:

It's been a while but as I recall that's a direct implementation of the last sentence of Law 12C2c: "Such contestants are awarded the percentage obtained (or the equivalent in IMPs) on the other boards of that session." Note that it doesn't apply to Average, only to Average+ or Average-.

As I read 12C2c, the "other boards" percentage should only be applied to pairs that - considering all other boards - would be disadvantaged by 60% or advantaged by 40%. I understand that our score program handles this automatically if Ave+/Ave- is assigned, not sure how it resolves things with multiple such scores.

[sanst]

 pescetom, on 2023-May-03, 08:58, said:

.
I have sympathy with your preference for 'not played', but as I read the law it is in violation of the antiquated 12C2a, and you cannot use 78D to get around that.
But the important thing is that you do not prefer to let them "play bridge" and monitor what happens, ready to adjust. I wonder if anyone here does.

What I was thinking of, is the situation that they have just played a board, but open the traveler of the next. “Huh? You made 2♥+1, and here it says 3♥+1 and 4♥ made in our line. Oh, it’s the next board. Sorry.” In this situation I don’t think that the next board is playable for these players, I wouldn’t let them play it so I would enter it as not played. Assuming that the mistake wasn’t made by these pairs, I should probably give Avg+/Avg+ to both, but as I see it, that’s too unreasonable. This will affect the scores of all the players, not just these four, whereas the influence of ‘not played’ is minor, if not almost negligible.
Law 12C2b gives room for this “Subject to approval by the Regulating Authority, this may be varied by the Tournament Organizer as provided for by Laws 78D”. Our RA, i.c. the Dutch Bridge Union, has given its approval.

[pescetom]

 sanst, on 2023-May-04, 01:53, said:

What I was thinking of, is the situation that they have just played a board, but open the traveler of the next. “Huh? You made 2♥+1, and here it says 3♥+1 and 4♥ made in our line. Oh, it’s the next board. Sorry.” In this situation I don’t think that the next board is playable for these players, I wouldn’t let them play it so I would enter it as not played. Assuming that the mistake wasn’t made by these pairs, I should probably give Avg+/Avg+ to both, but as I see it, that’s too unreasonable. This will affect the scores of all the players, not just these four, whereas the influence of ‘not played’ is minor, if not almost negligible.
Law 12C2b gives room for this “Subject to approval by the Regulating Authority, this may be varied by the Tournament Organizer as provided for by Laws 78D”. Our RA, i.c. the Dutch Bridge Union, has given its approval.

I agree that scoring boards not played as (drumroll) 'not played' is eminently reasonable, but that room to do so is unfortunately granted only for multiple boards unplayed, not for the first one (see 12C2d, IIRC). I think the Dutch Bridge Union is jumping the gun here and would do better to press for change in the next laws revision.

[pescetom]

 mycroft, on 2023-May-03, 11:55, said:

Well, it's a letter-of-the-law 16D1 situation ("by overhearing...results"). If called, and if the TD thinks it might matter (and frequently, well, "obviously, yes"), then 16D2a isn't going to help (except in the cases where "okay, let the people who don't know if the slam will make bid it", which seems - not really fair to me) and D2b doesn't work, so I'd try D2c, unless it was screamingly obvious that the EI could not but affect the result, and it isn't worth trying. I prefer people playing bridge, rather than sitting out (even for 60%), and I think the players do too.

I have been known to explain the EI to the opponents after the hand so they can assist me in determining if "the EI affected the result"; usually my judgement there is theirs as well (or they are "we got a bad score, let's try to convince the TD that it was the EI". My judgement on that's pretty good as well, but of course I allow the attempt; I have definitely been convinced otherwise more than once.)

Thanks for that. The biggest problem I see with applying D2c to an opened traveller is in establishing which EI was actually absorbed: it's one thing to have seen a couple of scores, another to have seen ten scores or the leads or the hands. In my experience people will often understate the information they actually gleaned, even if in good faith.

Be that as it may, what guidance would you offer them in terms of handling the EI?

[mycroft]

Blackshoe, I don't think I was clear about the protect option, because I don't think your quote applies.

In ACBLscor, you can set a score to be "Protected to A-/A/A+". In which case, if the table score is better than the protect value, they get to keep the table score. If it's worse, they get the protect value.

Now perhaps it's a shortcut to "we're awarding an artificial score of 'X, if there was damage.' We're not going to work out if there was damage, we'll just 'look at the travellers' to see".

As I said, it's been a decade since I used it, and fewer years (but not many) since I thought of it. I don't even know how to do it. But I know it's there.

[weejonnie]

In the case of EI the TD has various options.

2. If the Director considers that the information would likely interfere with normal play he
may, before any call has been made:
(a) adjust the players’ positions at the table, if the type of contest and scoring permit, so that
the player with information about one hand will hold that hand;
(b) if the form of competition allows of it order the board redealt for those contestants;
© allow completion of the play of the board standing ready to award an adjusted score if he
judges that the extraneous information affected the result;
(d) award an adjusted score (for team play see Law 86B).

Obviously a) and b) are impossible and c) is likely to be impossible if there is a playing TD, so you walk into d) and an artificial adjusted score.

So the awarding of the AAS depends on circumstances.

a) wrong traveller in right board: neither side is at fault. NB sometimes the travellers are numbered incorrectly - rather like players entering a result alongside the board number rather than the NS pair number. I cannot see why someone should be penalised for doing something which is automatic and has resulted from a procedural irregularity at another table. Obviously the other pair (usually EW) are exonerated but it seems unreasonable to penalise a pair just because they were the ones sitting NS.

b) traveller taken from another board: this is a procedural irregularity and 40/60 seems to be the correct decision if the TD cannot rule as in c) above.

[blackshoe]

 mycroft, on 2023-May-04, 09:31, said:

Blackshoe, I don't think I was clear about the protect option, because I don't think your quote applies.

In ACBLscor, you can set a score to be "Protected to A-/A/A+". In which case, if the table score is better than the protect value, they get to keep the table score. If it's worse, they get the protect value.

Now perhaps it's a shortcut to "we're awarding an artificial score of 'X, if there was damage.' We're not going to work out if there was damage, we'll just 'look at the travellers' to see".

As I said, it's been a decade since I used it, and fewer years (but not many) since I thought of it. I don't even know how to do it. But I know it's there.

I'd forgotten about that one. I'm not at all sure there's a legal basis for it in current law.

[blackshoe]

 weejonnie, on 2023-May-04, 09:40, said:

So the awarding of the AAS depends on circumstances.

a) wrong traveller in right board: neither side is at fault. NB sometimes the travellers are numbered incorrectly - rather like players entering a result alongside the board number rather than the NS pair number. I cannot see why someone should be penalised for doing something which is automatic and has resulted from a procedural irregularity at another table. Obviously the other pair (usually EW) are exonerated but it seems unreasonable to penalise a pair just because they were the ones sitting NS.

b) traveller taken from another board: this is a procedural irregularity and 40/60 seems to be the correct decision if the TD cannot rule as in c) above.

Agree with b. Don't agree with a. An adjusted score is not a penalty. If somebody at table 3 puts the wrong traveller in the board, and NS at table 2 later pulls it out, table 2 gets an adjusted score unless the TD decides the board is playable, and whoever screwed up at table 3 gets a procedural penalty. Question: Is NS at table 2 "directly at fault," "partly at fault," or "in no way at fault" in this scenario? Clearly EW is "in no way at fault", so they get A+, but how should the TD view NS?

Again, if a board has been scheduled to be played and is because of a procedural irregularity not played, the "not played" option in the scoring software is not a legal option. That option is only for boards that are removed from the schedule, for example if you cancel the last board of the last round in a pair movement due to time constraints.

[blackshoe]

 sanst, on 2023-May-04, 01:53, said:

I should probably give Avg+/Avg+ to both, but as I see it, that’s too unreasonable. This will affect the scores of all the players, not just these four, whereas the influence of ‘not played’ is minor, if not almost negligible.
Law 12C2b gives room for this “Subject to approval by the Regulating Authority, this may be varied by the Tournament Organizer as provided for by Laws 78D”. Our RA, i.c. the Dutch Bridge Union, has given its approval.

Sorry, but you don't have that discretion. And I'm not sure your RA does either. What is the exact wording (in English, please, I don't speak Dutch) of the regulation?

[mycroft]

 weejonnie, on 2023-May-04, 09:40, said:

Obviously [16D2]a) and b) are impossible and c) is likely to be impossible if there is a playing TD, so you walk into d) and an artificial adjusted score.

Why?

Surely you're not saying that the playing director's game is more important than the paying players' games? If I'm playing (as the spare, or taking over from director who had to cancel last minute, or asked to direct a game I usually play in), and a call that requires me to spend time at a table, or witness the hand, happens, that's what I do. Revokes, penalty cards, bad claims, whatever.

If it turns out that we miss a board at my table? Oh well, A+/A, that's what you signed up for.
If it turns out that *I now* have EI that requires an invocation of L16D at my table when I have to play the board? Well, that happens, too (although I frequently *can* trigger L16D2a, or some other way to play the hand under 16D2c). And I will definitely tell the opponents what the EI was after the hand, so they can dispute my belief that it didn't matter, should I believe that.

(Note: if there is a way that I can do my job while still protecting my game/partner, of course I will do it. "Score it as it stands for now. I will look at it. However, if you don't mind, I will wait until after I've played the board to do the investigation." But if that's not possible, one of the reasons I'm not paying for the game is that I might not get to play all 27 boards.)

Quote

So the awarding of the AAS depends on circumstances.

a) wrong traveller in right board: neither side is at fault. NB sometimes the travellers are numbered incorrectly - rather like players entering a result alongside the board number rather than the NS pair number. I cannot see why someone should be penalised for doing something which is automatic and has resulted from a procedural irregularity at another table. Obviously the other pair (usually EW) are exonerated but it seems unreasonable to penalise a pair just because they were the ones sitting NS.

b) traveller taken from another board: this is a procedural irregularity and 40/60 seems to be the correct decision if the TD cannot rule as in c) above.

This I basically agree with - except that if another table swapped the travellers and caused issue a), I'll happily take the 20% I'm giving the new table from that table. How it gets done will depend on how the travellers were switched, but even if it's just "paying for my time" (finding out how far back the travellers were switched, at least, so I know which scores I have to move from one to another. What, you think that would never happen?)

[mycroft]

 pescetom, on 2023-May-04, 09:22, said:

Thanks for that. The biggest problem I see with applying D2c to an opened traveller is in establishing which EI was actually absorbed: it's one thing to have seen a couple of scores, another to have seen ten scores or the leads or the hands. In my experience people will often understate the information they actually gleaned, even if in good faith.

Be that as it may, what guidance would you offer them in terms of handling the EI?

Well, that response was to your "announce all the scores from traveller after the hand on the scoring device" issue, not the "open the wrong traveller" issue.

We almost always, even when we did use travellers, just had the scores, not the hands or leads. Only in a special game (like the Epson or a "score against the 1950's players" instant matchpoint game) would the hands even be on the sheet. So I never had that problem.

But frequently, you can play the hand so that the person that viewed the traveller, whatever they saw, is basically a robot (auction is "automatic", and they'll be dummy - or get partner to play it if they're not). Obviously, how much I will allow EI to affect normal play (including "are people okay with me asking South to come over here and play the hand?") depends on the game. In the club, players want to play hands, and they're willing to have the rules stretched a bit if the alternative is a partial-round sitout, even if accompanied by 60% on the board. In a qualification event, likely not so much (and likely the players will claim "EI affected play" at a much lower level, as well. And they may be right!). Of course, if I'm doing a qualification event with travellers, the first issue isn't the person who opened the wrong one...

[sanst]

 blackshoe, on 2023-May-04, 10:41, said:

Sorry, but you don't have that discretion. And I'm not sure your RA does either. What is the exact wording (in English, please, I don't speak Dutch) of the regulation?

There’s no regulation. It was discussed in a meeting of TD’s, including union officials, years back. Not this situation, but what to do when, due to a mixup of a board, usually a13A1 situation, three or four tables can’t play a board in a round. Four tables, the table involved, the two tables that played the board the last time - you need both players to ‘correct the discrepancy - and the TD’s table. The general feeling was, that to give so many AAS’s is beyond ‘restoring equity’ and use ‘not played’ instead.
This is a quite normal situation at many clubs, that don’t use duplicating machines, don’t have hand records and a playing TD. In the higher echelons this is not a problem. There duplimates and the like are used, there are hand records and quite often a non playing TD. But in the level of the average ‘social’ club the players don’t understand the Avg+/Avg+ score and don’t like it if they understand. And, it’s much simpler for the TD, who find it more often than not difficult to input it into the scoring program.

[pescetom]

 sanst, on 2023-May-06, 02:00, said:

There’s no regulation. It was discussed in a meeting of TD’s, including union officials, years back. Not this situation, but what to do when, due to a mixup of a board, usually a13A1 situation, three or four tables can’t play a board in a round. Four tables, the table involved, the two tables that played the board the last time - you need both players to ‘correct the discrepancy - and the TD’s table. The general feeling was, that to give so many AAS’s is beyond ‘restoring equity’ and use ‘not played’ instead.
This is a quite normal situation at many clubs, that don’t use duplicating machines, don’t have hand records and a playing TD. In the higher echelons this is not a problem. There duplimates and the like are used, there are hand records and quite often a non playing TD. But in the level of the average ‘social’ club the players don’t understand the Avg+/Avg+ score and don’t like it if they understand. And, it’s much simpler for the TD, who find it more often than not difficult to input it into the scoring program.

But if I understand rightly this will usually be the first board not played for all the pairs involved. The laws don't allow you to do this, regulation or not.
And sure, many RAs bend or break the laws in some ways, I am well aware that I am in a glass house here. But I think the right solution is to press WBF for change, not make up our own laws, however reasonable.

As an aside, I'm not very convinced by your additional arguments either. Even when hands are shuffled and dealt at table there is no excuse for not making a hand diagram, it's just laziness and lack of care. Entering Avg+ Avg+ is something you learn in a minute with any score program. And the problem with typical club players is exactly the opposite, in my experience at least: they are all too comfortable with Avg+ Avg+, as are mediocre TDs.

[jillybean]

This is how one of the clubs I play at, somewhere in the world, handle this.



Fouled boards – Guidelines for Directors

• Our “friendly” club does not wish our directors to penalise players for simple errors or minor acts of carelessness that are readily picked up and remedied at the immediately following table. An example is counts revealing 12 or 14 cards.

• Where a board has been fouled, Law 87 gives guidance to directors as to assigning a fair score given all the facts. Such an assessed result is to be preferred to any 60/40 type awards.

• Where it is extremely difficult for the Director to assess a fair result the fouled board should be skipped (and remedied for all following tables).

• Only where a serious offence has been committed should a player be penalised by awarding the lower of 40% or their actual average. The non-offending players at the table should be awarded their actual average or a fairly and sensibly assessed result – ie they should not be gifted 60% as this will often be unfair. Examples are repeated carelessness by the same player as to board handling.

The result? Frequently skipped boards or "remedy" of result seemingly based on which crowd you hang with.

[blackshoe]

This club is playing a game that resembles bridge but is not bridge.

[jillybean]

 blackshoe, on 2023-May-06, 09:50, said:

This club is playing a game that resembles bridge but is not bridge.

We say that for a lot of games.

[sanst]

Some of you make clear that the Laws should be observed no matter what. I'm considered a stickler for the rules and regulations, but notwithstanding I'm not above an 'pragmatic' approach, certainly not when the players involved are not the best, to put it mildly.
Looking at the membership of the Dutch Bridge Union NBB, with 70.000+ members, you see a huge majority of at best mediocre players and a small contingent of good to absolute top players, including the winners of the last Bermuda Bowl and European Championships. The 'Meesterklassse', the major league of the national competition, is probably the absolute top in international bridge, comparable to the Premier League in English football, aka soccer.
This is reflected in the quality of the directors. I can assure you that to qualify as a full director you have to pass a rather tough exam where you might face some of the best TD's in the world, including Ton Kooijman, chairman of the WBFLC. But the greater majority of the TD's in clubs are not fully qualified.They can handle the matches in MP's - all other forms are loathed by most average club players - and the most frequent technical irregularities. Almost all are playing in the matches they direct and are, as everybody else involved with the organization of the game in clubs, unpaid volunteers. On top of that their average age is something like 75+. To illustrate the way things are handled, I can tell you that I recently had a serious row with the director at my club about a claim. My RHO claimed the last five tricks without stating a line of play or even showing his cards. I called the director - not a popular move, I can tell you - and that worthy tried to solve the situation by ordering us to play on, which I refused. It was solved by the director with 'not played'.
My point is that you just can't expect these directors to handle complex or even more difficult situations. Until recently it was not very clear how to input an AAS of 60/60 in the program. It involved a split score, which was unknown to most of the directors and the computer operators. In the latest version of the program this has been remedied, but the meeting I referred to was somewhere in the early years of this century. Not played is a solution these directors understand, the players understand and is easy to handle in the program. So I don't mind using that in some cases where the Laws prescribe Avg+/Avg+ and the like.
Of course I wouldn't do that in regional or national matches and tournaments or at more serious events.

[sanst]

 blackshoe, on 2023-May-06, 09:50, said:

This club is playing a game that resembles bridge but is not bridge.

Most players over here know hardly anything more than the basic rules of the game, or even not that. They play a game they call bridge at a club that's a bridge club and where the laws of duplicate bridge are more or less being followed. Nothing serious just a pastime for mainly elderly people. I think your remark is patronizing and these players don't deserve that.

[pescetom]

 sanst, on 2023-May-07, 07:55, said:

Most players over here know hardly anything more than the basic rules of the game, or even not that. They play a game they call bridge at a club that's a bridge club and where the laws of duplicate bridge are more or less being followed. Nothing serious just a pastime for mainly elderly people. I think your remark is patronizing and these players don't deserve that.

I think your last anecdote about the claim says it all. You were entitled to retain a good reputation by following the Laws and to improve (it would probably have emerged) your current score: instead you were forced to choose between either accepting an unreasonable claim and worsening your score or damaging your reputation and renouncing the improved score you deserved. This is precisely the kind of nonsense that the Laws and a TD are supposed to protect you from. Without such protection it may still be a meaningful pastime (not in my eyes) but it's certainly not bridge.

Please don't take this as condescention either, I understand where you are coming from: most of us have had to put up with similar stuff in the past and may still accept small doses in practice games or in dying clubs which can do no better. But that's why we became a TD in the first place, to stop it happening. And making up our own rules, however benign and logical, is a step back in the opposite direction. I worked with Ton in Salsomaggiore last year, he's alert and eminently reasonable. Why not just ask him to change the Law?

[blackshoe]

Like many things in life, club bridge is what it is. Trying to change that, or even just ranting against it, is most probably tilting at windmills, but I will continue to try, or just rant, take your pick.