PeterE

Yes and No. Another time it's a matter of regulation. In Germany it's compulsory to "stop" and you might even get a DP when refusing to do so. Not stopping forfeits your own rights and gives LHO a few more seconds to think (he still has to wait 10 second at least and the UI problems will start a little bit later). So, not stopping might end in a split score.

Leute, Leute .... B) In § 24 (1) und (2) TO ist doch eindeutig geregelt, welche Rechte ein Stellverteter und welche Rechte der vertetende oder ausscheidende Teilnehmer hat. Muss ein Teilnehmer also in der letzten Runde passen um seine Bahn zu erreichen oder weil ihm schlecht wird, so bleiben nicht nur seine Scores bestehen sondern auch er in der Wertung. Was die Scores für die verpassten Boards angeht, so ist § 28 TO maßgebend und zwar die Absätze (4) bis (7). Plusdurchschnitt (60% bzw. +3 IMP in Teamkämpfen) fällt bei Krankheit - auch akuter - IMO eindeutig aus, da man ja wohl nicht behaupten kann, dass Paar wäre nicht ursächlich Schuld am Nichtspielen der Boards. Der Begriff "höhere Gewalt" wurde schon mit der Änderung der TO in 2004 (vielleicht auch schon früher) eliminiert (das auslösende Problem war damals eine lange Autoanfahrt und ein Stau auf der Autobahn). So menschlich tragisch der Vorfall manchmal auch sein kann, er hat keine(rlei) Regelrelevanz. Angezeigt ist eigentlich Minusdurchschnitt (40%), aber auch für Durchschnitt (50%) lassen sich Argumente finden, wenn der krankheitsbedingte Ausfall offenkundig ist (und keine Migräne oder Schwindelgefühle B) wenn man ein mieses Turnier gespielt hat). Für CP hat nur das Movement Relevanz und nicht die tatsächlich gespielte Anzahl der Boards ;) Zudem gibt es in Deutschland kein (amerikanisches) "nichtgespielt".

I'm still PeterE and couldn't find any penguins here :)

All matches are using the same boards. So this can be interpreted as playing a pairs contest as well. Now you calculate the "datum score", that is the arithmetic mean of all scores in a board (BB, VC and SB separately). This datum score is interpreted as your teammate's score and now you reach your own score in comparison with the datum score using the IMP table. If you add all IMP-scores of a match, you get your Butler score for this match. And, of course, your can build a rating with this scores. It shows in a way the pair's part in a teams result. Butler (is)was an English (?) Bridgeplayer.

There are no lead penalties at all, as there is no withdrawn call and Law 26 (which deals with lead penalties) starts with "When an offending player's call is withdrawn, and he chosses a different* final call for that turn, then if he becomes a defender [...]" It's "just" UI and MI and might lead to an adjusted score under Law 21 B3.

mmmh, just one hint B) I guess, Gerben wants us to name those QFinalists that will lose and those SFinalists that will lose, so you should have 8 different national teams for every event eventually ... But I must admit, I also needed a minute to come to this conclusion :rolleyes:

No, it IS NOT :D At least not in IMPs across the field in Germany and I can't imagine it is elsewhere ... Perhaps to show the difference between Butler (scoring against a datum) and IMPs-a-t-f (scoring directly against the other scores): You have 7 scores: +2200 +300 +170 +170 +140 -50 -1400 In Butler you compute the datum, i.e. the arithmetic mean of 'all' scores. This can be done with regard to the extremes or without, so: datum with extremes: 1530 : 7 = 218,6 rounded 220 datum without extremes: 730 : 5 = 146 rounded 150 Now the IMPs for NS will be (first with extremes then without in brackets) +2200: 18 (19) +300: 2 (4) +170: -2 (1) +140: -2 (0) -50: -7 (-5) -1400: -17 (-17) So, in Butler (datum) scoring there is a difference (of course, because you are changing the imaginary score of your "teammates". The effect is, when you compute the datum without the extremes you get more "fair" scores in the "normal" score-range. In IMPs-across-the-field you compare your own score with every other score "in the field", convert the difference in IMPs and either you take this result as the score or you divide it by the number of results (to get a score "like" a single comparison). As you compare your score with every other, you cannot skip the extreme scores ! +2200: vs +300 (18), vs +170 (19), vs +140 (19), vs -50 (20), vs -1400 (22) ==> 18+19+19+19+20+22 = 117 absolute and 16.7 normalized +300: vs +2200 (-18), vs +170 (4), vs +140 (4), vs -50 (8), vs -1400 (17) ==> -18+4+4+4+8+17 = 19 absolute and 2,7 normalized +170: -19-4+0+1+6+17 = 1 aboslute and 0,1 normalized +140: -19-4-4+5+17 = -5 absolute and -0,7 normalized -50: -20-8-6-6-5+16 = -29 absolute and -4,1 normalized -1400: -23-17-17-17-17-16 = -107 absolute and -15,3 normalized

It's quite common for supplementary regulations to require that boards be played in the same sequence at both tables. This is certainly a requirement in a number of Australia's major events. I think it creates a more "pure" result as it means that both tables will get the awkward hands at the same point of the match which if played in a different sequence may affect the "state of the match" mentality that a player may apply to a board. Exactly. It will be a big difference whether you miss a lay-down 7 NT in your first board or in your second-last.

Nearly everything you said is agreed - of course. Except the verly last item. Surely can the hand be played normally. Perhaps the outcome will not be normal, but the TD does not know this and he does not care about ... at this moment. You also mentioned damage and meant infraction (I believe). Damage is - according to the Code of Practice - Of course the score will most probably be adjusted afterwards. But when the laws mention adjusted scores they refer to And 12 C1 does not read "... no sensible result can be obtained ...". On the other side 12 C2 requires a table result before coming into life. Once again: When the TD is summoned after dummy is faced in our case, he will hear the statements of the players, he will perhaps ask additional questions, but he will not look into the cards of the players. He will ascertain all needed facts (hopefully) and then he will order the players to go on with the play and to call him back after play finished.

No, please stop, Ben. This is totally the wrong approach. The TD shall allways try to get a (real) score on every board. This score is insofar needed to judge, whether at all damage occurred on the board. Perhaps the outcome will be very good for the non-offending side - who knows (especially at the table, before all four hands are visible). The first duty of the TD in all cases of UI, MI etc. is to ascertain the facts and to let the bidding and/or play continue. Only in those rare cases, were the laws specifically mention artificial (adjusted) scores (eg Law 15, 17D etc.) it is correct to stop the play. Of course after such a mess as in our current case the TD will have much fun to work out an assigned adjusted score afterwards, but who said, that the life of a TD is an easy one ? ;)

No, Gerben, it can't be correct to involve other players into this investigation. Either the TD examines by his own or he installs some sort of monitor, who only notes the place infront of the accused player where that man starts his bidding sequence.

I would award a split score, NS table score, EW 2♥ down 1. Reasoning for NS: South surely knows PC. 16+7+22 = 45 which is more than possible; compensating values are highly unlikely, due to the 1 NT rebid. 1♣ - 1♥ - 1 NT - pass is impossible in PC, you are forced at least to 2 NT. All this together South should do more to protect himself. Therefore I judge self-inflicted damage, score stands. Reasoning for EW: EW surely gave MI, whether intentionally or not is not important. Therefore they shall not gain thru their infraction. With the correct information South would (probably) double 1♥, West will pass, North bids 2♦ (or 1♠), pass pass, but West will bid 2♥ - final contract. In 2♥ East makes 7 tricks (at least).

no ? That's a pity ... I think my conclusion is literally in the laws.

Perhaps they want to consult their pillow before releasing the final news ...

Lovely :o :D B) With Netscape no 'submenus' available; with Mozilla most of them visible, but unreachable ...

In another post you claim ( :D ) that TD should follow the laws. While this is an incredibly honest objective, you first have to read the laws. B) So, if the TD mistakenly let play go on and judges this approach erronous afterwards, (s)he can allways solve this error afterwards by assigning a score on the basis of the cards left and need not consider both side as non-offending.

Prove it ! I gave one law (73 C is the other) to prove my approach. I am sure - FWIW - that this is the only lawful interpretation.

Why ? It is not the correct approach reading Law 16A: If the UI suggests a call (and there are other LAs) you are not allowed to chose your call, even if you could prove (with a polygraph) that it were the one and only call you ever had in mind to chose. Your obligation and your restrictions go further...

Law 74 B3 Since a breach of the proprieties in an infraction since 1997 you can hang East for this (in combination with Law 73 F2 - see above).

here ? where ? B)

I'm not familiar with the turkish language, but if you look on http://www.tbricfed.org.tr/newsite/ you will see on top something which looks like the information you asked for.

There is a typo in your contribution ... Reading all of it you should have startet with "I am God." :P

Sorry to correct you, Roland, but Winkle joined 3 month before his birth. :P

sorry, but I must object. Nearly the only time, when a undo during play may have a substantial value, is with the opening lead. That is, because BBO resorts the hands in the moment, the declarer is found, to produce the trump-suit at the most left of the cards. And therefore it is possible (and it actually happened to me more than one time) that you are ready to lead (say: the Ace of AKxx) and in the moment you click, you click on the 7 of another suit, because the suits were resorted.