"Average" artificial scores

[jallerton]

In another thread asking about the existing Laws:

 

Last night at the local club, we had a playing director who was very busy.

 

As a result of a few director calls, his table ran out of time. He assigned his table Average + for both sides.

 

Is that right?

 

I would award NP (Not Played = average)

 

This has been discussed here and elsewhere a number of times. No consensus is ever reached. I would award myself Ave not Ave Plus but I have some sympathy with people who award themselves Ave Plus.

 

As explained earlier, Not Played is illegal so do not do that.

 

The current Law 16C says:

 

a. When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained [and see 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.

b. When the Director awards an artificial adjusted score of average plus or minus at international match points that score is normally plus or minus 3 imps, but this may be varied as Law 86A allows.

c. The foregoing is modified for a non-offending contestant that obtains a session score exceeding 60% of the available matchpoints or for an offending contestant that obtains a session score that is less than 40% of the available matchpoints (or the equivalent in imps). Such contestants are awarded the percentage obtained (or the equivalent in imps) on the other boards of that session.

 

Suppose that pair A (perhaps the playing TD referred to above) cannot play 2 of its scheduled 24 boards. The pair has averaged 65% on the other 22 boards of the session. Awarding an artificial score of 50% on two unplayed boards in a round artificially reduces their overall score to say 63.75%.

 

In the same movement there is a scheduled sitout for some of the other pairs. One such pair, pair B also averages 65% on the 22 boards it actually plays, and Pair B ends up with a final score of 65%, 1.25% ahead of Pair A.

 

Presumably PrecisionL's idea of "not played" means awarding the pair 0 matchpoints out of 0 for this board, i.e. the contestant's overall percentage is determined solely by reference to the matchpoints scored divided by the maximum available on the boards actually played. This sounds like an excellent idea to me. Wouldn't it be better if the Laws allowed for this?

[blackshoe]

Presumably PrecisionL's idea of "not played" means awarding the pair 0 matchpoints out of 0 for this board, i.e. the contestant's overall percentage is determined solely by reference to the matchpoints scored divided by the maximum available on the boards actually played. This sounds like an excellent idea to me. Wouldn't it be better if the Laws allowed for this?

 

No. "Not played" is equivalent to saying "these pairs were scheduled in the movement to play this board, but we're just going to pretend they were not scheduled to play it". I can't see any way in which that should be considered fair when in fact they were scheduled to play it.

[mgoetze]

No. "Not played" is equivalent to saying "these pairs were scheduled in the movement to play this board, but we're just going to pretend they were not scheduled to play it". I can't see any way in which that should be considered fair when in fact they were scheduled to play it.

I can't see any way in which it should be considered fair to classify your post as a response to Jeffrey's post, seeing as you ignored every point he made.

[blackshoe]

You are mistaken.

[gnasher]

Blackshoe, are you objecting to the term "Not played", or to the actual consequences of Jeffrey's suggestion? His suggestion is the equivalent of changing 12C2c to:

 

"The foregoing is modified for a non-offending contestant that obtains a session score exceeding 60% of the available matchpoints, for an offending contestant that obtains a session score that is less than 40% of the available matchpoints (or the equivalent in imps), or for a pair who are prevented from playing a board because a member of the partnership was attending to a director call at another table. Such contestants are awarded the percentage obtained (or the equivalent in imps) on the other boards of that session."

 

That seems uncontroversial to me, though obviously one would probably make the rule less speciifc than that.

[pran]

Would someone please give the legal understanding of not played?

 

First time I met this term was with Bridgemate where it appears to be a registration that allows for the possibility to postpone the play and scoring of a board to a later time instead of immediately awarding an artificial adjusted score.

 

However, I have not seen any way in which Bridgemate can be used for such a later registration (after NP has been entered on a board), in fact this seems to be a matter for the scoring program alone (outside the control of Bridgemate). And I haven't found anything in the laws about "not played" other than the instruction in Law 12 on how to award artificial adjusted scores.

[blackshoe]

Blackshoe, are you objecting to the term "Not played", or to the actual consequences of Jeffrey's suggestion? His suggestion is the equivalent of changing 12C2c to:

 

"The foregoing is modified for a non-offending contestant that obtains a session score exceeding 60% of the available matchpoints, for an offending contestant that obtains a session score that is less than 40% of the available matchpoints (or the equivalent in imps), or for a pair who are prevented from playing a board because a member of the partnership was attending to a director call at another table. Such contestants are awarded the percentage obtained (or the equivalent in imps) on the other boards of that session."

 

That seems uncontroversial to me, though obviously one would probably make the rule less speciifc than that.

If that were what the law said, and if that were what scoring programs did, that would be fine with me. But what it means is that if the playing director misses playing a board because he was making a ruling, and if his pair's average score on the other boards of the session was say 65%, then his pair would get 65% on the board. However, that is not what the scoring program used in North America (ACBLScore) does. Instead, it treats the board as if the director's pair had never been scheduled to play the board at all. If you look at a recap sheet, the entry for this pair for this board is blank. The other contestants' scores are Neuberged, because there are fewer comparisons than on the other boards of the session. It is that to which I am objecting.

 

Would someone please give the legal understanding of not played?

 

First time I met this term was with Bridgemate where it appears to be a registration that allows for the possibility to postpone the play and scoring of a board to a later time instead of immediately awarding an artificial adjusted score.

 

However, I have not seen any way in which Bridgemate can be used for such a later registration (after NP has been entered on a board), in fact this seems to be a matter for the scoring program alone (outside the control of Bridgemate). And I haven't found anything in the laws about "not played" other than the instruction in Law 12 on how to award artificial adjusted scores.

I hope the above answers your question, Sven.

[Vampyr]

If that were what the law said, and if that were what scoring programs did, that would be fine with me. But what it means is that if the playing director misses playing a board because he was making a ruling, and if his pair's average score on the other boards of the session was say 65%, then his pair would get 65% on the board. However, that is not what the scoring program used in North America (ACBLScore) does. Instead, it treats the board as if the director's pair had never been scheduled to play the board at all. If you look at a recap sheet, the entry for this pair for this board is blank. The other contestants' scores are Neuberged, because there are fewer comparisons than on the other boards of the session. It is that to which I am objecting.

 

I don't understand. It is impossible to give averages in the ACBL scoring program?

 

Anyway, I don't see the relevance of posts describing what "not played" is supposed to mean, because this forum is called "Changing Laws & Regulations". Jeffrey's suggestion was to do with making a change, rather than trying to describe the current situation. I am surprised that anyone could misunderstand.

[pran]

If that were what the law said, and if that were what scoring programs did, that would be fine with me. But what it means is that if the playing director misses playing a board because he was making a ruling, and if his pair's average score on the other boards of the session was say 65%, then his pair would get 65% on the board. However, that is not what the scoring program used in North America (ACBLScore) does. Instead, it treats the board as if the director's pair had never been scheduled to play the board at all. If you look at a recap sheet, the entry for this pair for this board is blank. The other contestants' scores are Neuberged, because there are fewer comparisons than on the other boards of the session. It is that to which I am objecting.

 

 

I hope the above answers your question, Sven.

It does indeed, and I fully back Ed's view that NP should be an illegal result entry that for some unknown reason ufortunately is supported by the Bridgemate system.

 

I have been using scoring programs since around 1980 and Bridgemate not that long, but with two different scoring programs.

 

The first scoring program made an enourmous mess whenever anybody registered NP on the Bridgemate so we had to explicitly instruct players never to do that.

 

The authors of the scoring program that I am now using (and has been for the last year) appreciate that players tend to confuse "All pass" and the button for Zero (=NP) so they have deliberatly decided to treat "NP" result reports as "Pass".

 

I am not aware that anybody has ever missed the "NP" functionality whatever this supposedly should be . We do enter adjusted artificial scores directly on the Bridgemate if we can, and we can easily enter adjusted scores later in the program whether such adjusted scores are artificial or assigned (even weighted).

 

In my opinion "NP" solves no "situation", is not defined, supported or authorized in the laws and should be completely avoided. Whenever anybody feels the need for entering "NP" they should instead directly enter an assigned artificial score.

[blackshoe]

I don't understand. It is impossible to give averages in the ACBL scoring program?

 

Anyway, I don't see the relevance of posts describing what "not played" is supposed to mean, because this forum is called "Changing Laws & Regulations". Jeffrey's suggestion was to do with making a change, rather than trying to describe the current situation. I am surprised that anyone could misunderstand.

 

It is certainly possible to give "Average" as an artificial adjusted score. "Not played" is something else.

 

Andy asked me a question, I answered it.

[gnasher]

Andy asked me a question, I answered it.

I'm not much wiser than I was before you answered, though.

[kevperk]

If that were what the law said, and if that were what scoring programs did, that would be fine with me. But what it means is that if the playing director misses playing a board because he was making a ruling, and if his pair's average score on the other boards of the session was say 65%, then his pair would get 65% on the board. However, that is not what the scoring program used in North America (ACBLScore) does. Instead, it treats the board as if the director's pair had never been scheduled to play the board at all. If you look at a recap sheet, the entry for this pair for this board is blank. The other contestants' scores are Neuberged, because there are fewer comparisons than on the other boards of the session. It is that to which I am objecting.

 

I have check with ACBLScore, and to the best of my ability, I can't see how your way is different from what is actually done, save the display of the blanks on the boards. The percentages didn't change for a test file when I entered NP or their session score. Your complaint seems to be on par with those who want the scores factored to a different average, no real difference - just cosmetic. Either way, the scores for others are Neuberged

[jallerton]

If that were what the law said, and if that were what scoring programs did, that would be fine with me. But what it means is that if the playing director misses playing a board because he was making a ruling, and if his pair's average score on the other boards of the session was say 65%, then his pair would get 65% on the board. However, that is not what the scoring program used in North America (ACBLScore) does. Instead, it treats the board as if the director's pair had never been scheduled to play the board at all. If you look at a recap sheet, the entry for this pair for this board is blank. The other contestants' scores are Neuberged, because there are fewer comparisons than on the other boards of the session. It is that to which I am objecting.

 

The other contestants' scores are going to be Neuberged anyway as soon as this table has not obtained a result on the board.

[blackshoe]

I give up. You guys do whatever you want.

[gordontd]

I am not aware that anybody has ever missed the "NP" functionality whatever this supposedly should be . We do enter adjusted artificial scores directly on the Bridgemate if we can, and we can easily enter adjusted scores later in the program whether such adjusted scores are artificial or assigned (even weighted).

 

In my opinion "NP" solves no "situation", is not defined, supported or authorized in the laws and should be completely avoided. Whenever anybody feels the need for entering "NP" they should instead directly enter an assigned artificial score.

I agree with you about entering artificial adjusted scores in the Bridgemates wherever possible.

 

I use NP when I allow a late board to be played: it lets the table score the remaining rounds until they play the board, at which time the NP result is erased.

 

I also saw someone else use it last week when they had a movement that needed to be curtailed because it had been held up and would be finishing late. He entered NP for the final two boards of the final round at every table. Of course there are other ways of getting the same effect, but this is the simplest one. The important thing about NP is that that it doesn't allow the players to see the other scores on the board, which is why it is suitable for late plays.

[blackshoe]

On the Bridgepads we use here, the button for "not played" is labelled "NP/LP".

[pran]

I agree with you about entering artificial adjusted scores in the Bridgemates wherever possible.

 

I use NP when I allow a late board to be played: it lets the table score the remaining rounds until they play the board, at which time the NP result is erased.

 

I also saw someone else use it last week when they had a movement that needed to be curtailed because it had been held up and would be finishing late. He entered NP for the final two boards of the final round at every table. Of course there are other ways of getting the same effect, but this is the simplest one. The important thing about NP is that that it doesn't allow the players to see the other scores on the board, which is why it is suitable for late plays.

Does Bridgemate allow you (after first having entered NP on a board in order to get "End of Round") to bring up that round again on the Bridgemate and enter the final result on the board when eventually it is played?

 

If, as I believe, you must enter the eventual result directly in the scoring program (as an adjusted score) I do not see much simplification in entering NP instead of an artificial (temporary) score on the Bridgemate(s).

 

BTW. I always configure my Bridgemates to prevent players from seeing results on the board at other tables or receiving information on how their own result compare to others. The availability of such information is an unfortunate side effect when using travellers and there is no real bridge reason for it. Just look at matches for teams where any comparison of results during a round is banned.

[gordontd]

Does Bridgemate allow you (after first having entered NP on a board in order to get "End of Round") to bring up that round again on the Bridgemate and enter the final result on the board when eventually it is played?

Yes.

 

If, as I believe, you must enter the eventual result directly in the scoring program (as an adjusted score) I do not see much simplification in entering NP instead of an artificial (temporary) score on the Bridgemate(s).

You are mistaken about needing to make the final score entry in the program.

 

BTW. I always configure my Bridgemates to prevent players from seeing results on the board at other tables or receiving information on how their own result compare to others. The availability of such information is an unfortunate side effect when using travellers and there is no real bridge reason for it. Just look at matches for teams where any comparison of results during a round is banned.

I expect this is a cultural difference. Personally I can see not reason why, in pairs events, players should be kept in the dark about how well they are doing. Maybe it's because you run lots of barometer events, when I can see a reason for not showing the scores.

 

Teams events are a different matter.

[kevperk]

On the Bridgepads we use here, the button for "not played" is labelled "NP/LP".

Putting in NP is for the time when the table will not be playing the board and an artificially adjusted score is to be entered into the scoring program (ACBLScore). LP is for the time when the table has a late play. At the end of round, the Bridgepad will return to the board, to allow the score to be entered. Both entries will put LATE into ACBLScore. By just removing the entry, the score will be brought back in.

[kevperk]

Does Bridgemate allow you (after first having entered NP on a board in order to get "End of Round") to bring up that round again on the Bridgemate and enter the final result on the board when eventually it is played?

 

If, as I believe, you must enter the eventual result directly in the scoring program (as an adjusted score) I do not see much simplification in entering NP instead of an artificial (temporary) score on the Bridgemate(s).

 

BTW. I always configure my Bridgemates to prevent players from seeing results on the board at other tables or receiving information on how their own result compare to others. The availability of such information is an unfortunate side effect when using travellers and there is no real bridge reason for it. Just look at matches for teams where any comparison of results during a round is banned.

For ACBLScore, put NP will mark the board at LATE. This way, it can be easy to find. One can go to the table at the end of game, and remove the score, allowing the table to enter the score.

[pran]

For ACBLScore, put NP will mark the board at LATE. This way, it can be easy to find. One can go to the table at the end of game, and remove the score, allowing the table to enter the score.

This is news to me.

 

Not that I am likely to try it, but how do you configure your Bridgemate system so that after a Bridgemate table terminal has displayed the message "End of Round" or even "End of Session" you can reopen a previous round for that table, remove the score on a board in that round and enter a different score?

[barmar]

Is this discussion of the technical details of ACBLScore and BridgeMate really appropriate here? Or is the problem that we have a Law that is difficult to implement when using these systems? Are we really suggesting changing the Law to match the technology?

[blackshoe]

Why not? A lot of people think that's the way to write the Laws for Online Bridge. B-)

[pran]

Is this discussion of the technical details of ACBLScore and BridgeMate really appropriate here? Or is the problem that we have a Law that is difficult to implement when using these systems? Are we really suggesting changing the Law to match the technology?

My question is obviously not a matter of changing the laws, but I found no better place for asking clarification on a point that was completely unknown to me.

 

ACBLScore is not relevant for this clarification, it is solely a question about Bridgemate and Bridgemate control software.

[aguahombre]

Then I won't answer for BridgePad, instead of Bridgemate. On BridgePad it is easy for the TD to do any time before the final score at that table has been entered even if we are on a different round. But if someone wants to know for BridgePad, IM me.