"Average" artificial scores

[mjj29]

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?

Certainly in BM2s (and I believe BM1s, but I've been using BM2s recently) you just go to the TD menu and erase a score for any board - that board doesn't have to be the current or most recent round. It'll then go straight back to asking for that one score in that round.

[gordontd]

For Bridgemate I you erase the (NP) score in Bridgemate Control Software and it goes back to the relevant round - even after the session has ended.

[pran]

Certainly in BM2s (and I believe BM1s, but I've been using BM2s recently) you just go to the TD menu and erase a score for any board - that board doesn't have to be the current or most recent round. It'll then go straight back to asking for that one score in that round.

I have only used BM1, and with them you can (using the TD key/menu) as far as I know only manipulate results on boards scheduled for the current round. And the "current round" shifts automatically to the next round as soon as "End of round" or "end of session" is displayed on the Bridgemate.

[pran]

For Bridgemate I you erase the (NP) score in Bridgemate Control Software and it goes back to the relevant round - even after the session has ended.

 

I suppose if that is possible it must include a reload of the Bridgemate terminal, i.e. removing the terminal from the server and then reconnecting it again?

 

But I am confused on how you can erase a score except by using "tools" and patching directly into the database tables. That is definitely not to be recommended excedpt for very experienced computer experts.

 

OK, I believe we are getting too far away from the purpose of this forum to continue Q & A.

 

And I still shall not miss "NP" whichever way that is supposed to be treated by the scoring program. Artificial adjusted scores eventually updated in the scoring program when final results exist works fine for me.

[gordontd]

But I am confused on how you can erase a score except by using "tools" and patching directly into the database tables. That is definitely not to be recommended excedpt for very experienced computer experts.

Select the score (or non-score) in Bridgemate Control Software, right-click on it, and select "Delete".

[bluejak]

When you set up a session of bridge, there are an intended number of boards to be played by each pair. So if you decide to play 7 3 board rounds followed by a 2 board round for reasons of time, and there is a missing pair, some pairs will play 23 boards, and those that sit out will play 20 boards [or 21 if a pair sits out during the last curtailed round]. On each one of those boards a score is recorded in one of the following three ways, as a matter of Law:

 

1. the result at the table is put in as a score, or
   
2. an adjusted score awarded by the TD is put in instead of the result obtained at the table, or
   
3. an average is put in where a board scheduled to be played is not played for any reason, ie Ave, Ave+ or Ave-
   

Not played is used for boards that are not part of the movement. For example, in the above case, it could be set up in the computer as 8 3 board rounds, and then the final board of the session at each table could be entered as Not Played.

 

There have been some suggestions that where a board is to be played late Not Played is entered which will be changed later: this is obviously fine and does not affect the rules.

 

In my view, changing the basic Laws to include Not Played for any reason whatever in the case of a board scheduled to be played is

 

• totally unnecessary, and
  
• a distortion of the fairness of the scoring
  

Why is it a distortion? Because the scoring is based on comparing people over a set number of scores: Not played changes that, and gives anyone who gets a Not played a slight advantage if they wish to be top [or bottom] since more extreme scores are easier over fewer boards.

 

If you are doing well in a duplicate in a club, and that club gives Not Played to boards that cannot be played, it is to your advantage to slow down and play fewer boards.

 

So I suggest that the current method of giving an Average for any scheduled board that is not played is fairest and should be retained.

[bluejak]

I suppose if that is possible it must include a reload of the Bridgemate terminal, i.e. removing the terminal from the server and then reconnecting it again?

 

But I am confused on how you can erase a score except by using "tools" and patching directly into the database tables. That is definitely not to be recommended excedpt for very experienced computer experts.

Well, I can do it easily enough without using 'Tools', I am certainly not an expert!

[jeffford76]

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.

 

What is it you think happens to the other contestants' scores when a board is scored as "Average"? It's not any different than this - they are compared in a smaller set of comparisons, then Neuberged.

[blackshoe]

All I know is that when I commented in correspondence with ACBL HQ that "not played" has the effect of assigning a pair their average score on the other boards in the session, I was roundly chastised for my incorrect interpretation, and told that instead the board is effectively cancelled for that pair. I don't see any legal basis for a ruling that "you didn't have time to play this board, so I'm just going to cancel it".

[aguahombre]

All I know is that when I commented in correspondence with ACBL HQ that "not played" has the effect of assigning a pair their average score on the other boards in the session, I was roundly chastised for my incorrect interpretation, and told that instead the board is effectively cancelled for that pair.

A distinction without a difference.

[blackshoe]

A distinction without a difference.

 

Not, apparently, in the opinion of whoever it was I corresponded with at HQ. B-)

[Vampyr]

A distinction without a difference.

 

There is a difference though. Blackshoe's interpretation was that "NP" in a 24-board session gave the pair, say, 56% on that board, when in fact it leaves the pair with 56% over 23 boards. It may be very similar indeed, but it is not the same.

[gnasher]

When the results are published, are any of the numbers next to each pair's name different, and if so how do they differ?

[jallerton]

There have been some suggestions that where a board is to be played late Not Played is entered which will be changed later: this is obviously fine and does not affect the rules.

 

In my view, changing the basic Laws to include Not Played for any reason whatever in the case of a board scheduled to be played is

 

• totally unnecessary, and
  
• a distortion of the fairness of the scoring
  

Why is it a distortion? Because the scoring is based on comparing people over a set number of scores: Not played changes that, and gives anyone who gets a Not played a slight advantage if they wish to be top [or bottom] since more extreme scores are easier over fewer boards.

 

I'm not sure how many pairs would consider increasing their chances of coming bottom to be an advantage! Meanwhile, the current method of artificially awarding a 50% score on an unplayed board is a distortion because it arbitrarily makes their score closer to 50%.

 

If you are doing well in a duplicate in a club, and that club gives Not Played to boards that cannot be played, it is to your advantage to slow down and play fewer boards.

 

If a pair is at fault for a board not being played, including through slow play, then under my plan that pair would receive a procedural penalty. A PP of 10% of a top would be the equivalent of the current concept of "average minus".

[PeterAlan]

I have only used BM1, and with them you can (using the TD key/menu) as far as I know only manipulate results on boards scheduled for the current round. And the "current round" shifts automatically to the next round as soon as "End of round" or "end of session" is displayed on the Bridgemate.

This is incorrect, Pran. If the Bridgemate has moved on to the next round, you can still erase a board from the previous round: move on to the point where you are prompted for the Board number to be played, insert the TD key, press 3, and you'll find you can delete the previous round's board(s). [if you've already scored a board in the current round you'll have to erase that first.] There's only a problem if you've reached End of Session.

[RMB1]

At the weekend, I erased the score for board 14 when I had been asked to erase board 40 (not listening nor thinking clearly) - "with hilarious consequences".

 

I replaced the score for board 14 with "not played", so I could get the bridgemate back to round 6; but when I came to assign for round 7, the scoring program was complaining that round 2 hadn't finished yet.

[pran]

This is incorrect, Pran. If the Bridgemate has moved on to the next round, you can still erase a board from the previous round: move on to the point where you are prompted for the Board number to be played, insert the TD key, press 3, and you'll find you can delete the previous round's board(s). [if you've already scored a board in the current round you'll have to erase that first.] There's only a problem if you've reached End of Session.

It is indeed, and I was not aware of the possibility so I made a little testrun.

 

The possibility to effectively cancel "End of Round" and have the players reenter a corrected result will be of value and I appreciate the notification.

 

The procedure after any result has been entered in a later round is too awkward to be of any value (at least for me), so in such cases I shall continue to enter corrections through our scoring program (which automatically feeds updates back to the Bridgemate database).

 

(I also received your direct email, thanks.)

 

PS: NP is of no interest to me, if needed I shall simply enter an artificial adjusted score and replace it with the corrected score whenever available.

[aguahombre]

One good thing about using NP before posting an actual result per your decision is to remind you to do it. Every time you bring up the current posted standings (f4) it warns you about the NP still outstanding which has not been corrected to a score.

 

If you never forget anything, or never remember too late to use the remote to correct the score, disregard.

[pran]

One good thing about using NP before posting an actual result per your decision is to remind you to do it. Every time you bring up the current posted standings (f4) it warns you about the NP still outstanding which has not been corrected to a score.

 

If you never forget anything, or never remember too late to use the remote to correct the score, disregard.

It is up to the affected players to report their real score and have their temporary or incorrect score replaced by this when it is available, it is not the Director's job to ascertain that this is done. That is one major reason why I favour temorarily entering the artificial score that is relevant if the board will never be played.

 

And, in appreciation of the lacking benefit of a distinct NP entry from Bridgemates and the experience that players often (logically) press 0 (zero) instead of the button assigned for PASS when a board is passed out, the author of our scoring program has deliberately chosen to implement NP the same as PASS when reading from the Bridgemate terminals.

 

I haven't heard of anybody being unhappy with that.

[Vampyr]

It is up to the affected players to report their real score and have their temporary or incorrect score replaced by this when it is available, it is not the Director's job to ascertain that this is done.

 

Are you serious?

 

 

And, in appreciation of the lacking benefit of a distinct NP entry from Bridgemates and the experience that players often (logically) press 0 (zero) instead of the button assigned for PASS when a board is passed out, the author of our scoring program has deliberately chosen to implement NP the same as PASS when reading from the Bridgemate terminals.

 

I haven't heard of anybody being unhappy with that.

 

If a movement had to be curtailed for some reason, and pass-outs assigned to the unplayed boards resulting in entirely random scores, you might hear of someone being unhappy.

[pran]

It is up to the affected players to report their real score and have their temporary or incorrect score replaced by this when it is available, it is not the Director's job to ascertain that this is done. That is one major reason why I favour temorarily entering the artificial score that is relevant if the board will never be played.

Are you serious?

Absolutely.

The duties of the Director (or scorer) include registering the scores on the boards as reported by the players, not to ascertain that such scores are correctly reported. (Also included is of course the duty to correct errors when duly reported.)

 

If for whatever reason a score could not be obtained according to schedule the proper action by the Director is to award an artificial adjusted score with the intention of later replacing this temporary artificial score with a properly obtained and reported "real" score, but it must in case be the responsibility of the involved players to report that such score has actually been obtained.

 

And, in appreciation of the lacking benefit of a distinct NP entry from Bridgemates and the experience that players often (logically) press 0 (zero) instead of the button assigned for PASS when a board is passed out, the author of our scoring program has deliberately chosen to implement NP the same as PASS when reading from the Bridgemate terminals.

 

I haven't heard of anybody being unhappy with that.

If a movement had to be curtailed for some reason, and pass-outs assigned to the unplayed boards resulting in entirely random scores, you might hear of someone being unhappy.

I don't understand where the "random" scores would come from?

 

Our directors know that NP is interpreted as PASS when Bridgemates are used with our current scoring program. (And as I have already mentioned earlier: "NP" was not even permissible with our previous scoring program.)

 

We have the perfect tool in awarding artificial adjusted scores as authorized by Law 12A2 and that is all we need.

[blackshoe]

Awarding an ArtAS as a first response to a board not played (for example due to slow play) makes the implicit assumption that the board will not be played later. That's fine, I suppose, in most cases, where the board will in fact not be played later, and also where it does not cause confusion when the board is played later. But it's not what the law says to do.

 

It seems to me that it is up to the TD to allow or disallow a late play. It is not up to the players to schedule it on their own. Or is there a Norwegian regulation implementing this policy?

[pran]

Awarding an ArtAS as a first response to a board not played (for example due to slow play) makes the implicit assumption that the board will not be played later. That's fine, I suppose, in most cases, where the board will in fact not be played later, and also where it does not cause confusion when the board is played later. But it's not what the law says to do.

 

It seems to me that it is up to the TD to allow or disallow a late play. It is not up to the players to schedule it on their own. Or is there a Norwegian regulation implementing this policy?

Have I ever indicated in any way that the players themselves may schedule a late play?

 

Of course late play is a matter for the Director to allow. (I see nothing in the laws that gives TD the power to order a late play?)

 

And I see nothing in the laws about whether or not an interim artificial score may, should, may not or should not be recorded while awaiting the eventual result on a late play that possibly may or may not be carried out.

 

As a matter of fact I have had situations (players wasting time on playing the wrong boards in a Howell round) where I tell them that if they can manage, without delaying the entire event, to play the scheduled boards during some break they will save their scores on that board instead of receiving A-/A-.

 

Until the late play has been completed I think that A-/A- normally is the "correct" result on such boards.

[blackshoe]

Have I ever indicated in any way that the players themselves may schedule a late play?

 

Of course late play is a matter for the Director to allow. (I see nothing in the laws that gives TD the power to order a late play?)

 

And I see nothing in the laws about whether or not an interim artificial score may, should, may not or should not be recorded while awaiting the eventual result on a late play that possibly may or may not be carried out.

 

As a matter of fact I have had situations (players wasting time on playing the wrong boards in a Howell round) where I tell them that if they can manage, without delaying the entire event, to play the scheduled boards during some break they will save their scores on that board instead of receiving A-/A-.

 

Until the late play has been completed I think that A-/A- normally is the "correct" result on such boards.

 

Have you determined the degree of fault of the participants when you do that, or are you just making an arbitrary assignment?

[Vampyr]

I don't understand where the "random" scores would come from?

 

The boards that ended up not being played would be passed out. Games, slams and partscores would have been made at the other tables. Do you really think that the pass-outs would be other than random?