Fouled board

[Xiaolongnu]

Something that I have never really understood about fouled boards, scoring them, and PairsScorer's method.

 

The north cards were misplaced in the South pocket and vice versa. The EW cards were ok. The fault was discovered after one and only one pair played the board again.

 

1. Is this a fouled board?

2. Either way, what is the correct ruling? Logically speaking the pair who played it the "wrong" way should get A6060 but the fouled board scoring function in PairsScorer does NOT do it this way, it awards them the equivalent of A5050 instead.

3. And most importantly, what IS the correct ruling? My understanding is that it should be A6060 to the pair who were forced to play it the wrong way and enough PP's to at least make up the diff to the people who messed it up, in a fair way. This however contradicts the PairsScorer method. Am I to believe that the PairsScorer method is just there to calculate the scores ASSUMING THE DIRECTOR HAS ALREADY DECIDED to split into two fraternities separately?

[pran]

Something that I have never really understood about fouled boards, scoring them, and PairsScorer's method.

 

The north cards were misplaced in the South pocket and vice versa. The EW cards were ok. The fault was discovered after one and only one pair played the board again.

 

1. Is this a fouled board?

2. Either way, what is the correct ruling? Logically speaking the pair who played it the "wrong" way should get A6060 but the fouled board scoring function in PairsScorer does NOT do it this way, it awards them the equivalent of A5050 instead.

3. And most importantly, what IS the correct ruling? My understanding is that it should be A6060 to the pair who were forced to play it the wrong way and enough PP's to at least make up the diff to the people who messed it up, in a fair way. This however contradicts the PairsScorer method. Am I to believe that the PairsScorer method is just there to calculate the scores ASSUMING THE DIRECTOR HAS ALREADY DECIDED to split into two fraternities separately?

1: Sure it is - see Law 87

2: Then PairsScorer is wrong - Those who played the fouled board shall be scored in a separate group, and when this group contains just one result then the score in that Group shall be A+/A+

3: Imposing PP is not a matter for any scoring program, it is fully up to the Director and at his discretion.

[blackshoe]

You assign a PP when an irregularity has occurred, and either it involved a stronger law than "should" ("should" laws should garner a PP rarely; if the admonition is stronger, the PP should be more frequent) or the TD deems a PP is necessary to "get the message across". The size of a PP is at TD discretion, but the criterion is the severity of the offense and the likelihood that the offender "gets it". You do not award a PP to "adjust" scores or compensate for something in a score adjustment. Most jurisdictions have a recommended "standard" PP (it's — at MPs — 10% of a top in the EBU, and 25% of a top in the ACBL). You should generally give that unless you think more is needed to ensure the offender will make an effort not to do it again.

[RMB1]

PairsScorer does not do everything. It will score independent subfields and if there is only one score in a subfield it scores it as 50/50 because there is nothing else for it do - effectively this is what you get when factoring one result. If there is a one-score subfield then PairsScorer cannot do the finding of facts required to award an artificial score per Law 12C2 - it does know who is (partially) at fault. So the TD needs to tell the scoring program an artificial adjusted score for the board if it turns out that there is no comparisons for the score on the board - often this will be 60/60.

 

The players responsible for the fouling should be fined - some in the EBU would like to see the total fine (between those pairs at fault) at least 20% of a top, so that we are not giving away match points; otherwise a fine of the standard amount is normal.

[pran]

PairsScorer does not do everything. It will score independent subfields and if there is only one score in a subfield it scores it as 50/50 because there is nothing else for it do - effectively this is what you get when factoring one result. If there is a one-score subfield then PairsScorer cannot do the finding of facts required to award an artificial score per Law 12C2 - it does know who is (partially) at fault. So the TD needs to tell the scoring program an artificial adjusted score for the board if it turns out that there is no comparisons for the score on the board - often this will be 60/60.

[...]

This cannot possibly be correct!

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.

When a result has been obtained on a board and the scoring program is informed that this result was obtained in a subfield of just one table (and therefore no comparison With other tables is possible) then the scoring program shall by default assume that both contestants at that table are in no way at fault. Therefore the scoring program shall award 60% score to each contestant at that single table unless the Director actively has awarded a different (artificial) adjusted score.

[blackshoe]

the scoring program shall by default assume that both contestants at that table are in no way at fault

Where is this in the laws?

[pran]

Where is this in the laws?

It is a consequence of Law 12 C 2 a.

 

What basis is there for an assumption that the players completing a board in good faith is in any way at fault when it eventually turns out that the board they played was fouled (most probably) when they received it?

[PeterAlan]

This cannot possibly be correct!

 

When a result has been obtained on a board and the scoring program is informed that this result was obtained in a subfield of just one table (and therefore no comparison With other tables is possible) then the scoring program shall by default assume that both contestants at that table are in no way at fault. Therefore the scoring program shall award 60% score to each contestant at that single table unless the Director actively has awarded a different (artificial) adjusted score.

The scoring program is a tool of the TD; its job is to score results that it's given, and to do that job well.

 

If you try to turn it into some limited sort of bridge expert system, building in default judgments in situations where the TD is supposed to think before deciding on the score, you'll end up with a compromised mess.

[pran]

The scoring program is a tool of the TD; its job is to score results that it's given, and to do that job well.

 

If you try to turn it into some limited sort of bridge expert system, building in default judgments in situations where the TD is supposed to think before deciding on the score, you'll end up with a compromised mess.

Quite true.

 

But this scoring program doesn't do its job well the way it has been described here, in fact it does it unacceptably wrong.

 

A scoring program must have the facility to handle scoring in several groups as specified in Law 87B. The special case which this program apparently cannot handle is when there is one or more such groups with only one result in each.

 

If any pair involved in such a group is at fault then the Director must anyway award artificial adjusted scores in that group, but if (as is most often the case) none of the involved pairs is at fault then the program should recognize the fact that a group contains only one result and that no artificial adjusted score has been awarded in that group.

 

Then, instead of forcing the Director to (aftewwards) manually change the scores to A+/A+ as specified in Law 12C2a, the scoring program should award these scores by default in such cases.

[barmar]

The scoring program is a tool of the TD; its job is to score results that it's given, and to do that job well.

 

If you try to turn it into some limited sort of bridge expert system, building in default judgments in situations where the TD is supposed to think before deciding on the score, you'll end up with a compromised mess.

But the scoring program DOES have a built-in default judgement. It's assigning Ave/Ave, so its assuming both pairs were partly at fault. If they didn't want to build in a default assumption, it would leave the scores in the 1-table field unassigned, and require the TD to fill them in by hand.

 

I'm curious how this foul was discovered and corrected before the hand was played again. Players shouldn't be discussing hands during the event, so how did they realize that the NS hands were swapped? The more common way to get a 1-table field in a fouled board situation would be for the players to put the hands back wrong after round 1 or before the last round. In the former case, it probably WAS fouled by someone in the 1-table field; in the latter, it was probably someone at the 2nd-to-last table that played the board.

 

Edit:

 

Is this what curtain cards are for?

[blackshoe]

It is a consequence of Law 12 C 2 a.

 

What basis is there for an assumption that the players completing a board in good faith is in any way at fault when it eventually turns out that the board they played was fouled (most probably) when they received it?

There is no basis in law for any assumption about the culpability of players who are subject to a score adjustment. Determination of culpability is up to the TD. The program should make no assumption whatsoever, it should simply await the TD's decision.

[pran]

But the scoring program DOES have a built-in default judgement. It's assigning Ave/Ave, so its assuming both pairs were partly at fault. If they didn't want to build in a default assumption, it would leave the scores in the 1-table field unassigned, and require the TD to fill them in by hand.

 

I'm curious how this foul was discovered and corrected before the hand was played again. Players shouldn't be discussing hands during the event, so how did they realize that the NS hands were swapped? The more common way to get a 1-table field in a fouled board situation would be for the players to put the hands back wrong after round 1 or before the last round. In the former case, it probably WAS fouled by someone in the 1-table field; in the latter, it was probably someone at the 2nd-to-last table that played the board.

 

Edit:

 

Is this what curtain cards are for?

There are several ways this can happen, the simplest one is that it was the last time it was played. Another possibility is when players see all previous results on the Board as soon as they have registered their own and immediately notice that something must obviously be wrong.

[pran]

There is no basis in law for any assumption about the culpability of players who are subject to a score adjustment. Determination of culpability is up to the TD. The program should make no assumption whatsoever, it should simply await the TD's decision.

Do you always consider yourself partly at fault of any irregularity that might turn up on the board you are about to play?

Isn't it more reasonable to consider the default to be not at fault until there is a real reason for the Director to rule otherwise?

 

And remember: Players who complete their play and register their result on a board in the regular way are definitely not at fault of any irregularity that quite likely must be the result of other people's action on that board before they themselves even received it.

 

What I am talking about is the default action that should be taken by the scoring program when there is no indication of any irregularity committed by the players eventually finding themselves at the sole table having played a fouled board.

 

The Director should not have to manually score out the entire field of results when groups of fouled boards are detected. Whether any group consists of only one result or every group has severfal results is immaterial, the laws (and sometimes local regulations) include rules for either case.

[blackshoe]

Do you always consider yourself partly at fault of any irregularity that might turn up on the board you are about to play?

Isn't it more reasonable to consider the default to be not at fault until there is a real reason for the Director to rule otherwise?

 

And remember: Players who complete their play and register their result on a board in the regular way are definitely not at fault of any irregularity that quite likely must be the result of other people's action on that board before they themselves even received it.

 

What I am talking about is the default action that should be taken by the scoring program when there is no indication of any irregularity committed by the players eventually finding themselves at the sole table having played a fouled board.

 

The Director should not have to manually score out the entire field of results when groups of fouled boards are detected. Whether any group consists of only one result or every group has severfal results is immaterial, the laws (and sometimes local regulations) include rules for either case.

 

You are missing the point. There is no default. It's up to the TD to put in artificial scores. That's his job, not the computer's.

[pran]

You are missing the point. There is no default. It's up to the TD to put in artificial scores. That's his job, not the computer's.

OP (the very first post) made it clear that he was confused when the scoring program automatically selected an option that almost always would be incorrect instead of the option that almost always would be correct.

 

You can as well say that it's up to the TD to put in all scores after calculating them so the scoring program should not calculate and enter the matchpoints (or similar) by defult.

 

The point is that we have scoring programs to relieve TD of most of his work, leaving only what really needs his attention. And scoring a separate scoring group containing only one recorded result is one of these cases where a default equivalent to 60/60 is correct every time.

 

The only exception are the situations where TD actively must award artificial adjusted scores anyway because no result has been recorded by the players.

[Vampyr]

But the scoring program DOES have a built-in default judgement. It's assigning Ave/Ave, so its assuming both pairs were partly at fault. If they didn't want to build in a default assumption, it would leave the scores in the 1-table field unassigned, and require the TD to fill them in by hand.

 

I'm curious how this foul was discovered and corrected before the hand was played again. Players shouldn't be discussing hands during the event, so how did they realize that the NS hands were swapped? The more common way to get a 1-table field in a fouled board situation would be for the players to put the hands back wrong after round 1 or before the last round. In the former case, it probably WAS fouled by someone in the 1-table field; in the latter, it was probably someone at the 2nd-to-last table that played the board.

 

I am not sure how the players in the 1-table field could have fouled the board before playing it.

[Vampyr]

OP (the very first post) made it clear that he was confused when the scoring program automatically selected an option that almost always would be incorrect instead of the option that almost always would be correct.

 

You can as well say that it's up to the TD to put in all scores after calculating them so the scoring program should not calculate and enter the matchpoints (or similar) by defult.

 

The point is that we have scoring programs to relieve TD of most of his work, leaving only what really needs his attention. And scoring a separate scoring group containing only one recorded result is one of these cases where a default equivalent to 60/60 is correct every time.

 

The only exception are the situations where TD actively must award artificial adjusted scores anyway because no result has been recorded by the players.

 

Who cares?

[gordontd]

I must say it wouldn't have occurred to me to use the fouled board facility for one score - I would just enter the artificial score directly.

[pran]

I must say it wouldn't have occurred to me to use the fouled board facility for one score - I would just enter the artificial score directly.

That is of course a possibility, but how would you then handle the situation when next a second (and even a third) table turns up having discovered that they too played the same fouled board (not all of them with the same result)?

[pran]

OP (the very first post) made it clear that he was confused when the scoring program automatically selected an option that almost always would be incorrect instead of the option that almost always would be correct.

 

You can as well say that it's up to the TD to put in all scores after calculating them so the scoring program should not calculate and enter the matchpoints (or similar) by defult.

 

The point is that we have scoring programs to relieve TD of most of his work, leaving only what really needs his attention. And scoring a separate scoring group containing only one recorded result is one of these cases where a default equivalent to 60/60 is correct every time.

 

The only exception are the situations where TD actively must award artificial adjusted scores anyway because no result has been recorded by the players.

 

Who cares?

 

And why bother with scoring programs in the first Place?

[gordontd]

That is of course a possibility, but how would you then handle the situation when next a second (and even a third) table turns up having discovered that they too played the same fouled board (not all of them with the same result)?

That's when the fouled board facility comes into play. I wouldn't be doing any of this until I had established the entire situation satisfactorily, so there wouldn't be a first then a second then a third.

[blackshoe]

You can as well say that it's up to the TD to put in all scores after calculating them so the scoring program should not calculate and enter the matchpoints (or similar) by defult.

No. That's a completely different situation.

[pran]

That's when the fouled board facility comes into play. I wouldn't be doing any of this until I had established the entire situation satisfactorily, so there wouldn't be a first then a second then a third.

Are you really saying that you would do nothing until you have asked each pair in the contest and ascertained whether they played the correct or a different version?

 

Sorry, I just don't believe you.

 

And believe me I have had situations where "New" instances of a fouled board have been discovered later in such a way that a particular result had to be transferred from the "normal version" group to a "fouled version" Group (originally containing only one result). This is no problem and causes very little extra work for a TD using a proper scoring program.

[barmar]

I am not sure how the players in the 1-table field could have fouled the board before playing it.

But how would the scoring program know whether the board was fouled before or after playing it? As I said, a 1-table field can result from the board being fouled when returning the cards to the board after being played in round 1.

 

If the scoring program knows the movement, I guess it could figure out where the foul likely happened. In addition to getting the right default for the 1-table field, it could also assist the TD in finding the pair that may deserve a PP for fouling the board.

[Vampyr]

And why bother with scoring programs in the first Place?

 

Most people find that they save time.

 

But how would the scoring program know whether the board was fouled before or after playing it? As I said, a 1-table field can result from the board being fouled when returning the cards to the board after being played in round 1.

 

So maybe the default on the scoring programme should be A-/A- (unless of course the computer can sense that one pair left the table while the other pair stayed and fouled the board.