Fouled board

[gordontd]

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.

Whyever not? It certainly seems better than the piecemeal approach you appear to propose of moving scores from one group to another one by one before checking the other tables.

 

Of course you don't usually have to ask ALL the pairs. You know one table where it was played in the incorrect form and you work backwards until you find a table where it was played in the correct form.

[pran]

I realize that most of this discussion probably is the result of different cultures?

 

We mostly play barometer in Norway (and in fact the entire Scandinavia). Board results are fed to the scoring program using Bridgemates. Scoring is done automatically and scores are made available to the players instantly. When irregularities occur then TD intervention is only requjired sufficiently for the scoring program to know how to handle.

 

Passing boards from table to table between rounds is very seldom used. I don't believe any club in Norway has played Mitchell movement for at least 25 years (except in very extraordinary situations). Smaller clubs without access to Bridgemate and preduplicated boards frequently play Howell movement and the players then usually write their results on travellers which are collected and scored manually by the Director after the session, late at night or the next day.

 

Maybe this clarifies the issues?

[barmar]

The OP said "The fault was discovered after one and only one pair played the board again." This implies that the boards are passed along to be played multiple times, not barometer style.

[pran]

The OP said "The fault was discovered after one and only one pair played the board again." This implies that the boards are passed along to be played multiple times, not barometer style.

Yes, but this doesn't change the principle that no player shall be considered even partly at fault unless there is some evidence to the contrary.

 

And that they have played a board that is subsequently found fouled is itself no evidence (or even indication) that any of them is in any way at fault.

 

Consequently the result they have entered shall normally be just flagged as being in a separate group (together with zero or more other results in the same separate group) and scored as such according to Law (and possible regulation), unless the Director cancels result(s) and awards artificial adjusted score(s).

 

My point has all the time been that the Director should not have to enter Ave+/Ave+ for even a single fouled board, the scoring program should be able to know that this score is the one to assign in that particular situation.

 

It is of course OK if TD manually does assign Ave+/Ave+, but that means an unneccessary extra action by him, and (as indicated in OP) if the scoring program fails to award scores equivalent to Ave+/Ave+ it may lead to mistakes and Director's error.

[gordontd]

Yes, but this doesn't change the principle that no player shall be considered even partly at fault unless there is some evidence to the contrary.

 

And that they have played a board that is subsequently found fouled is itself no evidence (or even indication) that any of them is in any way at fault.

 

Consequently the result they have entered shall normally be just flagged as being in a separate group (together with zero or more other results in the same separate group) and scored as such according to Law (and possible regulation), unless the Director cancels result(s) and awards artificial adjusted score(s).

 

My point has all the time been that the Director should not have to enter Ave+/Ave+ for even a single fouled board, the scoring program should be able to know that this score is the one to assign in that particular situation.

 

It is of course OK if TD manually does assign Ave+/Ave+, but that means an unneccessary extra action by him, and (as indicated in OP) if the scoring program fails to award scores equivalent to Ave+/Ave+ it may lead to mistakes and Director's error.

You find it more onerous to enter A+/A+ than to use the fouled board procedure?

[blackshoe]

And that they have played a board that is subsequently found fouled is itself no evidence (or even indication) that any of them is in any way at fault.

It's not evidence that they are in no way at fault either.

[pran]

You find it more onerous to enter A+/A+ than to use the fouled board procedure?

Of course.

It requires specifying an artificial score on that board independently for each side instead of just flagging that Board result belonging to a specific separate group.

 

But you will really appreciate the difference once a second or even more instances of the fouled board are discovered.

 

That this couldn't happen here is no argument against using one simple common procedure which is independent on how many groups exist and how many results there are within each group.

[blackshoe]

You want the computer to assign A+ to both sides at *every* table when a board has been fouled? That can't be right.

[pran]

And that they have played a board that is subsequently found fouled is itself no evidence (or even indication) that any of them is in any way at fault.

It's not evidence that they are in no way at fault either.

 

I am not aware that we have abolished the fundamental human rights in Bridge?

[Vampyr]

I am not aware that we have abolished the fundamental human rights in Bridge?

 

There is no such thing.

[pran]

You want the computer to assign A+ to both sides at *every* table when a board has been fouled? That can't be right.

Have I ever indicated any such nonsense?

 

Any respectable scoring program will automatically score the boards within each group of identical boards according to Law 87B once the specific group to which each individual result belongs is marked by the Director.

 

And that is all the Director shall need to do. He should not be bothered by calculating each score no more than he has to calculate all scores for boards where there is no irregularity.

[pran]

There is no such thing.

 

So if I ever meet you in any of my tournaments you will be quite comfortable with a message from me that I shall hold you fully at fault for every irregularity which might seem to occur unless you can show evidence and convince me that you are not at fault?

 

I don't believe that you can be serious.

 

If you really mean what you wrote I might simply announce to you that I shall prepare a penalty of 25% on top score on every board you shall play; this penalty will of course be waived as soon as you show evidence (individually for each board) that you are not at fault of anything related to that board.

 

Ridiculous - isn't it?

[Vampyr]

So if I ever meet you in any of my tournaments you will be quite comfortable with a message from me that I shall hold you fully at fault for every irregularity which might seem to occur unless you can show evidence and convince me that you are not at fault?

 

I don't believe that you can be serious.

 

There is a set of bridge laws which governs the game, and local regulations which do more of the same. The director is responsible for seeing that these laws and regulations are followed. That is all there is.

 

Anyway the computer will have no way of determining where any fault lies, so the director is responsible for obtaining the facts and entering any necessary artificial scores.

[pran]

Anyway the computer will have no way of determining where any fault lies, so the director is responsible for obtaining the facts and entering any necessary artificial scores.

Sure the computer program will know because the Director will enter the corresponding penalty. But a group of fouled boards shall be scored independent of any such penalty - this is specified in Law 87B (together with relevant regulations).

 

Say that you have a group of three (identically) fouled boards with results for instance 140, 170 and 420. Can we at least agree that the three scores for these results must be different and should certainly not be recorded as artificial scores?

[Vampyr]

 

Say that you have a group of three (identically) fouled boards with results for instance 140, 170 and 420. Can we at least agree that the three scores for these results must be different and should certainly not be recorded as artificial scores?

 

Of course. No one has suggested otherwise.

[blackshoe]

Have I ever indicated any such nonsense?

 

Any respectable scoring program will automatically score the boards within each group of identical boards according to Law 87B once the specific group to which each individual result belongs is marked by the Director.

 

And that is all the Director shall need to do. He should not be bothered by calculating each score no more than he has to calculate all scores for boards where there is no irregularity.

You seemed to be indicating it. My response was a "I can't believe you're saying what you appear to be saying" because I'm pretty sure you know better.

 

In scoring a fouled board, the Director determines as closely as possible which scores were obtained on the board in its correct form and which in the changed form(s). He divides the scores on that basis into groups and rates each group separately as provided in the regulations for the tournament. (In the absence of a relevant regulation the Director selects and announces his method.)

So either there is a regulation, or there isn't. If there is, and if the scoring program is provided by the Regulating Authority, then I suppose the provisions of the regulation could be built into the program. If there is no regulation, the program(mer) cannot know in advance what method the director will choose. One might argue in this case that a program-provided default is only a suggestion, and the director can do something else if he wishes, but that IMO only encourages the director to be lazy. And the same applies in the case where there is a regulation, but one of the fields has only one table in it. If the regulation specifies that the pairs at the single table shall get Average Plus, then so be it. But no reasonable regulator would say that, because it does not account for the possibility that the pair in question is in some way partly or directly at fault for the problem.

 

In any case, this seems more a question of the philosophy of program design than a question on the rules of bridge.

[pran]

Of course. No one has suggested otherwise.

Exactly.

 

And a good scoring program will handle fouled boards correctly without any TD action other than to flag the boards that must be scored in separate groups.

 

Whether a Group contains just one or several boards should be immaterial and ruling whether a player is more or less at fault of some irregularity is not part of this scoring.

 

Note the important point that ruling on fouled boards has nothing to do with awarding adjusted scores (artificial or assigned). The fact that the scoring is equivalent to AVE+/AVE+ when there is just one fouled board is an intended coincidence founded in Law 12C2a and not an exception from Law 87B!

[pran]

You seemed to be indicating it. My response was a "I can't believe you're saying what you appear to be saying" because I'm pretty sure you know better.

???

So either there is a regulation, or there isn't. If there is, and if the scoring program is provided by the Regulating Authority, then I suppose the provisions of the regulation could be built into the program. If there is no regulation, the program(mer) cannot know in advance what method the director will choose. One might argue in this case that a program-provided default is only a suggestion, and the director can do something else if he wishes, but that IMO only encourages the director to be lazy. And the same applies in the case where there is a regulation, but one of the fields has only one table in it. If the regulation specifies that the pairs at the single table shall get Average Plus, then so be it. But no reasonable regulator would say that, because it does not account for the possibility that the pair in question is in some way partly or directly at fault for the problem.

 

In any case, this seems more a question of the philosophy of program design than a question on the rules of bridge.

A good scoring program will implement the rules of bridge in effect under the jurisdiction where it is used. In your area this means the relevant ACBL regulations. (I assume there is at least some similarity between regulations across different jurisdictions?)

 

From my own experience: I received my training as TD 35 years ago when everything was done by hand. At that time the rule for scoring fouled boards was simply to give each result 2 MP for each other result that was outranked within the same scoring group, 1 MP for each result that was equalled within the same group and 1 MP for each result in any other group. (You will recognize that this is exactly the same rule as used today when there is no fouled board and therefore no "other group".)

 

The first change to this rule in Norway was introduced pretty early in order to ensure that the top score within any single group should be at least 60%. If necessary to obtain this the required number of MP was added to each score within such a group.

 

With the introduction of computer-assisted scoring these rules were again changed and our current regulation specifies the scores to be set within each separate group of:

One table: 60%/60%

Two tables: 65%/55% and 55%/65%

Three tables: 70%/50% - 60%/60% - 50%/70%

Four or more tables: Scoring shall be performed with Neuberg's formula.

 

There is no need for our Directors to remember this rule, it is all implemented in our authorized scoring program. In fact I believe very few do remember it, I don't and had to look it up myself when writing this!

 

 

Please don't tell me that we are alone in the world with such advanced scoring tool for the Director?

[Vampyr]

One table: 60%/60%

Two tables: 65%/55% and 55%/65%

Three tables: 70%/50% - 60%/60% - 50%/70%

Four or more tables: Scoring shall be performed with Neuberg's formula.

 

According to the White Book, Neuberg scoring is used when a fouled board is played by two or more tables.

[pran]

One table: 60%/60%

Two tables: 65%/55% and 55%/65%

Three tables: 70%/50% - 60%/60% - 50%/70%

Four or more tables: Scoring shall be performed with Neuberg's formula.

 

According to the White Book, Neuberg scoring is used when a fouled board is played by two or more tables.

OK. Fair enough.

 

I think I know the reason why we have special handling for two or three tables in the group, it has to do with proper statistics in small samples.

However this is not worth discussing,you have your rules and we have ours.

 

The point is that the scoring program should handle situations correct without unnecessary "assistance" from the Director. And if the Director must manually change a single fouled board scoring from 50%/50% to 60%/60% that is an example of such unnecessary assistance. (And as we have seen also has led to misunderstanding on how to score fouled Boards.)

[blackshoe]

The point is that the scoring program should handle situations correct without unnecessary "assistance" from the Director. And if the Director must manually change a single fouled board scoring from 50%/50% to 60%/60% that is an example of such unnecessary assistance. (And as we have seen also has led to misunderstanding on how to score fouled Boards.)

The same argument applies when the "default" is 60/60 and the appropriate score is something else.

[pran]

The point is that the scoring program should handle situations correct without unnecessary "assistance" from the Director. And if the Director must manually change a single fouled board scoring from 50%/50% to 60%/60% that is an example of such unnecessary assistance. (And as we have seen also has led to misunderstanding on how to score fouled Boards.)

 

The same argument applies when the "default" is 60/60 and the appropriate score is something else.

 

I just don't understand what "normal" circumstances around a single fouled board should result in any other score than 60%/60%.

[Vampyr]

It has already been mentioned i this thread that the board could have been played by the pairs at the first table and then fouled by them. Do you read other people's posts, or do you restrict your activity to posting the same things over and over?

 

You never seem to remember from one day to the next that bridge things are done in an unusual way in Norway. Though it seems that perhaps you choose not to remember. It is clear that you knew perfectly well that other NBOs do not have a schedule for assigning artificial scores to multiple fouled boards, and that therefore your repetitive comments in this thread were not relevant.

[pran]

It has already been mentioned i this thread that the board could have been played by the pairs at the first table and then fouled by them. Do you read other people's posts, or do you restrict your activity to posting the same things over and over?

 

You never seem to remember from one day to the next that bridge things are done in an unusual way in Norway. Though it seems that perhaps you choose not to remember. It is clear that you knew perfectly well that other NBOs do not have a schedule for assigning artificial scores to multiple fouled boards, and that therefore your repetitive comments in this thread were not relevant.

So this is what you consider the most usual reason for a fouled Board at one table only?

 

And do you consider it correct to rule that players are at fault just because they could have been at fault?

 

To my knowledge the most persistent "unusual" way we are doing bridge things in Norway (as compared to the rest of the world) is that we have abandoned Mitchell movements years ago and expect events for pairs to be barometer style unless otherwise announced. (I believe you will find the same in the whole of Scandinavia.)

 

I do hope it is not special for Norway that we consider a player not at fault without evidence (better than a possibility) of being at fault.

[Vampyr]

I do hope it is not special for Norway that we consider a player not at fault without evidence (better than a possibility) of being at fault.

 

Here the director investigates the facts.