The EBU defines "duplicate bridge"

[Vampyr]

The EBU have a new regulation coming into force in August. The regulation says that The EBU will not award masterpoints for any games in which people play fewer than 75% of the boards in play.

 

My question is: will the EBU refund some/all of the P2P fees submitted for these games?

[gordontd]

The EBU have a new regulation coming into force in August. The regulation says that The EBU will not award masterpoints for any games in which people play fewer than 75% of the boards in play.

 

My question is: will the EBU refund some/all of the P2P fees submitted for these games?

The best way to get an answer to a question of this sort is to ask the relevant body, not to post it on a forum and hope someone who can give the right answer happens to stumble on it. Actually you could answer it yourself if you read the regulations about UMS (p2p) submissions.

[Vampyr]

Yes, you are right, but I thought that putting it on the forum might be helpful to EBU directors who haven't heard of the rule, just in case they have some <75% movement that they need to change.

 

EDIT: could not find the information on the EBU website.

[hotShot]

Yes, you are right, but I thought that putting it on the forum might be helpful to EBU directors who haven't heard of the rule, just in case they have some <75% movement that they need to change.

 

EDIT: could not find the information on the EBU website.

 

http://www.ebu.co.uk/masterpoints (End of the Page)

 

75% rule for the issuing of Master Points

From 1st August 2015 Master Points will only be awarded for pairs events in which all the competitors are scheduled to play at least 75% of the boards used in the movement. Thus, when the intention is to play 24 boards in a session, for example, no more than 32 boards should be in play. It is acceptable for those 24 boards to include some scheduled to be sat out by a number of pairs.

 

This is a new regulation introduced in the 2014 edition of the Master Point & Licensing Handbook but will not be enforced until 1st August 2015 to allow clubs to make preparations for its introduction. The purpose of the regulation is to try to maximise the number of boards in common to all contestants, not only for reasons of fairness but also because it provides more interest for players when discussing and comparing hands afterwards.

 

To help those clubs who encounter situations not conducive to ‘standard’ movements we have prepared a ‘movement guide’. It will hopefully be useful in helping to establish which would be an appropriate movement to use to ensure everyone meets the requirements in a fair and effective way. It is available here.

 

 

[campboy]

I assume Vampyr meant she couldn't find the answer to her question (about P2P charges) on the website. I couldn't find it either.

[gordontd]

It's at http://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/universal-membership/p2p-guidance-notes-for-clubs.pdf - such games would still be liable to pay UMS (p2p).

 

However it may be academic as the implementation has now been delayed and the regulation may be altered.

[campboy]

Ah, ok, I did find that document but didn't think it was the one you meant since it predates the 75% regulation and it looks like it is simply inconsistent with it. (It says all sessions are subject to UMS except some exceptions which don't include this case, but it also says all UMSed sessions will get masterpoints.)

[barmar]

It seems like you could simply not bother submitting the results for one of these games. As far as EBU is concerned, the session never happened.

[Vampyr]

It seems like you could simply not bother submitting the results for one of these games. As far as EBU is concerned, the session never happened.

 

That does seem sensible.

[Vampyr]

Ah, ok, I did find that document but didn't think it was the one you meant since it predates the 75% regulation and it looks like it is simply inconsistent with it. (It says all sessions are subject to UMS except some exceptions which don't include this case, but it also says all UMSed sessions will get masterpoints.)

 

Yes, I saw this one too.

[barmar]

But realistically, I expect them to resolve these ambiguities before the regulation goes into effect.

[Finch]

The EBU have a new regulation coming into force in August. The regulation says that The EBU will not award masterpoints for any games in which people play fewer than 75% of the boards in play.

 

My question is: will the EBU refund some/all of the P2P fees submitted for these games?

 

That's not what the regulation quoted by hotshot says. Is there yet another one somewhere else saying what you have written here?

[Vampyr]

That's not what the regulation quoted by hotshot says. Is there yet another one somewhere else saying what you have written here?

 

Sorry, I cannot make out the difference between the two.

[Zelandakh]

It seems like you could simply not bother submitting the results for one of these games. As far as EBU is concerned, the session never happened.

I would assume the sessions still happen for the purposes of the National Grading Scheme.

[Vampyr]

I would assume the sessions still happen for the purposes of the National Grading Scheme.

 

Well, maybe, but since the sessions are not considered to be a fair contest, so who knows...

 

Anyway I am not sure the EBU should be in the business of deciding what counts as a "fair contest". I assume that next they will look at:

 

-- Cross-IMPed pairs with an arrow-switch

 

-- 2-Winner games that are not seeded

 

-- 3/4 Howells where the strongest pair are all stationary

 

-- One-winner games where a specified number or more pairs forgot to arrow-switch a board

 

--Where does it end?

 

If I played at a club that played, say, 3X8 in an 11-table duplicate, I would not be loving it, but I could vote with my feet or, if I lived in a remote area, bring up the matter at the club's next AGM.

[Bbradley62]

Anyway I am not sure the EBU should be in the business of deciding what counts as a "fair contest"...

It seems to me that this should be exactly their business.

[GreenMan]

As Bbradley said, working out what constitutes a fair game seems like exactly what a sponsoring organization should be about. They already have standards such as minimum number of boards played, do they not? Why should we believe that the regulations as of two weeks ago were perfect and any further adjustment is a slippery slope to anarchism?

 

If I played at a club that played, say, 3X8 in an 11-table duplicate, I would not be loving it, but I could vote with my feet or, if I lived in a remote area, bring up the matter at the club's next AGM.

 

It's a quite romantic notion that not showing up or having a word with the people in charge will make a difference. I think most of us realize from experience that it's generally not the case.

Edited July 26, 2015 by GreenMan

[Vampyr]

It seems to me that this should be exactly their business.

 

To a reasonable extent, OK, but also keeping people (especially those who are not serious players) happy is important in keeping the game and the organisation thriving. Anyway apparently "fair contest" is a relative term 74% of the boards is not fair enough to count as a valid session, at least in terms of masterpoints, but is valid enough to charge money for. I find this position interesting.

 

It's a quite romantic notion that not showing up or having a word with the people in charge will make a difference. I think most of us realize from experience that it's generally not the case.

 

Normally a motion passed at a club's AGM is binding. Otherwise, it is not what the players want, and the club would be a lot more likely to unaffiliate than to change the way they have always been happy to do things.

 

Anyway I guess there is a big epidemic of too small a percentage of boards being played, otherwise the EBU would not be getting involved. This is not a good thing, but there must be a gentler way to address the problem.

 

Note: I suppose the 8x3 eleven-table club could have 9 rounds "scheduled" but run out of time to complete the movement whenever they happen to have 11 tables.

[Trinidad]

Note: I suppose the 8x3 eleven-table club could have 9 rounds "scheduled" but run out of time to complete the movement whenever they happen to have 11 tables.

As the British say: "That would not be cricket". I wouold say that it wouldn't be bridge either (not even baseball).

 

As an aside (I am no expert in movements and I am travelling, so I don't have my books on movements at hand): is there a real problem with 11 tables playing 8 rounds? Is it impossible to come up with a movement where boards are shared between tables (or, alternatively, where boards are duplicated after the first time they have been played)?

 

Rik

[Lanor Fow]

It might be possible to play a web for 11 tables and 8 rounds, but why would you? Surely if you are going to try and reduce the number of boards not played, you'd just play a hesitation mitchell and have 12 rounds.

[Vampyr]

As the British say: "That would not be cricket". I wouold say that it wouldn't be bridge either (not even baseball).

 

As an aside (I am no expert in movements and I am travelling, so I don't have my books on movements at hand): is there a real problem with 11 tables playing 8 rounds?

 

Um... yes, because it is 72.7% of the boards.

 

Is it impossible to come up with a movement where boards are shared between tables

 

If there were one, Gordon would have come up with it.

 

(or, alternatively, where boards are duplicated after the first time they have been played)?

 

Rik

 

Irrelevant, because it's never gonna happen.

[barmar]

Even if it weren't EBU's job to decide what's "fair", it's still obviously their job to decide how many masterpoints to award.

 

Instead of awarding NO masterpoints for these movements, perhaps it would be more reasonable if they just reduced the masterpoints.

[lamford]

That's not what the regulation quoted by hotshot says. Is there yet another one somewhere else saying what you have written here?

The "regulation" on the EBU website was update on 23rd July, after Vampyr posted the OP, and it now states:

 

"It was intended that from 1st August 2015 Master Points would only be awarded for pairs events in which all the competitors are scheduled to play at least 75% of the boards used in the movement. Thus, when the intention was to play 24 boards in a session, for example, no more than 32 boards should be in play."

 

That seems, in any case, to be essentially the same as Vampyr's post, athough I cannot view the regulation before it was updated. [Actually, I can, as hotshot quoted it before the change, which was minimal]

Edited July 28, 2015 by lamford

[Vampyr]

It might be possible to play a web for 11 tables and 8 rounds, but why would you? Surely if you are going to try and reduce the number of boards not played, you'd just play a hesitation mitchell and have 12 rounds.

 

This is OK for one-winner games, but there is no terribly good solution for two-winner games.

[VixTD]

That seems, in any case, to be essentially the same as Vampyr's post, athough I cannot view the regulation before it was updated. [Actually, I can, as hotshot quoted it before the change, which was minimal]

The regulation specifies pairs tournaments, which is important. It's quite common to have team games in which each team plays only 67% of the boards in play.