Disqualification -- what happens to previous results?

[szgyula]

Dear All,

 

Unfortunately this is not theoretical but did actually happen. In an age restricted tournament the final result was A, B, C and D (pairs tournament). At this point it turns out that pair-A does not meet the requirements to enter the tournament. What is the final result? There are two alternatives:

 

1. Pair-A is "removed" and the final result is B, C and D.

2. All results of pair-A are removed, scores are recalculated and the final result is C, B and D.

 

I understand that there are situations where the "what if" question can not be answered, e.g. single ellimination teams. Even here one can argue that just the presence of an extra pair disturbs the dynamic so the "what if" question can not be answered with 100% accuracy, but this is probably as close as it gets. This was a Howell type pairs tournament with even number of pairs (including pair-A). Thus, the exact same boards would have beem played by the exact same people. The only difference is the missing pair vs. pair playing outside the competition. Unfortunately it was not known that results against pair-A are not used to determine the final score so their presence did affect the strategy of players.

 

I found the EBU WB8.40.4 rule (pairs playing seat and vulnerablility dependent system illegally) as something relevant. This says cancel all results in the round (this was a single round event). This is a general 2007 laws realm and there are no additional relevant regulations.

 

Any thoughts? If you opt for option 2 (change final result), there is an additional question: How far would you go? There is a wide range between this case and the single ellimination case (no way to reconstruct what would have happened). What about a Swiss tems tournament? You can not change the actual matches but you can calculate the final result with or without the disqualified team. Unfortunately their prenence changed who is pitted agains whom.

 

Regards,

 

Gyula

[helene_t]

If your view is that the A-pair was allowed to play but not elligible for prices then obvious solution 1 is correct and that is what I would prefer.

 

If your view is that the A-pair was not allowed to play then I am afraid the correct procedure would be 2 although I don't like it since I prefer to let a result count as long as this doesn't create any obvious biases.

[pran]

Dear All,

 

Unfortunately this is not theoretical but did actually happen. In an age restricted tournament the final result was A, B, C and D (pairs tournament). At this point it turns out that pair-A does not meet the requirements to enter the tournament. What is the final result? There are two alternatives:

 

1. Pair-A is "removed" and the final result is B, C and D.

2. All results of pair-A are removed, scores are recalculated and the final result is C, B and D.

 

I understand that there are situations where the "what if" question can not be answered, e.g. single ellimination teams. Even here one can argue that just the presence of an extra pair disturbs the dynamic so the "what if" question can not be answered with 100% accuracy, but this is probably as close as it gets. This was a Howell type pairs tournament with even number of pairs (including pair-A). Thus, the exact same boards would have beem played by the exact same people. The only difference is the missing pair vs. pair playing outside the competition. Unfortunately it was not known that results against pair-A are not used to determine the final score so their presence did affect the strategy of players.

 

I found the EBU WB8.40.4 rule (pairs playing seat and vulnerablility dependent system illegally) as something relevant. This says cancel all results in the round (this was a single round event). This is a general 2007 laws realm and there are no additional relevant regulations.

 

Any thoughts? If you opt for option 2 (change final result), there is an additional question: How far would you go? There is a wide range between this case and the single ellimination case (no way to reconstruct what would have happened). What about a Swiss tems tournament? You can not change the actual matches but you can calculate the final result with or without the disqualified team. Unfortunately their prenence changed who is pitted agains whom.

 

Regards,

 

Gyula

 

FWIW: Our Norwegian (standard) conditions of contest states that while a non-qualified contestant is disqualified and ranked last in the event, all results obtained against this contestant normally stand. So we apply your alternative 1.

[szgyula]

If your view is that the A-pair was allowed to play but not elligible for prices then obvious solution 1 is correct and that is what I would prefer.

 

If your view is that the A-pair was not allowed to play then I am afraid the correct procedure would be 2 although I don't like it since I prefer to let a result count as long as this doesn't create any obvious biases.

Pair-A was not allowed to play, i.e. they did not meet the reuirements to enter the tournament. E.g. a 40 years old entering a senior tournament (the actual situation is a bit more complicated -- the age difference must be 20 years or more, the actual difference was 18).

[pran]

Pair-A was not allowed to play, i.e. they did not meet the reuirements to enter the tournament. E.g. a 40 years old entering a senior tournament (the actual situation is a bit more complicated -- the age difference must be 20 years or more, the actual difference was 18).

I think the correct term is whether A was "qualified" to play, and I understand that he was not.

 

Usually a contestant must hold membership in some recognized organization and have paid an entry fee to be qualified for playing in a particular event.

In addition there can be other criteria like sex (events for women or for mixed pairs), age (events for juniors or seniors) or masterpoint rating (events for beginners) and so on. I understand that in your case it was the age.

 

But once a contestant has been found not qualified to play in an event the actual failing criterion is usually immaterial, what is important is the relevant regulation and/or condition of Contest.

[szgyula]

I think the correct term is whether A was "qualified" to play, and I understand that he was not.

 

Usually a contestant must hold membership in some recognized organization and have paid an entry fee to be qualified for playing in a particular event.

In addition there can be other criteria like sex (events for women or for mixed pairs), age (events for juniors or seniors) or masterpoint rating (events for beginners) and so on. I understand that in your case it was the age.

 

But once a contestant has been found not qualified to play in an event the actual failing criterion is usually immaterial, what is important is the relevant regulation and/or condition of Contest.

There is no relevant CoC as to what should happen in this case. Pair-A would not have qualified to enter the tournament (age restriction) but this became known only after the fact. What should happen to the table results where they were involved? Scrapped or kept? Again, there is nothing relevant in CoC. Pair-A should not win, but what about the tournament?

[pran]

There is no relevant CoC as to what should happen in this case. Pair-A would not have qualified to enter the tournament (age restriction) but this became known only after the fact. What should happen to the table results where they were involved? Scrapped or kept? Again, there is nothing relevant in CoC. Pair-A should not win, but what about the tournament?

Well, our Norwegian bridge federation has a comprehensive regulation covering most aspects of any kind of their bridge events. This is considered applicable also to any event in subordinate bodies and is used unless these have their own applicable regulation (or CoC).

 

I did quote the relevant rule on cases like OP, and this rule is that all table results obtained against a contestant that is disqualified for not having been qualified in an event shall normally stand. (OP alternative 1).

 

Missing any kind of such regulations in your area can certainly lead to a problem, and then there is no obvious answer.

[Siegmund]

Solution 1 feels closer to what happens in some similar situations -- the ACBL, for instance, allows you to add one non-novice to a novice game to fill out the movement, but not to award him any masterpoints. (And when a small number of same-sex pairs get put into a Mixed Pairs when it is the only event available so they don't have to go home, they usually still remain eligibile for masterpoints.)

 

The only time I have used Solution 2 was when I discovered that the person the club manager had hired to prepare the hands for a multi-site game with hand records was playing in the event: the "no score may stand if a contestant has previously played a board" was the closest thing I found in the regulations to that situation.

[Vampyr]

Solution 1 feels closer to what happens in some similar situations -- the ACBL, for instance, allows you to add one non-novice to a novice game to fill out the movement, but not to award him any masterpoints. (And when a small number of same-sex pairs get put into a Mixed Pairs when it is the only event available so they don't have to go home, they usually still remain eligibile for masterpoints.)

 

Yes, retroactively playing without standing seems the best and simplest solution; the pair don't receive a trophy or any prizes. I should have thought that the same applied to masterpoints, if this was a masterpointed event.

 

The only time I have used Solution 2 was when I discovered that the person the club manager had hired to prepare the hands for a multi-site game with hand records was playing in the event: the "no score may stand if a contestant has previously played a board" was the closest thing I found in the regulations to that situation.

 

Here it is always normal for the person who prepared the hands and printed the hand records to play in the event. It would never occur to us to wonder whether such person peeked at any hands.

[Siegmund]

Here it is always normal for the person who prepared the hands and printed the hand records to play in the event. It would never occur to us to wonder whether such person peeked at any hands.

This was before dealing machines: the person had physically sorted and dealt all the hands. (For a 5-table game, having people duplicate the cards onsite before the first round, and play one less round, was not desirable. Usually we paid someone's grandson $10 to do it, but this time it was a novice player who was "sure she wouldn't remember any of the hands the next day.")

We do let the people who operate the dealing machine and print out the summary sheets play.

[Vampyr]

[/size][/color]

This was before dealing machines: the person had physically sorted and dealt all the hands. (For a 5-table game, having people duplicate the cards onsite before the first round, and play one less round, was not desirable. Usually we paid someone's grandson $10 to do it, but this time it was a novice player who was "sure she wouldn't remember any of the hands the next day.")

We do let the people who operate the dealing machine and print out the summary sheets play.

 

If she was a novice, and especially if she dealt the hands face-down, it is quite possible that she would not have remembered them!

[johnu]

Usually we paid someone's grandson $10 to do it, but this time it was a novice player who was "sure she wouldn't remember any of the hands the next day.")

 

I've played with players who couldn't remember their own cards, let alone the other 3 hands, a minute after the hand was over.

[johnu]

If your view is that the A-pair was not allowed to play then I am afraid the correct procedure would be 2 although I don't like it since I prefer to let a result count as long as this doesn't create any obvious biases.

 

The bias is that the ineligible player skewed the results compared to the results if they were not allowed to play IMO. In the absence of any specific condition of contest, I like option 2 because it seems to be the fairest from my point of view, but this could cause some scoring difficulties if everybody has not played them so a different number of boards are played. I guess you just factor up the scores for the boards thrown out in a MP event.

 

Knockouts is a problem , say A beat B, and C beat D in the semis. I would declare B and C co-champions. Of course, everybody who lost to A in the previous rounds can say they would have won if they hadn't lost to an ineligible team, so maybe the team A beat in the quarter finals can also be declared as the co-champion.

[helene_t]

I don't think it creates any bias other than what you always have in movements with less than perfect balance. As long as the results obtained against the pair in question are realistic bridge results. It would be different if they were found to be cheating or if they had been playing illegal methods. Or, of course, if they had been dumping. In that case I would favour throwing out the results.

[Zelandakh]

I found the EBU WB8.40.4 rule (pairs playing seat and vulnerablility dependent system illegally) as something relevant.

Is this not covered by 8.80.4 rather than 8.40.4 in England?

[szgyula]

Is this not covered by 8.80.4 rather than 8.40.4 in England?

Not 100%. Disqualification is penalty for doing something inappropriate. Before the offending action, the player is a normal player, thus, boards before the action were normal boards.

[Zelandakh]

Not 100%. Disqualification is penalty for doing something inappropriate. Before the offending action, the player is a normal player, thus, boards before the action were normal boards.

Are you sure about that? Take a look at page 44 and read note 17.

[blackshoe]

Is it my imagination, or is the White Book getting longer? B-)

[gordontd]

Is it my imagination, or is the White Book getting longer? B-)

In 2012 it was 224 pages long. Since then it's been 154, 156 & 155 pages long. So it's your imagination :)

[blackshoe]

In 2012 it was 224 pages long. Since then it's been 154, 156 & 155 pages long. So it's your imagination :)

Okay. :P

[szgyula]

Are you sure about that? Take a look at page 44 and read note 17.

The pair was aware that they do not qualify but still played. This was not "accidental".

 

Just to close the matter, there are two decisions by the same authority:

 

1. In the actual event the there is nothing in the CoC that can be used to decide. Thus, they used "common sense" and the ruling is "result stays, pair disqualified, winner is B".

2. Parallel to this they realized that the CoC is not clear on this matter so they used "common sense" to update the CoC. The new CoC says "results scrapped". Thus, in the same situation, pair-C would have won.

 

These two decisions were make by the same people...

 

Gyula

[Vampyr]

It is not totally unusual for an ineligible pair or team to play without standing in order to even up the number of contestants. In a pairs game you can just pretend that there was a sitout I guess, but suppose it had been eg Swiss pairs with 6+ boards per round? Then you would be pleased if an ineligible pair offered to fill in your movement and of course their results would count although they would not be able to win prizes, trophies, masterpoints etc.

 

So for consistency it seems to make sense to keep any validly obtained results.

[barmar]

That's why the CoC should state clearly how ineligible contestants should be counted.

 

A few years ago I got to play a session with Asya Ladyzhensky when we were both kibbitzing the ACBL Senior Pairs, a player had to leave due to illness, and they needed someone to fill in. Neither of us qualifies as a senior (if they hadn't changed the cutoff last year, I would be eligible next year, but she's way at the other end of the spectrum). AFAIK, all our results counted for our opponents, but we didn't get any masterpoints for it.

[szgyula]

That's why the CoC should state clearly how ineligible contestants should be counted.

 

A few years ago I got to play a session with Asya Ladyzhensky when we were both kibbitzing the ACBL Senior Pairs, a player had to leave due to illness, and they needed someone to fill in. Neither of us qualifies as a senior (if they hadn't changed the cutoff last year, I would be eligible next year, but she's way at the other end of the spectrum). AFAIK, all our results counted for our opponents, but we didn't get any masterpoints for it.

I fully agree. On the other hand, I can also present an extreme example: A KO tournament of lets say 32 teams, one of them not eligible. Lets say a senior (60+ years), Flyweight (50.8kg max) boxing KO tournament that has Klychko in it (39 years, 112kg). Volodymyr "wins" of course. As you had a single elimination tournament, there could be 5 players that lost only to him. They could all have won the tournament without him, you can not tell. I do not think it would be fair to say one of them is 1st, one of them is 15th.

 

The point is: if you have a pair that does not qualify, you distort the results and you can not fairly compensate, no matter what you do. If the extra pair/team/whatever is announced and the rules are known, that is a different story.

 

I think we can close this discussion, as we have a clear conclusion (no clear conclusion, pick one or more subjectively, and UPDATE THE CoC).

 

Gyula

[pran]

I fully agree. On the other hand, I can also present an extreme example: A KO tournament of lets say 32 teams, one of them not eligible. Lets say a senior (60+ years), Flyweight (50.8kg max) boxing KO tournament that has Klychko in it (39 years, 112kg). Volodymyr "wins" of course. As you had a single elimination tournament, there could be 5 players that lost only to him. They could all have won the tournament without him, you can not tell. I do not think it would be fair to say one of them is 1st, one of them is 15th.

 

The point is: if you have a pair that does not qualify, you distort the results and you can not fairly compensate, no matter what you do. If the extra pair/team/whatever is announced and the rules are known, that is a different story.

 

I think we can close this discussion, as we have a clear conclusion (no clear conclusion, pick one or more subjectively, and UPDATE THE CoC).

 

Gyula

KO events are extremely unsuitable as examples for this discussion.