I think I was right to call TD

[661_Pete]

Quite a mix-up today.

 

We use Bridgemates (this is significant) and were playing our regular pairs MPs.

 

I was West. We were playing board 11 (as we thought). South was in 2♠ which went down 1. When we checked in the score on the Bridgemate we were somewhat surprised to see that, at the only other table to have played the board, South made 2♠+3. It seemed improbable that, even with the most inept defence, declarer could have mustered 8 tricks, let alone 11.

 

Then we realised what had happened. We had played board 12 in mistake for board 11, but entered and verified the result as if it had been board 11. So we called the TD (the only person able to back-track the Bridgemate). He 'wound' it back to board 11, told us to play out that board and score it, then enter the 2♠-1 score against board 12 (which we had already played).

 

So we played out board 11. Not surprisingly, South bid to 4♠ and made it quite easily. I saw what was happening and wondered whether to sacrifice, but neither my partner nor I had anything to sacrifice in. At this point I said I was not happy, so I called the TD over again. I said that, N-S had foreknowledge of another score of the same board, so they had an unfair advantage.

 

The TD listened to my argument, then said "OK, do you want an average?". My answer was (I think this is the correct thing to say) "whatever your ruling is, I'll accept it". So he gave us an average. South grumbled a bit about this, as well he might, saying he had bid 4♠ honestly and purely on the strength of his holding, not on any UI he might have come by. But he had seen the other table's score on the Bridgemate, as had all of us.

 

As it turned out, the adjustment gained us just 4 MPs out of a maximum possible 294, and didn't affect our placing on the ladder. Likewise for our opponents. So no real harm done to anyone.

 

I was feeling a bit remorseful, never done this sort of thing before - but everyone else said, I had done absolutely the correct thing in asking the TD to adjudicate. I just feel a bit uneasy in having upset another member of the club. But I had no option, surely?

[steve2005]

I think the correct ruling should be avg- for both pairs for making a board unplayable.

Consider yourself lucky.

[661_Pete]

I think the correct ruling should be -avg for both pairs for making a board unplayable.

Consider yourself lucky.

I don't know what "-avg" means - does it mean that both sides get 0% on the board? If so we'd have lost 2 MPs and our opponents 10. Perhaps we were partly at fault - but in our club it is deemed to be North's responsibility to check the Bridgemate and ensure that we're playing the board indicated on it. No-one noticed until it was too late.

[ahydra]

steve2005 means "avg-" (average minus) which is 40% for both sides. (Or your total session score, if that's worse than 40%.) I'd agree with that as the correct ruling - it is both sides' responsibility to check info entered into the Bridgemate is accurate, including the board number.

 

ahydra

[pescetom]

Under our national rules there is a fixed score of 40% for both sides. Even if your rules are not similar, I can't imagine what the Director was thinking when he asked you to play a board knowing the outcome.

[sfi]

Under our national rules there is a fixed score of 40% for both sides.

If that truly is the case, your national rules do not comply with the laws. Law 12c2( c ) states that:

 

( c ) The foregoing is modified for a non-offending contestant that obtains a session score exceeding 60% of the available matchpoints or for an offending contestant that obtains a session score that is less than 40% of the available matchpoints (or the equivalent in IMPs). Such contestants are awarded the percentage obtained (or the equivalent in IMPs) on the other boards of that session.

 

So if the pair receiving the ave- scores lower than 40% for the rest of the session, they receive their session percentage for this board as well.

[pescetom]

If that truly is the case, your national rules do not comply with the laws. Law 12c2( c ) states that:

.....

So if the pair receiving the ave- scores lower than 40% for the rest of the session, they receive their session percentage for this board as well.

 

I checked and you're right, sorry. Our national rules contemplate the case of opening the wrong traveller for a board played but do not address the case of playing the wrong board with a Bridgemate or similar. So Law 12c2 is the guideline and the unfortunate few with less than 40% get no consolation even here.

[barmar]

I checked and you're right, sorry. Our national rules contemplate the case of opening the wrong traveller for a board played but do not address the case of playing the wrong board with a Bridgemate or similar. So Law 12c2 is the guideline and the unfortunate few with less than 40% get no consolation even here.

Is there really a difference between seeing other table scores on a paper traveller or the traveller screen of an electronic scoring device? Either way, you've seen other results before you've played the board, which makes the board unplayable. I can't imagine why you wouldn't apply the regulation for paper travellers similarly when the problem occurs with a Bridgemate.

[PeterAlan]

In the EBU this is specifically covered in the White Book guidance to TDs:

 

3.3.10 Board unplayable by scoring against the wrong board number

 

Making a board unplayable by scoring on the electronic scorer (e.g. Bridgemate) against the wrong board number and seeing the results from a board not yet played is scored AVE−/AVE− assuming both pairs had the chance to stop the error (N/S when scoring, E/W when agreeing the score).

[Vampyr]

This is one reason I prefer that results not be given on the BridgeMates.

[sanst]

This is one reason I prefer that results not be given on the BridgeMates.

That’s easy to do in the settings. But I suppose you don’t like travellers either. Have you found a better way to keep track of the scoring of a board?

[pran]

That’s easy to do in the settings. But I suppose you don’t like travellers either. Have you found a better way to keep track of the scoring of a board?

Travellers are a necessity with the old way of scoring Howell or Mitchell tournaments. They have the unfortunate side effect of publishing results during the progress of the board, giving some (only) of the contestants indications on how well they are doing, already while play on the board is in progress.

 

Bridgemates should be configures so that no information including results at other tables is available while a round is still in progress.

 

(Compare this principle to the well established rule in events for teams of four where no information from one room shall be available to the other room during a round.)

[VixTD]

As it turned out, the adjustment gained us just 4 MPs out of a maximum possible 294

Was this a really big club, or perhaps a simultaneous pairs?

[blackshoe]

Travellers are a necessity with the old way of scoring Howell or Mitchell tournaments.

You never had pickup slips in Norway?

[barmar]

You never had pickup slips in Norway?

I don't think I've ever seen pickup slips used in clubs around here (Boston area). Except that some clubs used pickup slips on the last round, so that the director could enter all the results from earlier rounds during the last round, to get the results out quicker. Before Bridgemates, they were only used in tournaments.

 

Anyway, even though the traveller screen can be disabled on Bridgemates, club members often vote against it. All the years of using travellers has made them used to seeing previous results, and they don't like losing that. Since bridge clubs are very much a social group, club management generally goes with the members' wishes.

[pescetom]

Is there really a difference between seeing other table scores on a paper traveller or the traveller screen of an electronic scoring device? Either way, you've seen other results before you've played the board, which makes the board unplayable. I can't imagine why you wouldn't apply the regulation for paper travellers similarly when the problem occurs with a Bridgemate.

The regulation for paper travellers could be different, as it's clearly possible for all four players to impede that they play the wrong board, but maybe not for EW to impede that NS open the wrong traveller. It would be logical for the traveller to be placed together with the board during play and with the number clearly visible, but our regulations do not impose this.

 

 

In the EBU this is specifically covered in the White Book guidance to TDs:

As it should be. Although it sounds as if they would incur the wrath of sfi when one side has less than 40%.

 

 

This is one reason I prefer that results not be given on the BridgeMates.

Here they are usually configured so that you must first confirm the results (with the board number visualised), which in turn means that the entered lead was in the correct hand (which will be untrue for 75% of wrong boards played). So both sides would have to be inattentive as well as unlucky to be able to see the results of an unplayed hand.

 

 

Travellers are a necessity with the old way of scoring Howell or Mitchell tournaments. They have the unfortunate side effect of publishing results during the progress of the board, giving some (only) of the contestants indications on how well they are doing, already while play on the board is in progress.

 

Bridgemates should be configures so that no information including results at other tables is available while a round is still in progress.

 

(Compare this principle to the well established rule in events for teams of four where no information from one room shall be available to the other room during a round.)

I agree with you, but it would take great courage to enforce that proposal here. Bridgemates are actually worse (or better, for those who think differently) than travellers in this respect because in a MP tournament they give temporary percentages rather than just an unordered list of scores so far - so a more rapid and precise evaluation of success.

 

 

You never had pickup slips

I had to google this one! I gather they were single-round slips to be consigned to the Director, which sounds fair. But in the example I found, the other component of NS compiled an unofficial traveller at the same time, presumably to allow people to compare results all the same - throwing out the baby with the dishwater it would seem.

[pran]

You never had pickup slips in Norway?

In barometer - yes (of course because all tables play the same boards during the same round)

In Howell or Mitchel - never (to my knowledge)

[pran]

Travellers are a necessity with the old way of scoring Howell or Mitchell tournaments. They have the unfortunate side effect of publishing results during the progress of the board, giving some (only) of the contestants indications on how well they are doing, already while play on the board is in progress.

 

Bridgemates should be configures so that no information including results at other tables is available while a round is still in progress.

 

(Compare this principle to the well established rule in events for teams of four where no information from one room shall be available to the other room during a round.)

.....

I agree with you, but it would take great courage to enforce that proposal here. Bridgemates are actually worse (or better, for those who think differently) than travellers in this respect because in a MP tournament they give temporary percentages rather than just an unordered list of scores so far - so a more rapid and precise evaluation of success.

This is mainly a matter of Bridgemate configuration.

 

I believe the default configuration of Bridgemates when these were first introduced in Norway was to show only information related to your own table and absolutely no information derived from registrations at other tables.

 

Thus there was no question about what the players were accustomed too from using paper slips.

[blackshoe]

Anyway, even though the traveller screen can be disabled on Bridgemates, club members often vote against it.

That suggests to me that perhaps they shouldn't have been offered the chance to vote on the question. B-)

[661_Pete]

This is one reason I prefer that results not be given on the BridgeMates.

That's a good point. I shall ask our club chairman about that - but I guess the move would be unpopular. It's part of human nature: players like to know "how well did we do?" just after a hand.

 

With paper travellers this problem would be far less likely to occur, seeing as the traveller would be tucked in a pocket in the board, and less likely to get mixed up. But although there are still some EBU affiliated clubs using paper (what are EBU rules about this?), most use Bridgemates these days.

[gordontd]

That's a good point. I shall ask our club chairman about that - but I guess the move would be unpopular. It's part of human nature: players like to know "how well did we do?" just after a hand.

 

With paper travellers this problem would be far less likely to occur, seeing as the traveller would be tucked in a pocket in the board, and less likely to get mixed up. But although there are still some EBU affiliated clubs using paper (what are EBU rules about this?), most use Bridgemates these days.

Clubs are certainly not required to use electronic scoring, if that is what you are asking.

[sanst]

As the most famous Dutch football player of all time said: “Every disadvantage has an advantage”. That goes for Bridgemates as well. These are a great help for scoring, given a quick and correct result. Who remembers the days of paper travellers, with al the work involved? Using the Neuberg formula when necessary. It took at least half an hour to give a preliminary result and then you had to check and recalculate everything again later and could publish a definite result only days later.

But Bridgemates offer many opportunities for showing results and once the club members discover this, they want the full monty: percentages and all scores on a board. When checking the input many Easts just push the button and blare out the percentage, even when the board hasn’t been played before. This worse the players, the more interested they are, I’m afraid. An attempt at our club not to show the percentage, since this is only relevant in the last round, met massive opposition and had to be abandoned. To try not to show the scores and percentages, no matter how sensible that is, would probably lead to a revolt like that of the yellow vests in France

[nige1]

Anyway, re: post title: 661_Pete was right to call the TD :)

[pescetom]

That's a good point. I shall ask our club chairman about that - but I guess the move would be unpopular. It's part of human nature: players like to know "how well did we do?" just after a hand.

 

Some also argue that knowing whether you are currently winning or losing compared to the rest of the field is an inherent right when competing in a sporting event. With electronic scoring it would be possible to give real-time positions without revealing the other contracts played on each hand, which would eliminate that argument but without satisfying end of hand curiosity. Another option.

[blackshoe]

Some also argue that knowing whether you are currently winning or losing compared to the rest of the field is an inherent right when competing in a sporting event. With electronic scoring it would be possible to give real-time positions without revealing the other contracts played on each hand, which would eliminate that argument but without satisfying end of hand curiosity. Another option.

I wonder what those folks think is the basis of this "inherent right".