Skipped

[jillybean]

Axman, there are no CC in use.

 

Mycroft, thanks. The board appears on the results page as "adjusted 0 0"

 

I'm guessing that could a result of "not played" rather than "skipped".

[pescetom]

It's a curious statement of result. I would guess it means 50% 50% rather than 0% 0% or All Pass :) In any case, Director error within Director laziness.

[axman]

Axman, there are no CC in use.

 

Mycroft, thanks. The board appears on the results page as "adjusted 0 0"

 

I'm guessing that could a result of "not played" rather than "skipped".

Well, it seems to me when players are forbidden to have CC it is a sufficient reason to show up somewhere else. That's what I do.

[blackshoe]

What does "adjusted 0 0" mean? Are those numbers matchpoints, IMPs, or aggregate scores?

 

It looks to me like it means that both pairs were given 0 matchpoints for the board. That's not a proper score. So the director should apply 82C (Director error) -- assuming she can figure out how to do that.

 

In ACBLScore, if you enter "not played" for a board, that board is not included in the computation of the concerned pairs' score. It's not that those pairs are given their average score on the rest of the boards, it's as if the board just didn't happen for those pairs.

 

It looks to me that what the director should have done, at the point West called her to the table, was to investigate what NS's actual agreement was. If it was one of the two agreements presented, then at least there was no MI. In any case, North has the UI that South thinks the agreement is that 2NT shows 5-5 in the minors, and also the UI that South probably has 5-5 in the minors, while South has the UI that North originally thought that 2NT shows a strong balanced hand, but now "knows" that south has and has shown both minors. Both players should be cautioned not to take advantage of UI, that they may not choose a call that is demonstrably (i.e. obviously) suggested over another call if the other call is a logical alternative (it does not matter whether the call suggested is a logical alternative). The director should then instruct that the bidding and play continue, and tell EW that if after the hand is completed they feel they may have been damaged by use of UI, they should call the director back to the table. Aborting a hand in the middle of the auction is clear director error, in which case both pairs should have received the artificial adjusted score "average plus" or 60% of a top unless their average on the other boards that session was higher, in which case they get that higher score.

[jillybean]

I don't know what Adjusted 0 0 means. This is how it appears on the results page.

 

NS Pair EW pair NS EW NS MP EW MP Contr By Made Lead

9 2 Adjusted 0.0 0.0

12 8 150 25.9 0.1 1 NT N 9 2

7 13 140 22.7 3.3 3 H N 9 A

 

I did not play this board but it was a partner of mine sitting West who mentioned it after the game. He assumed the result would be changed to A+/A- afterwards.

I wasn't so sure, I had the same adjustment 2 years ago while playing here. I doubt the problem will be resolved until a qualified, preferably non playing Director is directing.

 

 

Axman CCs aren't forbidden, they are simply not used. Don't get me started again on CCs. :)

[blackshoe]

It looks to me like 9 and 2 are the pair numbers, and 0.0 and 0.0 are the matchpoints given on, based on the second and third lines, a 30 top. So the director has given both pairs an absolute bottom. :(

 

I suppose that's one way to teach players not to call the TD.

[jillybean]

Oooof, even worse than a skipped board. I will contact NZ Bridge for clarification on what's going on here.

 

Pair 9 finished 1st overall with 63% so they didn't need any more MP :D

[pescetom]

It looks to me that what the director should have done, at the point West called her to the table, was to investigate what NS's actual agreement was.

I agree.

 

West asks what is 2nt?

North replies strong 20-22

South says no it's not, we play 5-5 minors

 

 

If it was one of the two agreements presented, then at least there was no MI.

Surely if S was right, there is MI?

And if NS are good enough to place 1st in the tournament, N should have remembered?

And if EW then miss 4♥ making as a result of these shenanigans, they may well be damaged too.

[pescetom]

Oooof, even worse than a skipped board. I will contact NZ Bridge for clarification on what's going on here.

 

Your choice and your right, but I would not expect a lot of sympathy days after the event.

 

If it happens during a real competitive tournament then you should ask the Director politely to quote the Laws she is enforcing. If you are genuinely convinced that she is wrong in terms of Law (not just "this feels unfair"), then ask about and initiate the appeal procedure: which may require agreement of both partners and probably requires formal notice within a short time of end of play, plus perhaps a deposit.

[blackshoe]

If the agreement was as South said, then had South said nothing, North's explanation would be MI. But given that South gave a different explanation, if the TD investigates he should at some point tell the table which agreement was correct. In that case North's explanation was only MI in the few seconds or milliseconds between the time he gave it and the time South corrected it. I would not rule on the basis of MI. Also note that damage only exists as the result of an infraction, and I would find it hard to accept an argument from EW that "yeah we heard South's correction, and the TD's determination that South's explanation was the correct one, but we based our subsequent bidding on North's explanation anyway".

[sfi]

If you are genuinely convinced that she is wrong in terms of Law (not just "this feels unfair"), then ask about and initiate the appeal procedure: which may require agreement of both partners and probably requires formal notice within a short time of end of play, plus perhaps a deposit.

Of course, Jillybean only has a right to appeal if she was at the table - it's not clear to me that she was in this instance. And partner definitely has to agree - that's saved me going through more than one appeal process when directing.

[jillybean]

Pescetom I rotated the hands when I posted the bidding, so it was actually South who called the Director, EW doing the bidding and explanations

[jillybean]

And again, this is why I did not want to post the actual hands and details. I'm not appealing a ruling made days ago, I was not even at the table.

As I've said up thread, I want to understand what effect "skipping" a board in play (as instructed by the Director) has on the score. I have had this "ruling" previously and want to be fully informed if I need to appeal future rulings that involve "skipping" the board.

It appears rather than skipped, the board was adjusted to not played, giving both pairs a complete bottom

[jillybean]

I've had confirmation from a NZ Bridge Director

 

The board is adjusted to Did Not Play.

The pairs get 0 MP for this board but their total possible MP for the session is reduced so their percentage score is unaffected.

[blackshoe]

Not a legal ruling, then.

[mycroft]

Well, yeah. But it works, and it's club bridge, what do you expect? (note, blackshoe, I'm as serious as you expect me to be here). And my standard line about club players confronted with directors who give illegal rulings applies as well. "you have three options..."

 

But yes, (putting my "professional paranoid" hat on for a minute), if I can get a bad score, or even a 60/40, converted to a "session score" by actively compounding partner's screwup, the incentive for certain pairs to deliberately attempt to induce it is high. If they care enough about their club game scores to do that, well, "you have three options...".

 

I've been trying to ignore the actual hand in most of my comments (as requested), but the joy of this one is that the trivial (correct? in my eyes, it is) ruling would give them back the result they should expect to get on the board! (p-p-2NT-p; 3♣ "do you have a 4-card major?"-p-p "thanks for picking a minor, pd"-p) Okay, maybe West would come in over a "5-5" 2NT,... but still, it's relatively easy to do the right thing at the table (work out what the agreement actually is, ensure E-W know it, let the auction continue, and be willing to award 60/40 an adjusted score if there are any issues from the UI.)

 

But listen, if (club) directing wasn't as hard as blackshoe and I make out, it wouldn't pay as well as it does!

 

I would hope that the person who is clearly not a novice (playing Precision?) making the statement that South made, given that it "was an error in procedure that required an adjusted score for a contestant" - especially because it likely was to their definite advantage, and obviously so, to make that error - got a procedural penalty to go with their "no play". Or they will keep doing it.

[axman]

Axman, there are no CC in use.

 

 

 

Many moons ago it occurred to me that if the law were 'if a proper request is made (the answer not being on the CC) all resulting information flow is AI to his side and UI to the other side; but if a request is made when the answer is on the CC all resulting information flow is UI to his side and AI to the other side' there would be two noticeable consequences:

1. players would strive to have good CCs

2. players would strive to read the CC rather than ask questions

3. players would strive to gain advantage when the CC is defective. Well, I did say two consequences didn't I?

 

I gave it a name: Causation Doctrine- the side that causes the burden bears the burden

[blackshoe]

But listen, if (club) directing wasn't as hard as blackshoe and I make out, it wouldn't pay as well as it does!

 

ROFL! B-)

 

I would hope that the person who is clearly not a novice (playing Precision?) making the statement that South made, given that it "was an error in procedure that required an adjusted score for a contestant" - especially because it likely was to their definite advantage, and obviously so, to make that error - got a procedural penalty to go with their "no play". Or they will keep doing it.

Yeah, they will. And I'm betting they didn't get a PP. :(

[jillybean]

The rules are complex and I don't expect "forums" level of Directing at a club however I do expect in a sanctioned game, some attempt to make a ruling.

Simply having a laws book to reference when attending a call would be a good start.

[pescetom]

The rules are complex and I don't expect "forums" level of Directing at a club however I do expect in a sanctioned game, some attempt to make a ruling.

Simply having a laws book to reference when attending a call would be a good start.

 

Having workable disclosure regulations is a good start too, especially f2f without screens.

OP has no mention of an alert or announcement related to 2NT, West chose to (had to?) ask.

A cursory reading of the NZ mega manual suggests that in a Green System 2NT may be either 20+ balanced (18+ in Rubber) or 5-4+ minors weak only, no announcement or alert required for either?

[jillybean]

Having workable disclosure regulations is a good start too, especially f2f without screens.

OP has no mention of an alert or announcement related to 2NT, West chose to (had to?) ask.

A cursory reading of the NZ mega manual suggests that in a Green System 2NT may be either 20+ balanced (18+ in Rubber) or 5-4+ minors weak only, no announcement or alert required for either?

I don't know what NZ regs say about alerting 2NT, querying a 2NT opener seems to be standard procedure here, alerted or not.

[pescetom]

I don't know what NZ regs say about alerting 2NT, querying a 2NT opener seems to be standard procedure here, alerted or not.

That's exactly the kind of situation announcements are intended to avoid, because the way they query (or the time they *don't* query) will transmit UI, as will the way their opponents explain (free text).

 

An announcement of range ("21 23") or "weak minors" would seem to do fine, given the claustrophobic regulations.

[barmar]

I've had confirmation from a NZ Bridge Director

 

The board is adjusted to Did Not Play.

The pairs get 0 MP for this board but their total possible MP for the session is reduced so their percentage score is unaffected.

Which is mathematically equivalent to giving them their percentage score from all the other boards as their score on this board. This is essentially the same as treating the board like a sit-out.

 

As others said, this was definitely the wrong ruling in the circumstance in question. When there's MI or UI, you don't cancel the board, you let them play it out. Then you determine if the offending side gained as a result of the infraction, and adjust to what you think the likely result would have been absent the irregularity. The board is only cancelled if the TD believes that the UI was so eggregious that ordinary play is impossible (e.g. a player exposes their entire hand). And in that case you don't use DNP, you assign avg+/avg- to the NOS and OS respectively.