[gordontd]

pran, on 2014-December-31, 07:03, said:

That is of course a possibility, but how would you then handle the situation when next a second (and even a third) table turns up having discovered that they too played the same fouled board (not all of them with the same result)?

That's when the fouled board facility comes into play. I wouldn't be doing any of this until I had established the entire situation satisfactorily, so there wouldn't be a first then a second then a third.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2014-December-31, 04:12, said:

You can as well say that it's up to the TD to put in all scores after calculating them so the scoring program should not calculate and enter the matchpoints (or similar) by defult.

No. That's a completely different situation.

[pran]

gordontd, on 2014-December-31, 07:17, said:

That's when the fouled board facility comes into play. I wouldn't be doing any of this until I had established the entire situation satisfactorily, so there wouldn't be a first then a second then a third.

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.

And believe me I have had situations where "New" instances of a fouled board have been discovered later in such a way that a particular result had to be transferred from the "normal version" group to a "fouled version" Group (originally containing only one result). This is no problem and causes very little extra work for a TD using a proper scoring program.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2014-December-31, 05:52, said:

I am not sure how the players in the 1-table field could have fouled the board before playing it.

But how would the scoring program know whether the board was fouled before or after playing it? As I said, a 1-table field can result from the board being fouled when returning the cards to the board after being played in round 1.

If the scoring program knows the movement, I guess it could figure out where the foul likely happened. In addition to getting the right default for the 1-table field, it could also assist the TD in finding the pair that may deserve a PP for fouling the board.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2014-December-31, 07:05, said:

And why bother with scoring programs in the first Place?

Most people find that they save time.

barmar, on 2014-December-31, 10:17, said:

But how would the scoring program know whether the board was fouled before or after playing it? As I said, a 1-table field can result from the board being fouled when returning the cards to the board after being played in round 1.

So maybe the default on the scoring programme should be A-/A- (unless of course the computer can sense that one pair left the table while the other pair stayed and fouled the board.

[gordontd]

pran, on 2014-December-31, 08:10, said:

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]

barmar, on 2015-January-02, 01:22, said:

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]

pran, on 2015-January-02, 03:46, said:

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]

pran, on 2015-January-02, 03:46, said:

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]

gordontd, on 2015-January-02, 06:51, said:

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]

pran, on 2015-January-02, 03:46, said:

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.

blackshoe, on 2015-January-02, 11:30, said:

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]

pran, on 2015-January-02, 12:50, said:

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

There is no such thing.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2015-January-02, 11:57, said:

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]

Vampyr, on 2015-January-02, 12:53, said:

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]

pran, on 2015-January-02, 13:01, said:

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]

Vampyr, on 2015-January-02, 13:06, said:

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]

pran, on 2015-January-02, 13:23, said:

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.