[blackshoe]

I do not think whether it is a club event or a "serious" event should affect whether we follow the laws.

How putting "Not Played" in affects the results is not what I was asking. Rather, what's the difference (if any) between putting in "not played", and altering the movement so that the boards in question are not scheduled to be played (for example, by marking that round for that table as a sit out).

[bluejak]

People generally ask questions on these forums - the first three forums anyway - to find out correct procedure. Of course there are various things done in clubs which are incorrect, because players like them, because TDs do not know any better, because they save TDs trouble, or for other reasons. We do not particularly say it is the end of the world if you break the Laws, whether by allowing pass-outs, forbidding psyches, or giving NP when the Law book requires averages. But I am not sure of the point of seeking advice here: surely it so not our job to give the wrong advice?

Would I put in NP myself because it is easier? No, because I would consider it unprofessional and I pride myself on my professionalism. Does it make a big difference? No.

There was a fairly famous occasion where a top American pair [Hamman-Wolff ???] found a scoring error: they had made 140 not 110. The event was rescored and it dropped them from first equal to second! A lawsuit was avoided when the TDs managed to demonstrate that they had religiously followed the Laws and Regulations, and the result was a quirk of the scoring program. If they had been casual and had merely done something easier then their children's children would still probably be paying off the lawsuit.

If you follow the easier method of putting NP, which is very common amongst club TDs, I fear, it will rarely have an effect. But one day in your club the wrong pair will be declared winners. No-one will ever know, so you might think it does not matter. But if I was directing the possibility would worry me.

When the movement calls for a board to be played, and it is not played for any reason unconnected with the movement, Law 12C2A tells you what to do. Law 12C2A does not contain any mention of "Not played" as an option.

[jeffford76]

blackshoe, on Dec 14 2009, 08:52 PM, said:

jeffford76, on Dec 14 2009, 08:04 PM, said:

In practice putting in NP is a lot faster than editing the movement.

Does it have the same overall effect on the score?

Yes. You get your percentage from the other boards. And other players' scores on the boards are factored to the correct top, same as if there's a sit-out.

[mycroft]

True, NP is just like having a sitout. But of course, the law of large numbers comes into play here - it's easier to have a winning game (similarly, easier to have a bottom game) having played 18 boards to everyone else's 21, same as it's much harder to go 60% in a two-session event than in one of those sessions.

If you happen to be the TD, so that this happens often, you don't really want to be in a position where your chance to get extreme results is higher than everyone else's; if you happen to be one of the better players as well, the chance of that extreme result being on the monsterpoint-paying end is that much higher. Remember, the playing TD's "job" is to generate monsterpoints for the *other* players...

Yes, three or four averages isn't going to help your score any, if you end up near 60%. And there are some days where you would have won if your A=s were NPs. On those days, remember the playing TD's mantra (above). Yes, three A+s will help the sitout players, more than the NPs would (because at worst, they get their average on their other boards if 60% would bring that down, just like the NP); seems acceptable payment for being the only sitout to me.

What the laws say is orthogonal to this argument, but it's an "easy" incentive to do what is the Lawful thing anyway.

[jeffford76]

mycroft, on Dec 15 2009, 02:48 PM, said:

Yes, three or four averages isn't going to help your score any, if you end up near 60%. And there are some days where you would have won if your A=s were NPs.

I'm sure it's not right to give one side A= and the other side A+ for the unplayed boards. Both sides are equally not at fault.

mycroft, on Dec 15 2009, 02:48 PM, said:

Yes, three A+s will help the sitout players, more than the NPs would (because at worst, they get their average on their other boards if 60% would bring that down, just like the NP); seems acceptable payment for being the only sitout to me.

In the clubs around here if you asked each pair whether they'd rather play 24 boards and get 3 60% boards or play 27 boards, a substantial number of them would prefer the 24 board option. I think the A+'s are overcompensating.

As you mention, even without the three 60% boards, unless they're substantially better than the field, their higher variance on the lower number of boards will give them a greater chance of winning.

[Vampyr]

mycroft, on Dec 15 2009, 10:48 PM, said:

Yes, three or four averages isn't going to help your score any, if you end up near 60%.  And there are some days where you would have won if your A=s were NPs.

Do you think it really makes a lot of difference? If your score is 60% you get 60% on the A= boards, and if you have NPs instead there will be factoring and you will get 60% for the boards you did play. Any difference between the two would seem to be infinitesimal.

[gordontd]

Vampyr, on Dec 19 2009, 06:05 AM, said:

If your score is 60% you get 60% on the A= boards, and if you have NPs instead there will be factoring and you will get 60% for the boards you did play. Any difference between the two would seem to be infinitesimal.

Not so: If your score is 60% (or anything else) you get 50% on the A= boards, but you would get your session score (ie 60%) for NP.

[Vampyr]

gordontd, on Dec 19 2009, 10:23 AM, said:

Vampyr, on Dec 19 2009, 06:05 AM, said:

If your score is 60% you get 60% on the A= boards, and if you have NPs instead there will be factoring and you will get 60% for the boards you did play. Any difference between the two would seem to be infinitesimal.

Not so: If your score is 60% (or anything else) you get 50% on the A= boards, but you would get your session score (ie 60%) for NP.

I was thinking that you got your own average on average boards; I guess I was wrong.

[bluejak]

The whole idea of artificial adjusted scores is to provide some sort of approximation to a fair result allowing for level of fault in causing the board not to be played. So Ave gets you 50% because you do not deserve [in the lawmakers' view] 60%, being partly at fault. While the system is not perfect, it seems reasonably fair. If you are having a 60% session but are then partly responsible for a board not being played, it seems fair that your average score is reduced, while it will never be reduced [whatever your average score] if you get Ave+. On the other hand, if you give someone who was partly responsible and was getting a good score NP you are giving them an unjustified reward for helping to get a board not played.

[McBruce]

In scenario 1, I gave avg+ to EW and avg to NS as most have suggested, but I wonder about this. Doesn't this give an advantage to the last pair to buy an entry--if there is a situation where an extra player is needed and cannot arrive in time they will get several avg+ scores. Perhaps there should be a limit of one avg+ per pair (by club reg) to offset this.

In the second case, I considered my likely response had I known what was happening. I would probably have asked them to play the third board late and when neither wished to do so I would have given both pairs avg, since both were partly at fault. Mrs P clearly was unaware that she had missed a board, starting the round as late as they did. I gave both pairs an admonishment not to do this again, which could be considered a PP-warning.

BridgeMates are a considerable expense for a club and the view here (where one busy TD who directs a lot has opened the wallet) is that they reduce further the dwindling table space which is now taken up by bid-boxes, convention cards, duplicate boards, table markers, coffee cups, snacks, and dummy hands. We get scores out fast enough using ACBLScore, even as a playing TD.

[McBruce]

David, my recollection is that the 110-140 rescoring scenario occurred because the event was using Butler scoring: a better score resulted in a higher average score, dropping them an IMP in a cash prize game. Artificial averages were not involved. However, a related point is that the Law that states that avg+ at IMP play is +3 is intended for teams, and in an IMP Pairs event, +3 against the whole field is a considerable advantage. I have seen it reduced to 2 IMPs by regulation.

[blackshoe]

McBruce, on Dec 19 2009, 11:34 AM, said:

Perhaps there should be a limit of one avg+ per pair (by club reg) to offset this.

Such a regulation would, IMO, conflict with the laws, and therefore be illegal.

[blackshoe]

McBruce, on Dec 19 2009, 11:48 AM, said:

However, a related point is that the Law that states that avg+ at IMP play is +3 is intended for teams, and in an IMP Pairs event, +3 against the whole field is a considerable advantage. I have seen it reduced to 2 IMPs by regulation.

Is it really intended for teams? The law is flawed in this are because it refers to "pairs" when it means "matchpoint scoring" and sometimes to "teams" when it means "imp scoring".

Law 12B2{c} said:

When the director awards an artificial adjusted score of average plus or minus at international matchpoints, that score is normally plus or minus 3 imPs, but this may be varied as Law 86A allows.

This law refers to imps, (a method of scoring) not directly to teams (a form of contest). But

Law 86A said:

When the director chooses to award an artificial adjusted score of average plus or average minus in IMP play, that score is plus 3 IMPs or minus 3 IMPs respectively. Subject to approval by the Regulating Authority, this may be varied by the Tournament Organizer.

This regulation doesn't say anything about the form of contest either. Granted, the heading on Law 86 is "In Team Play or Similar", but the headings are not part of the laws.

I'm no expert on the intricacies of IMP scoring, and it may be that a regulation (which would be allowed by Law 86A) changing it from ± 3 IMPs to ± 2 IMPs at pairs is a good idea. Or not. I just don't know.

[bluejak]

McBruce, on Dec 19 2009, 05:34 PM, said:

BridgeMates are a considerable expense for a club and the view here (where one busy TD who directs a lot has opened the wallet) is that they reduce further the dwindling table space which is now taken up by bid-boxes, convention cards, duplicate boards, table markers, coffee cups, snacks, and dummy hands.  We get scores out fast enough using ACBLScore, even as a playing TD.

Time for side tables, methinks.

McBruce, on Dec 19 2009, 05:48 PM, said:

David, my recollection is that the 110-140 rescoring scenario occurred because the event was using Butler scoring: a better score resulted in a higher average score, dropping them an IMP in a cash prize game.  Artificial averages were not involved.

I never suggested that artificial averages were involved, nor was that the point of my post: the point was that failure to follow the rules of the game would have led to a lawsuit: the reason there was no lawsuit is because they followed the rules.

[craisin]

My club has been using Bridgemates for four years now without any problems whatsover.

The only times problems occur is when the operators do not follow the correct procedures.

They are simple to use, give great output for results.

They allow for "Average","Average+",Average-","Not Played" and can be adjusted either via the Desktop Units or via the computer.

Why anyone thinks they don't work is beyond me! My players would ill me if I went back to manual scoring!

By the way, Law 12B(2) says that a director may not apply an "Average+","Average-" or "Average" simply because he/she feels the laws in any certain circumstances are unduly harsh or could possibly provide one side with an advantage over the other. By applying Adjusted scores on boards that are not played (perhaps due to time constraints in a certain round at one or more tables, but not the whole field) WOULD be unfair on one pair or the other, so an adjusted score should NOT be given, I feel. The only solution - don't count the board at all. It affects no pairs averages in any way, and keeps the customer happy.
Of course, if the board can be played AFTER the event has finished for the majority of the sessions players, then it should be played then, but sometimes time constraints on hired premises etc. preclude that.

[axman]

craisin, on Jun 29 2010, 02:40 AM, said:

The only solution - don't count the board at all. It affects no pairs averages in any way,


and keeps the customer happy.

THe first assertion is not really true. A board that is played can have an outcome of a top, a bottom, or in between. Some of those outcomes can dramatically affect the standings-- so by not playing the board there is no way to find out.

As for the second assertion, while absence of resolution might affect the 'enjoment' of various people differently and thus be indeterminate prior to killing a board, for some, Monday morning quarterbacking is a passionate misery.

[campboy]

craisin, on Jun 29 2010, 08:40 AM, said:

By the way, Law 12B(2) says that a director may not apply an "Average+","Average-" or "Average" simply because he/she feels the laws in any certain circumstances are unduly harsh or could possibly provide one side with an advantage over the other. By applying Adjusted scores on boards that are not played (perhaps due to time constraints in a certain round at one or more tables, but not the whole field) WOULD be unfair on one pair or the other, so an adjusted score should NOT be given, I feel. The only solution - don't count the board at all. It affects no pairs averages in any way, and keeps the customer happy.

This is utter nonsense. You seem to be guilty of doing exactly what you are accusing others of -- making up a ruling on the grounds that the rectification given in the laws would unduly advantage someone. Law 12C2 tells us to award an artificial adjusted score when owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained, so that is what we must do.