[paulg]

The Scottish trials, which use this VP scale, state:

If, owing to lateness or some other reason, the Director determines that one or more boards have to be cancelled, then

• Provided at least half a match can be played, an artificial adjusted score (A+ for nonoffender/ A- for offender) will be awarded for each unplayed board.
  
• If less than half a match can be played, then the match is declared void and is scored:-
  • For a non-offending side
    The greatest of 16 VPs, their average VP match score, the complement of their
    opponent's average VP match score
    
  • For an offending side
    The least of 12 VPs, their average VP match score, the complement of their
    opponent's average VP match score.

It used to be a minimum of 18 VPs for the non-offending side, but analysis of scoring trends in these competitions suggested that this was too much and unfair to the other participants.

It is not a contentious point, unlike much of the trials process

[pran]

bluejak, on Feb 27 2010, 01:54 PM, said:

pran, on Feb 27 2010, 01:44 PM, said:

I am fully aware that events outside Norway need not bother about Norwegian routines or regulations, but frankly: I don't see the problem, whether in Norway or anywhere else!

That seems to be what your whole problem is: lack of sympathy for other people's problems. Teams sit the same way: teams do not turn up: players may be at fault: TDs may be at fault: outside agencies may be at fault.

It is reasonable to ask for advice on this forum for such cases, and answers that they do not happen are unhelpful and naive.

I have answered:
- Teams sit the same way
- Teams do not turn up
- Players may be at fault

I have yet to imagine how a Director's error can result in a whole match becoming void and have never even heard of such a case during my more than thirty years of directing bridge.

So long as the question is "what score do we award to a team who's match is void because of a Director's error" I need to have an example on how this can happen before I can present any useful answer.

I resent any accusation of lack of sympathy for other people's problems when I do not even know what the problem is supposed to be. Show me a possible realistic case instead of throwing dirt with unfounded accusations and I shall be ready to comment.

[jallerton]

bluejak, on Feb 27 2010, 12:48 PM, said:

jallerton, on Feb 27 2010, 12:27 PM, said:

bluejak, on Feb 27 2010, 12:16 AM, said:

The original question is a strange one.  We do not award Ave+ or Ave- in VPs: read Law 12C2.

Sorry if I used the wrong terminology. How many VPs do you assign to a team when none of their match can be played and they are in no way at fault?

Now the question becomes simple. That is a matter for regulation, and any organisation that does not have such a regulation is at fault.

jallerton, on Feb 27 2010, 12:27 PM, said:

Quote

The EBU does not worry too much about the 25-0 scale since they rarely use it, but have a general regulation of 1.5 imps a board.  That is probably too generous, and leads to a win of between 19 and 23 VPs: that is too many.

The EBU uses the 25-0 scale for the Premier League and the final of Crockford's, which are two of England's most prestigious events. It is quite common for players to turn up late for bridge events, and when motorways are shut and railway lines become blocked it is not unknown for a journey delay to be more than the scheduled length of the first match.

The fact that they are prestigious is irrelevant: the point is that the scale is used rarely, so the EBU has not bothered with general regulations, relying on specific regulations for those two events.

In fact, the EBU does seem to have regulations other than the 1.5 imp/board rule that you mention.

The EBU White Book suggests that the VP score for the "not at fault" participant depends on the reason for not being able to play the match.

EBU White Book 2004 said:

147.6 Incorrect seating in a teams game
Suppose the teams sit incorrectly, such that an entire stanza or match is made void.
Note If the incorrect seating at one table is identified before team-mates play the
same boards, this error is easily rectified without cause to penalise either
team, by arrow-switching the boards once they are exchanged.
If time permits, the stanza or match must be replayed forthwith in which case neitherteam is penalised. This is normal in a knockout tournament. If time does not permit he replay of the stanza/match, then:
[snip]
(d) if the TD is responsible for the incorrect seating of the teams, then the
teams score the converse of the above (this award is not over-generous
and assumes the teams concerned to be partially at fault for the error); eg
12 VPs out of 20 instead of 8;
(e) where a 25 to 0 scale is used this is in effect a 20 to 0 scale with 5 added to
both sides. So average is 10 plus 5, 13 as in ( above is 8 plus 5, and the
converse as in (d) would be 12 plus 5, ie 17;

EBU White Book 2004 said:

145.2 All Play All event - withdrawal
If a contestant withdraws before half of the event is completed, all scores obtained
against that contestant are cancelled.
If a contestant withdraws after half of the event is completed, all scores obtained
against that contestant stand. Opponents who cannot now play that withdrawn
contestant receive the best score from the following (any fraction resolved upwards to
the minimum unit of scoring):
(a) their own average over the entire competition;
( the converse of the withdrawn opponents' average over the competition so
far;
© in a contest scored by victory points;
12 VPs on a 20 to 0 scale
6 VPs on a 10 to 0 scale
7.5 VPs on a 12 to 0 scale
17.5 VPs on a 25 to 0 scale

What I can't understand is why the same algorithm isn't used in the two cases. In both situations the team has been denied its opportunity to play the match through no fault of its own, and hence I suggest that they be made the same in the final version of the 2010 White Book .

[jdonn]

bluejak, on Feb 27 2010, 07:48 AM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 27 2010, 01:57 AM, said:

I think whatever guideline is used should indeed be very generous to any team not at fault. They lost their chance to win by more and that is not fair to them at all. Giving them 18 victory points is almost nothing when their starting point is 15, I find that much more outrageous (in the opposite direction) than giving them 25.

Well, I do not. In the same way that Ave+ on a board is not 100%, I think it is very unfair to give a team a 100% score when they have not played.

I wonder how keen teams would be to play in difficult circumstances not caused by themselves if they get 100% for not playing? Splitting headaches would become routine.

I hope I don't need to say why any comparison to matchpoint scoring makes no sense.

And of course if I get a splitting headache and decide I can't play, my team isn't "not at fault". Well maybe fault isn't the right word, but I'm certainly responsible for the consequences of my own headache.

[gnasher]

cardsharp, on Feb 27 2010, 01:54 PM, said:

the complement of their opponent's average VP match score

That seems a rather sloppily drafted regulation. Shouldn't it be the average of the complements of the opponent's VP scores?

If the opponents have played three matches, scoring 0, 0 and 11, my expectation is
  mean(25,25,19) = 23
but the complement of mean(0,0,11) is 25.

[bluejak]

jallerton, on Feb 27 2010, 06:44 PM, said:

What I can't understand is why the same algorithm isn't used in the two cases.  In both situations the team has been denied its opportunity to play the match through no fault of its own, and hence I suggest that they be made the same in the final version of the 2010 White Book .

Too late, I fear. While I do have wide latitude in my editing, it does not extend to changing established regulations, especially regulations created before I was on the L&EC! Plus, the timing is poor: the White book is to be finalised in 24 hours and nine minutes, and I am not at home, and when I get home I expect just to have time to look at a long screed form a certain J Allerton - and nothing more!!!

[bluejak]

jdonn, on Feb 27 2010, 08:48 PM, said:

I hope I don't need to say why any comparison to matchpoint scoring makes no sense.

You do to convince me. I do not care whether it is a full match, part of a match, or a single board: whether it is imps, BAM, MPs, aggregate or anything else: whether it is teams of four, teams of more than four, pairs or an individual. In no case do I feel there is any reason whatever for giving a contestant 100% for any board not played through no fault of their own.

[Mbodell]

pran, on Feb 27 2010, 06:29 AM, said:

I have answered:
- Teams sit the same way

We locally (ACBL northern california) are stricter than your -1 IMP/board for this. If teams sit the wrong way in a swiss or round robin match scored by VP then the VP score is 0 to 0 and neither team gets any VP. This happened in a bracketed round robin sectional tournament recently where two of the best teams in the top bracket played the same direction in the first match which lead to a much tighter final result.

[McBruce]

Mbodell, on Feb 27 2010, 05:40 PM, said:

pran, on Feb 27 2010, 06:29 AM, said:

I have answered:
- Teams sit the same way

We locally (ACBL northern california) are stricter than your -1 IMP/board for this. If teams sit the wrong way in a swiss or round robin match scored by VP then the VP score is 0 to 0 and neither team gets any VP. This happened in a bracketed round robin sectional tournament recently where two of the best teams in the top bracket played the same direction in the first match which lead to a much tighter final result.

"we sat the same way at both tables so we will both get 0vp for this match"
"let's report it as a dead tie"

[jdonn]

bluejak, on Feb 27 2010, 06:59 PM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 27 2010, 08:48 PM, said:

I hope I don't need to say why any comparison to matchpoint scoring makes no sense.

You do to convince me. I do not care whether it is a full match, part of a match, or a single board: whether it is imps, BAM, MPs, aggregate or anything else: whether it is teams of four, teams of more than four, pairs or an individual. In no case do I feel there is any reason whatever for giving a contestant 100% for any board not played through no fault of their own.

There are multiple differences.
- Any form of imp scoring is inherently much higher variance than matchpoint scoring, and score adjustments should reflect that a team not at fault as lost a much larger chance at a maximum score (do you think many pairs score 100% of the matchpoints over the course of the first 8 boards? In a round of a swiss it happens all the time of course.)
- Matchpoint scoring makes adjustments in terms of a percentage (not total matchpoints), but swiss team scoring adjusts in terms of a total. The comparison is apples and oranges.
- I feel it is wrong (and inherently misleading) to even consider an adjustment like this in terms of victory points. It's putting the cart before the horse since the adjustment is individual imps for each board. If the proper adjustment for the opponents causing me to be unable to play one board is 3 imps then that is the proper adjustment for any number of such boards and what happens after a conversion to victory points is luck of the draw.

Anyway I could probably settle for something like 22 (which is 3 imps a board in an 8 board round). But 18 is almost nothing. It's the equivalent of 1 imp a board + 1. Or one game swing and 7 flat boards.

Last point, don't only consider fairness for the team not at fault, what about the team at fault? You want to give them 12 for causing a round to be unable to be played, which is nearly a tied round?

[paulg]

gnasher, on Feb 27 2010, 10:46 PM, said:

cardsharp, on Feb 27 2010, 01:54 PM, said:

the complement of their opponent's average VP match score

That seems a rather sloppily drafted regulation. Shouldn't it be the average of the complements of the opponent's VP scores?

If the opponents have played three matches, scoring 0, 0 and 11, my expectation is
  mean(25,25,19) = 23
but the complement of mean(0,0,11) is 25.

Thanks, you understand what we intended.

Already fixed in the next set of regulations.

Paul

[jallerton]

bluejak, on Feb 27 2010, 11:54 PM, said:

jallerton, on Feb 27 2010, 06:44 PM, said:

What I can't understand is why the same algorithm isn't used in the two cases.  In both situations the team has been denied its opportunity to play the match through no fault of its own, and hence I suggest that they be made the same in the final version of the 2010 White Book .

Too late, I fear. While I do have wide latitude in my editing, it does not extend to changing established regulations, especially regulations created before I was on the L&EC! Plus, the timing is poor: the White book is to be finalised in 24 hours and nine minutes, and I am not at home, and when I get home I expect just to have time to look at a long screed form a certain J Allerton - and nothing more!!!

Sorry about the "timing" but I did point out this anomaly two weeks ago to the Editor of The White Book and the Secretary of the L&EC.

Notwithstanding the official deadline, I would have thought that, even at the cost of being a day or two late, it more is important to ensure that all known apparent anomalies are investigated and corrected if necessary.

As I understand it, the 2010 White Book is not being printed as a book (which is a shame, as it is often a lot easier to read in this format), so there are no deadlines with printers to be met.

[Mbodell]

McBruce, on Feb 27 2010, 08:39 PM, said:

Mbodell, on Feb 27 2010, 05:40 PM, said:

pran, on Feb 27 2010, 06:29 AM, said:

I have answered:
- Teams sit the same way

We locally (ACBL northern california) are stricter than your -1 IMP/board for this. If teams sit the wrong way in a swiss or round robin match scored by VP then the VP score is 0 to 0 and neither team gets any VP. This happened in a bracketed round robin sectional tournament recently where two of the best teams in the top bracket played the same direction in the first match which lead to a much tighter final result.

"we sat the same way at both tables so we will both get 0vp for this match"
"let's report it as a dead tie"

I think the motivation is to make sure a team can't intentionally clinch an overall win (or a better score than they'd expect) by sitting the wrong way on purpose. If they knew they'd get a few VP, or worse a 10-10 tie, then they could intentionally do it. And as long as at least one of the teams contains an ethical player then you ought not get a false report.

[bluejak]

The EBU automatically gives 0-0, plus a report to the L&EC, to any team that agrees anything, whether a tie or sitting the wrong way. But the vast majority of infractions are based on stupidity, so we do not treat it as malice.

[bluejak]

jallerton, on Feb 28 2010, 12:11 PM, said:

Sorry about the "timing" but I did point out this anomaly two weeks ago to the Editor of The White Book and the Secretary of the L&EC.

You make it sound as though that should be adequate timing. Not only were approximately 1000 items pointed out to me in the last two weeks, but to change a regulation it needed to be before the last L&EC meeting, not two weeks ago.

What did you expect me [or the Secretary] to do? Decide that a decision made in maybe 1980 or so by the L&EC of the day was wrong and change it without authority? And why is it wrong? Because one person says so? Sorry, Jeffrey, I have a high regard for you, but not that high!

[jallerton]

The 2010 White Book was not sent to the proof-readers until after the last L&EC meeting, so it would have been tough for any of them to have pointed out any anomalies before that meeting!

I was under the impression that the L&EC members do discuss some business by e-mail, but if that is not the case, then we just have to accept that England is a lot slower at changing anything than some other countries.

Cardsharp, on Feb 28 2010 08.43, said:

Quote

(gnasher @ Feb 27 2010, 10:46 PM)
QUOTE (cardsharp @ Feb 27 2010, 01:54 PM)
the complement of their opponent's average VP match score


That seems a rather sloppily drafted regulation. Shouldn't it be the average of the complements of the opponent's VP scores?

If the opponents have played three matches, scoring 0, 0 and 11, my expectation is
  mean(25,25,19) = 23
but the complement of mean(0,0,11) is 25. 

Thanks, you understand what we intended.

Already fixed in the next set of regulations.

Paul

In Scotland, regulations can be updated within 12 hours of someone suggesting an improvement!

[bluejak]

jallerton, on Mar 6 2010, 11:20 PM, said:

In Scotland, regulations can be updated within 12 hours of someone suggesting an improvement!

Or suggesting something considerably worse, like not alerting doubles because WBF regulations for events they never run say so.

I am sorry if you consider a rushed judgement without proper consultation an advantage. I think it an awful approach. I am pleased that the EBU does not go in for such things. The EBU has enough problems without taking away the consultative process just because one person thinks he has a solution to a problem no-one else has seen.