[wank]

One table sat in the wrong direction for the entire match and noone noticed PMSL, even when it was live on BBO vugraph. Bit of a shambles imo.

Apparently England gave Sweden a bit of a kicking, but obviously that's meaningless now, but for sure annoying for the England players.

EBL have offered them a choice of a 12-12 draw (15-15 being a normal draw) or replaying the match tomorrow.

[RMB1]

Thanks for the info. I had just come to this forum to ask what happened.

This was on vugraph and nobody noticed that the bidding systems didn't match?

[wank]

RMB1, on Jun 25 2010, 02:44 PM, said:

This was on vugraph and nobody noticed that the bidding systems didn't match?

apparently not. among other goodies 'townsend' for england opened 2H on 1633 11 count, surprisingly heavy weak 2 you might think. especially surprising considering they've played flannery for 6 years. in fact it was fredin for sweden.

[FrancesHinden]

Well, Jeffrey (Jallerton) noticed that Tom and David were not playing their usual system and queried it with Simon Cope (the coach) who was online, but nothing came of it.

[MickyB]

There was some discussion about how David+Tom must have changed some stuff from their CC, and whether that was allowed or not. I'm sure I'd have realised what was going on if I'd not been 98% concentrating on poker. Don't they have flags and names on the screen?

[jallerton]

On the screen it said that Tom Townsend (Engligh flag) was West, David Gold (English flag) was East, Peter Fredin (Swedish flag) North, Bjorn Fallenius (Swedish flag) South.

It also said that Jason & Justin Hackett (an English pair) were sitting North/South in the other room, which appeared to be consistent.

Normally, the vugraph operator asks the players their names (or perhaps looks at the badges that the EBL likes them to wear) before entering them on BBO. Did the vugraph operator just decide to guess in this case (or maybe take the names from the line up slip)?

There was a fair amount of discussion amongst the commentators about the system "changes" made by "Gold/Townsend" but when I asked the English coach privately about various system "changes" not on the English pair's convention card, he seemed to think that their bids were systemic. This was a surprise to me for various reasons, but I reasoned that the English coach ought to have more up-to-date information than me.

[Walddk]

Omspel kl 13.30 i morgon.

Rematch tomorrow at 13:30.

Peter Fredin on the Swedish federation's website.

Roland

[paulg]

MickyB, on Jun 25 2010, 08:51 PM, said:

There was some discussion about how David+Tom must have changed some stuff from their CC, and whether that was allowed or not. I'm sure I'd have realised what was going on if I'd not been 98% concentrating on poker. Don't they have flags and names on the screen?

The 'changes' were to opening two bids in third and fourth seat. Pairs are not always so diligent about documenting these so it was possible.

Also both pairs played a short 1♣ with transfer responses, so other auctions could have been right.

Makes more sense now though

[MickyB]

I think there was also some mention that 1C:1NT had previously been forcing or even game-forcing for Gold+Townsend, when they in fact played there.

[Tomi2]

Walddk, on Jun 25 2010, 05:02 PM, said:

Omspel kl 13.30 i morgon.

Rematch tomorrow at 13:30.

Peter Fredin on the Swedish federation's website.

Roland

this is incredible
there are rules that say those matches end 12-12 - so why are they allowed to rematch? Will they also be allowed to rematch, when they misplay 3NT? or misguess trumps in a slam? This match is over, they have made a mistake and the people reasonable for this get 12 (thats a lot compared to pairs, who play 20 minutes too long [why no rematch Netherlands-Russia, they might play faster now]), pairs who are not reasonable get 18

with kind regards,
Tomi,

who played 12-12 twice himself and would have liked to replay those matches, but nobody offered him this!

[paulg]

MickyB, on Jun 25 2010, 11:11 PM, said:

I think there was also some mention that 1C:1NT had previously been forcing or even game-forcing for Gold+Townsend, when they in fact played there.

Sorry you are right, there was a 1♣-1NT-Pass auction, where their CC said that 1NT was game forcing with 4+ diamonds.

[Walddk]

Tomi2, on Jun 26 2010, 12:20 AM, said:

Walddk, on Jun 25 2010, 05:02 PM, said:

Omspel kl 13.30 i morgon.

Rematch tomorrow at 13:30.

Peter Fredin on the Swedish federation's website.

Roland

this is incredible
there are rules that say those matches end 12-12 - so why are they allowed to rematch? Will they also be allowed to rematch, when they misplay 3NT? or misguess trumps in a slam? This match is over, they have made a mistake and the people reasonable for this get 12 (thats a lot compared to pairs, who play 20 minutes too long [why no rematch Netherlands-Russia, they might play faster now]), pairs who are not reasonable get 18

with kind regards,
Tomi,

who played 12-12 twice himself and would have liked to replay those matches, but nobody offered him this!

I agree with Tomi. There would never have been a rematch if it had happened in the match between Sweden and Cyprus or England vs Cyprus, because the result would not have mattered.

Sweden and England advance from Group B and Cyprus does not. So they would both gracefully have accepted 12-12. Now that Sweden and England both qualify, the carryover is important for both teams (they both hope for more than 12 VPs), so a rematch has been arranged.

Will there be a re-rematch if one team gets less than 12 VPs tomorrow I wonder.

Roland

[gnasher]

Walddk, on Jun 25 2010, 11:28 PM, said:

There would never have been a rematch if it had happened in the match between Sweden and Cyprus or England vs Cyprus, because the result would not have mattered.

If that's so, doesn't that mean that this isn't such a bad thing? Getting only 12 against Cyprus would be a disaster, but in a match between Sweden and England, 12 VPs wouldn't be that far from what either team was expecting. Letting them replay the match doesn't do either side any great favours, but it does mean that the result is a bridge result.

Maybe they should be allowed to replay it, but with a 24-VP scale?

[jallerton]

The WBF Laws Committee discussed this situation in their 1998 meeting. The minute says:

Quote

Whether to redeal is generally a matter for regulation. Suppose at the end of an eight board stanza it is discovered that a board was played the same way at both tables, both sides being at fault. Normal ways of dealing with it are:
If it is Swiss Teams, score it as average minus to each side.
If it is Knockout Teams, and not the last stanza, replay it by adding it to the next stanza.
If it is Knockout Teams, and the last stanza, replay it immediately with the same line-up so long as Law 86C does not apply [in which case it must be cancelled].
However, it is best if this is not left up to the Director’s judgement in each case, but covered by regulation.

I agree with the WBFLC that the regulations should be clear on ths point. However, I cannot see this scenario being mentioned in the EBL Ostend regulations, so presumably this is up to the EBL TDs to decide.

By the way, the English regulations start:

Quote

If time permits, the stanza or match must be replayed forthwith in which case neither team is penalised.

and in this case there happens to be a convenient window in which to replay the match.

[Fluffy]

I don't really understand the rematch thing, they truly deserve 12 VPs, and the netherlands and Rusia have something really to argue about this thing. We are on a different league so I don't really care much, but if I was Polaand Ireland or some strong contender in the group I'd be outraged.

[NickRW]

Fluffy, on Jun 25 2010, 11:16 PM, said:

I don't really understand the rematch thing, they truly deserve 12 VPs, and the netherlands and Rusia have something really to argue about this thing. We are on a different league so I don't really care much, but if I was Polaand Ireland or some strong contender in the group I'd be outraged.

Yes, I must admit that if I were Dutch or Russian I would be fuming - as it is I am English and admit that it seems as though both sides are at fault while being allowed to get away with no penalty.

Nick

[jeremy69]

Whatever the rights and wrongs it is wrong to present this as an "offer" to replay. It is an instruction from the organisers to do so.

[gnasher]

Tomi2, on Jun 25 2010, 11:20 PM, said:

there are rules that say those matches end 12-12

Where is the rule that says this?

[jallerton]

jeremy69, on Jun 26 2010, 08:14 AM, said:

Whatever the rights and wrongs it is wrong to present this as an "offer" to replay. It is an instruction from the organisers to do so.

Well it's quite right that the organisers (preferably using regulations determined in advance), not the players, should decide what happens.

If I were in one of the other teams I woud not be complaining too much. Whilst all of the other teams take a well earned rest on Saturday afternoon, these 8 players will have to play another set. The cumulative effect of tiredness is difficult to quantify but the teams who do not have to pay this afternoon may gain an advantage worth more than 3VPs by being less tired later in the tournament.

[paulg]

Personally I would leave the 12-12 as the result for the current round robin stage and use the replayed result as the carry over if both teams progress (which is highly likely).

I would also double the match fees of the vugraph commentators who were so cruelly deceived.

Paul