[iviehoff]

bluejak, on Jul 22 2010, 12:47 PM, said:

Question for the wordsmiths: I wanted to write Plusses but my spellchekka objected, insisting on Pluses. Is this right?

I can understand why you wanted to double it, as normally we double with monosyllables when an ending creates a separate syllable: dig, digging. And of course you would write nonplussed.

There aren't many monosyllables ending in a single s capable of being pluralised, but mostly they seem to have a single s in the plural, even if they double in other forms:

Eg, bus, buses, bussed, bussing
gas, gases, gassed, gassing, gassy
yes, yeses (as in "the yeses and the noes")

[bluejak]

blackshoe, on Jul 23 2010, 02:31 AM, said:

bluejak, on Jul 22 2010, 07:47 AM, said:

As for the idea that we have in retrospect changed the movement because a board was wrong, all I can say is that we did not, so why on earth should d we assume that we did?

It has nothing to do with assuming anything. It was not suggested that we did change the movement, it was suggested that we could. Does the TD not have that power?

Of course he has the power. But since we did not change the movement, the fact that he has the power to change it is not relevant here. The board was played in such a way that no score could be obtained, thus Law 12C2 applies. the movement was not changed: people did play the board.

The power to change a movement applies, for example, where a TD players 27 boards in a 9 table Mitchell. During the evening he finds it is going so slowly he decides to curtail it by a board - or even by a round. He could do this by entering Not Played in the scoring software - and probably will have to if using BridgeMates, since you cannot restart the movement.

blackshoe, on Jul 23 2010, 02:31 AM, said:

bluejak, on Jul 22 2010, 07:47 AM, said:

Finally, as far as too many Average Pluses are concerned, Ton Kooijman, Chairman of the WBFLC has said that we should limit the number of Average Pluses. The EBU L&EC has discussed the matter and decided that at a pairs with MP scoring, such advice is illegal, so we are not going to follow it.

If it's illegal advice, then no one should follow it. I wonder though if Ton has been asked to comment on the EBU's position. Perhaps he feels it is not illegal. If so, then presumably he can explain why it's not.

Much of Ton's advice gets challenged. The EBU's view is that Ton's advice when not in th WBFLC is nothing more than his own views, to be listened to, certainly, but not a matter of Law.

[bluejak]

iviehoff, on Jul 23 2010, 08:56 AM, said:

bluejak, on Jul 22 2010, 12:47 PM, said:

Question for the wordsmiths: I wanted to write Plusses but my spellchekka objected, insisting on Pluses.  Is this right?

I can understand why you wanted to double it, as normally we double with monosyllables when an ending creates a separate syllable: dig, digging. And of course you would write nonplussed.

There aren't many monosyllables ending in a single s capable of being pluralised, but mostly they seem to have a single s in the plural, even if they double in other forms:

Eg, bus, buses, bussed, bussing
gas, gases, gassed, gassing, gassy
yes, yeses (as in "the yeses and the noes")

Interesting. Yes, I would have written buses and gases but I would have written yesses.



Yes, the spellchekka tried to change yesses.

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on Jul 23 2010, 07:59 AM, said:

Of course he has the power. But since we did not change the movement, the fact that he has the power to change it is not relevant here. The board was played in such a way that no score could be obtained, thus Law 12C2 applies. the movement was not changed: people did play the board.

You're missing the point. At the time when the problem was discovered, does or does not the TD have the power to rectify the problem by changing the movement — by, as Flader put it, "throwing out the board"? I gather you're saying no, he does not, in spite of your starting with "of course he has the power". Put it another way. I'm the director at the table. When I arrive to answer the original call, I discover there is an illegal deck. I investigate. I decide that the deck has been illegal since the beginning of the event. I rule that the board shall be "thrown out", that no result on that board shall stand, and that the remaining tables originally scheduled to play the board are no longer so scheduled. In order to facilitate the scoring, I will (or will direct the scorer to) enter "not played" in every place where that board appears in the scoring software. Legal or illegal?

Quote

Much of Ton's advice gets challenged.  The EBU's view is that Ton's advice when not in th WBFLC is nothing more than his own views, to be listened to, certainly, but not a matter of Law.

That's all fine, but it doesn't answer my question. Ton expressed a view, the EBU begs to differ, which of course they have a right to do. But my question was whether anyone bothered to ask Ton why he believes (if he believes) his suggestion is legal. Again, I gather your answer is "no".

[bluejak]

I do not believe a TD should say something has happened when it has not. While he has the power to change the movement, you are now asking him to say "What happened did not happen": no, I do not believe that telling lies - even ones that are known to be lies by everyone - should be part of a TD's job. The board was played.

The TD has the power to change the movement. It is an abuse of that power to change it retrospectively.

[blackshoe]

Okay, fair enough. IIRC there were thirteen tables, and this occurred on round 12 of 13. So. 26 A+s on the recap sheet. And Flader was wrong. Heh.

[ggwhiz]

Quote

Where a hand has been played at - let us say - 8 tables out of 13, and the eighth table finds the pack does not conform to Law 1 after it has played it, the Law is clear.

At the tables where it was played with a correct pack, the score stands.
At the remaining 5 tables when it has been corrected, the score stands.
At the tables where it was played with an incorrect pack, Ave+/Ave+ is given.

Not sure but does Table #8, the last one to play with a correct deck not get Ave-/Ave- for fouling the deck?

There would HAVE to be a second fouled board in this case for any table to be at fault or it occurred at the outset.

At tournaments with player duplication of the boards, I have occassionally heard the Director announce penaties of 1/2 board or so for mis-duplication but it probably shouldn't apply to this?

[dburn]

bluejak, on Jul 24 2010, 06:23 AM, said:

The board was played.

Yes, but bridge wasn't played on it. Suppose that on board 17 at table four, the players decided to amuse themselves by playing a game of Hearts rather than bridge. Would you consider this board to have been "played" at their table?

Moreover, if scoring a board as "Not Played" results in the same score for the contestants as giving them an average (plus, minus or neither), what does it matter how the score is entered?

[blackshoe]

dburn, on Jul 24 2010, 04:43 PM, said:

Moreover, if scoring a board as "Not Played" results in the same score for the contestants as giving them an average (plus, minus or neither), what does it matter how the score is entered?

The thing is that it doesn't give the same score. If I took a board on a typical club night and gave everyone "not played", the actual value of that board for each pair would range from something like 35% to about 65% of a top. Each would in fact get their average score on all the other boards they played. Law 12 will say that they should get either 60% or 50% or 40%, depending on their degree of fault for the problem. "Not played" doesn't consider fault at all.

[dburn]

Let me see if I have this right:

to score a board as "Not Played" across the field is to attempt to score the board as if it had been played - that is, everyone receives their session average for that board, or the score they would probably have received had they played it; while

to score a board by giving everyone "Average" is to attempt to score the board as if it had never existed; so that

if you want to act as though a board had been played, you score it as Not Played, while if you want to act as though a board had not been played, you score it as if everyone had in fact played it (and obtained the same score on it).

[blackshoe]

I just got out of bed, so I may not be awake yet, but I think you have it just backwards.

"Not played" has no effect on a pair's overall score — it does not change their net result — so it has the same effect as if the board was not played by that pair.

"Average" may raise or lower the pair's net result, depending on what their average is on the other boards they played. So it does not have the same effect as if the board was never played.

[dburn]

Sure. But if everyone gets "Not Played" on a board, that has the same effect as if everyone had played the board and done as well on it as they did on all the other boards combined. For example, the notional score on the board between pair A who finish with a 60% game and pair B who finish with a 40% game is 60% of a top to A, 40% of a top to B, which is (more or less) as it should be.

If on the other hand everyone gets Average on the board, that has the same effect as if everyone had played the board and the board was completely flat - the same score was achieved at all tables. This means that the notional score on the board between pairs A and B is 50% of a top to each pair, which is emphatically not as it should be. If instead everyone gets Average Plus on the board, that produces an even more absurd result in terms of the notional score between A and B; moreover, it simply adds a number of matchpoints to the economy for no good reason at all.

[blackshoe]

I am not sure what you mean by "as it should be". In what circumstances?

[bluejak]

The problem with taking this example is that, deciding to ignore the Law so as to avoid it feeling wrong in this case, means that next time a TD is likely to do the same thing when it is not played at no tables.

Now, pretty arguments about how we might as well put Not played in when the Law tells us not to are all very well in a case where it makes no effective difference, but the problem as so often with not following Laws is that people get in the habit of doing it and break the Laws when it matters.

Sure, if it is never played it is very easy to forget the Law. I might do so myself, to be honest, but that i because is know I shall not forget it when it matters. But teaching people here to not follow the Laws in one situation when it will produce a wrong result in other situations is a dangerous path, and seems unsuitable for this forum.

If you actually think the Law is wrong, that is a different matter, either suitable for Changing Laws & Regulations, or write to the WBFLC and tell them why they are wrong. But please do not try to teach people to do it wrong in a case where it does not matter without considering the ramifications.

[dburn]

Imagine the following:

On board 1, West and South both have the six of spades (and no one has the six of clubs).

At every table North opens seven hearts, passed out. East leads, South puts down the dummy, North spreads thirteen hearts face up and claims.

Not until the board reaches table 2 on round 13 does West say "hang on a minute - South has the six of spades and so do I."

How should this board be scored?

[mjj29]

dburn, on Jul 25 2010, 07:28 PM, said:

Imagine the following:

On board 1, West and South both have the six of spades (and no one has the six of clubs).

At every table North opens seven hearts, passed out. East leads, South puts down the dummy, North spreads thirteen hearts face up and claims.

Not until the board reaches table 2 on round 13 does West say "hang on a minute - South has the six of spades and so do I."

How should this board be scored?

I don't think anyone's mentioned this yet, but is it legal for the TD to judge that it would have made no difference to the play of the board (say there are two 6♠ and no 5♠ and spades all trivially fall under honours, or get ruffed) and let the table result stand? (except possibly at the table it was noticed, if pointing out the irregularity affects play of the board, although in this case, perhaps even then)

[pran]

mjj29, on Jul 26 2010, 08:36 AM, said:

dburn, on Jul 25 2010, 07:28 PM, said:

Imagine the following:

On board 1, West and South both have the six of spades (and no one has the six of clubs).

At every table North opens seven hearts, passed out. East leads, South puts down the dummy, North spreads thirteen hearts face up and claims.

Not until the board reaches table 2 on round 13 does West say "hang on a minute - South has the six of spades and so do I."

How should this board be scored?

I don't think anyone's mentioned this yet, but is it legal for the TD to judge that it would have made no difference to the play of the board (say there are two 6♠ and no 5♠ and spades all trivially fall under honours, or get ruffed) and let the table result stand? (except possibly at the table it was noticed, if pointing out the irregularity affects play of the board, although in this case, perhaps even then)

No.

The board does not conform with the specifications in Law 1 and the Director is not at liberty to rule that the difference does not matter no more than he is at liberty to rule that the difference does not matter in an application of Law 87A.

[mjj29]

pran, on Jul 26 2010, 03:24 AM, said:

No.

The board does not conform with the specifications in Law 1 and the Director is not at liberty to rule that the difference does not matter no more than he is at liberty to rule that the difference does not matter in an application of Law 87A.

Fair enough, that seems strange given the current trend to give directors more scope to apply their judgement, in particular L16C2 which often can result in the same artificial score but in which the director can use his discretion as to whether it matters.

[pran]

mjj29, on Jul 26 2010, 10:06 AM, said:

pran, on Jul 26 2010, 03:24 AM, said:

No.

The board does not conform with the specifications in Law 1 and the Director is not at liberty to rule that the difference does not matter no more than he is at liberty to rule that the difference does not matter in an application of Law 87A.

Fair enough, that seems strange given the current trend to give directors more scope to apply their judgement, in particular L16C2 which often can result in the same artificial score but in which the director can use his discretion as to whether it matters.

Law 16 is about UI, and UI is always a matter of judgment.

A physical difference between two hands that should be identical or a discrepancy in a pack from its specifications is absolute.

[bluejak]

mjj29, on Jul 26 2010, 10:06 AM, said:

pran, on Jul 26 2010, 03:24 AM, said:

No.

The board does not conform with the specifications in Law 1 and the Director is not at liberty to rule that the difference does not matter no more than he is at liberty to rule that the difference does not matter in an application of Law 87A.

Fair enough, that seems strange given the current trend to give directors more scope to apply their judgement, in particular L16C2 which often can result in the same artificial score but in which the director can use his discretion as to whether it matters.

TDs are given more scope to use their judgement in particular cases where the WBFLC has changed the Laws to give them more scope.

But they have not in cases where this has not happened. Law 1 remains. As I am fond of saying [over-fond, no doubt] it is fairly pointless to try to extrapolate from general opinions expressed by or inferred from the WBFLC to actual cases. In actual cases we follow the Laws [hopefully!].