[suprgrover]

The movement has been changed to protect the not-so-innocent, but the situation is still the same. At a game I do not run, Pair 9 NS was the roving pair and was supposed to bump 3 NS for the round and then play boards 22-24 against 6 EW at table 3. Alas, 3 NS and 6 EW played board 22 instead.

The director let the result stand and let the scoring program factor the scores for 9 NS (who played 20 boards instead of the 21 they would normally play) and 3 NS (who played 22 boards instead of 20).

(He made a decision about a procedural penalty as well, but that's another matter.)

He now thinks that he should a) award Ave+ to 9 NS for that board, let 6 EW keep their result and c) expunge the result for 3 NS.

I think that Law 15 says that 3 NS and 6 EW keep their results, and that 9 NS gets an Ave+ because they were prevented from playing a board through no fault of their own.

First question: who is right?
Second question: if I am right, how do we accommodate the extra result on the board in ACBLScore?

[pran]

suprgrover, on Sep 30 2010, 10:51 PM, said:

The movement has been changed to protect the not-so-innocent, but the situation is still the same. At a game I do not run, Pair 9 NS was the roving pair and was supposed to bump 3 NS for the round and then play boards 22-24 against 6 EW at table 3. Alas, 3 NS and 6 EW played board 22 instead.

The director let the result stand and let the scoring program factor the scores for 9 NS (who played 20 boards instead of the 21 they would normally play) and 3 NS (who played 22 boards instead of 20).

(He made a decision about a procedural penalty as well, but that's another matter.)

He now thinks that he should a) award Ave+ to 9 NS for that board, let 6 EW keep their result and c) expunge the result for 3 NS.

I think that Law 15 says that 3 NS and 6 EW keep their results, and that 9 NS gets an Ave+ because they were prevented from playing a board through no fault of their own.

First question: who is right?
Second question: if I am right, how do we accommodate the extra result on the board in ACBLScore?

Law 15 is clear.
Although it uses the word "normally" I cannot imagine any situation where the result obtained on the board by pairs 3 NS and 6 EW should be cancelled (unless the entire board is cancelled for some strange reason). And pair 9 NS is certainly entitled to A+ on this board. I was in fact taken by surprise on discovering the word "normally" in this law.

(And to your last question: I have no knowledge of ACBLScore.)

[blackshoe]

If pair 9 was roving, and was supposed to bump pair 3, then I don't see how pair 9 should get A+ on board 22. Seems like they should get A-, since they were directly at fault.

Pair 3 was apparently never scheduled to play board 22, so I don't see why they should get any score at all on that board. As far as I know, ACBLScore has no way to enter a score for a board that was not scheduled.

Pair 6 should retain their table score on 22.

[Chris3875]

As a new user of Bridgemates, I can see that this sort of situation would cause us some difficulties as the Bridgemate would be assuming that board 22 is being played by 9 and 6. I am thinking that the scoring program (we use Scorebridge) could be manipulated at the completion of play to reflect whatever rectification is decided at the table. I am not sure whether the program would like the fact that Pair 3 plays more boards than anyone else and Pair 9 plays less.

[Chris3875]

Blackshoe - maybe the boards were passed prematurely and pairs 3 and 6 played the first board of the next round - I have seen that happen before ! In that case Pair 9 may not have had the chance to get to the table before 3 and 6 played the board. What then ?

[Elianna]

Quote

He now thinks that he should a) award Ave+ to 9 NS for that board, b ) let 6 EW keep their result and c) expunge the result for 3 NS.

This is what I would have done, and what ACBLscore allows.

I believe that your solution CANNOT be done on ACBLscore. As far as I know you cannot make it take a score for someone that was not designated to play that board, and if you edit the movement (which is what it sounds like the director did initially), then it will not accept a score for 9NS, and they clearly deserve an A+ according to 15B.

[Elianna]

blackshoe, on Sep 30 2010, 03:32 PM, said:

If pair 9 was roving, and was supposed to bump pair 3, then I don't see how pair 9 should get A+ on board 22. Seems like they should get A-, since they were directly at fault.

Pair 3 was apparently never scheduled to play board 22, so I don't see why they should get any score at all on that board. As far as I know, ACBLScore has no way to enter a score for a board that was not scheduled.

Pair 6 should retain their table score on 22.

If you are supposed to go to a table, but it starts the next round 5 minutes early and finishes a board incorrectly before you get there, how is it your fault?

And if the director DOES rule that it's your fault, can't they take care of that with a PP?

[Elianna]

Chris3875, on Sep 30 2010, 03:33 PM, said:

As a new user of Bridgemates, I can see that this sort of situation would cause us some difficulties as the Bridgemate would be assuming that board 22 is being played by 9 and 6. I am thinking that the scoring program (we use Scorebridge) could be manipulated at the completion of play to reflect whatever rectification is decided at the table. I am not sure whether the program would like the fact that Pair 3 plays more boards than anyone else and Pair 9 plays less.

If you train the players to look at them, bridgemates can actually save the day, as they will say which pair should be playing which board.

[blackshoe]

Chris3875, on Sep 30 2010, 07:36 PM, said:

Blackshoe - maybe the boards were passed prematurely and pairs 3 and 6 played the first board of the next round - I have seen that happen before ! In that case Pair 9 may not have had the chance to get to the table before 3 and 6 played the board. What then ?

Yeah, that's a possibility, I suppose. In that case I'd give pair 9 A+, unless they got there in the middle of the board, and didn't call the TD immediately.

[blackshoe]

Elianna, on Sep 30 2010, 07:40 PM, said:

If you are supposed to go to a table, but it starts the next round 5 minutes early and finishes a board incorrectly before you get there, how is it your fault?

And if the director DOES rule that it's your fault, can't they take care of that with a PP?

It isn't, as I just posted in reply to Chris.

As to your second question, NO! Using PPs to "adjust" the score is anathema.

[blackshoe]

Elianna, on Sep 30 2010, 07:42 PM, said:

If you train the players to look at them, bridgemates can actually save the day, as they will say which pair should be playing which board.

Heh. Good luck with that. Herding cats is easier.

[bluejak]

Chris3875, on Oct 1 2010, 12:33 AM, said:

As a new user of Bridgemates, I can see that this sort of situation would cause us some difficulties as the Bridgemate would be assuming that board 22 is being played by 9 and 6. I am thinking that the scoring program (we use Scorebridge) could be manipulated at the completion of play to reflect whatever rectification is decided at the table. I am not sure whether the program would like the fact that Pair 3 plays more boards than anyone else and Pair 9 plays less.

While I do not like Scorebridge, it certainly handles people playing different numbers of boards.

Quote

Herding cats is easier.

I have finally seen the advert - it is quite wonderful.

[suprgrover]

blackshoe, on Sep 30 2010, 06:32 PM, said:

Pair 3 was apparently never scheduled to play board 22, so I don't see why they should get any score at all on that board. As far as I know, ACBLScore has no way to enter a score for a board that was not scheduled.

Pair 6 should retain their table score on 22.

This seems reasonable enough until I read Law 15. That text seems clear that the pairs who played the board should keep their scores.

I've dealt in the past when a NS pair, early in the game, forgets about the rover and plays a board in error. If the bumped pair have not yet played the set of boards that the rovers missed in the first round, I can have the rovers pair bump them for one of the boards in that set later on. But in this case, it was too late for that.

[blackshoe]

Law 15 seems to assume that all players are scheduled to play all boards. In this case one pair played a board they weren't scheduled to play. Perhaps this is why 15A1 says "normally".

[bluejak]

I think 'normally' is merely to allow for more extreme cases where it is just not possible. For example, if you have two sections playing different boards, and a pair strays into the wrong section, I do not see how they can sensibly keep their score on a board not being compared with the rest of their field.

But I believe they keep a score where the board is being played in their section even if they were not scheduled to play it.

[blackshoe]

huh. I just figured out how to edit the movement in ACBLScore to make what you want to do, David, work. Specifically, I entered an 8 table Rover Mitchell (with a Bye Stand and relay), pair 9 NS as Rover. Then I went into "EDMOV" (edit the movement). I told it I wanted to edit a single cell (a cell contains, for a given round and table number, the NS and EW pair numbers, and the number of the first board in the set for that round). It asked me if I wanted to edit just one board! So I said yes, and then I looked at the score entry screen for that round. Sure enough, it showed pair 3 playing board 22, and pair 9 playing 23 and 24. Damn smartass computer.

That in itself isn't enough to say the procedure is legal, of course. And it still leaves the problem, as Elianna pointed out, of the ArtAS for NS 9. Still, you know what top on a board is, and an ArtAS is some percentage of that, so you can figure it out manually, and use the ADJ function to add that many matchpoints to NS's total score. It won't be associated, in the program, with the particular board, but who cares?

I'm still not entirely convinced that NS 3 should get to keep their score on a board they weren't originally scheduled to play, but given that ACBLScore actually lets me do that, and more importantly that both David and Sven think pair 3 should keep it, I'll go along.

[Elianna]

blackshoe, on Sep 30 2010, 03:47 PM, said:

Elianna, on Sep 30 2010, 07:40 PM, said:

If you are supposed to go to a table, but it starts the next round 5 minutes early and finishes a board incorrectly before you get there, how is it your fault?

And if the director DOES rule that it's your fault, can't they take care of that with a PP?

It isn't, as I just posted in reply to Chris.

As to your second question, NO! Using PPs to "adjust" the score is anathema.

No, assigning a score to punish behavior is wrong.

I'm suggesting you first deal with the score you feel they should earn, and THEN, if you feel the behavior was incorrect, you punish the behavior. These are two separate issues.

[JoAnneM]

When using a bump movement it is the director's responsibility to make sure that a pair knows they are going to be bumped in the next round. The bump pair is instructed to notify the pair one round ahead, and the director monitors and also notifies. This should prevent mishaps. When it doesn't, the pair who was supposed to play the board, and did, keeps their score, and the pair who missed playing it gets avg+ or avg at my discretion.

When it comes right down to it the buck stops at the Director.

[blackshoe]

Elianna, on Oct 1 2010, 01:07 PM, said:

No, assigning a score to punish behavior is wrong.

Who said anything about doing that?

Quote

I'm suggesting you first deal with the score you feel they should earn, and THEN, if you feel the behavior was incorrect, you punish the behavior.  These are two separate issues.

Score adjustment is a form of rectification, trying to restore equity. PPs are a deterrent against future infractions. DPs are given for bad behavior. And yes, they are separate issues.

[blackshoe]

JoAnneM, on Oct 1 2010, 01:13 PM, said:

When using a bump movement it is the director's responsibility to make sure that a pair knows they are going to be bumped in the next round. The bump pair is instructed to notify the pair one round ahead, and the director monitors and also notifies. This should prevent mishaps. When it doesn't, the pair who was supposed to play the board, and did, keeps their score, and the pair who missed playing it gets avg+ or avg at my discretion.

When it comes right down to it the buck stops at the Director.

The director is responsible for ensuring a smooth movement. How she does that is up to her. There is nothing in law or regulation that requires a director to inform a pair they are going to be bumped next round, though I grant it's prudent to do so. It's also prudent to instruct players to stay in their seats until the move is called, and to call the move explicitly and on time. I've played in way too many games where half the field is a round, or nearly so, ahead of the other half. It almost always causes headaches for the TD(s), and for at least some of the players.

The buck may stop at the director, but that doesn't mean players aren't accountable for following his instructions.

What would you do, JoAnne, if your investigation showed that this pair 9 finished the previous round early, went outside for a smoke, and came back two minutes after the round is called, to find pair 3 playing board 22 when they weren't supposed to? If you don't hold pair 9 directly at fault, I submit you're misapplying the law.