[blackshoe]

The existence of the hand records leads me to believe a Duplimate was probably used. Curtailing a thirteen table movement is not unusual even with pre-duplicated boards.

It may be that the score on "board 21" at table 11 was the result of a determination of director error. Or, I suppose, there are actually three groups in the fouled board procedure.

The board that group G played is not the "board 21" shown in the results. It doesn't look like that's the board that group F played either.

It is possible with ACBLScore to edit a movement such that board 27 would be substituted for board 21, but it's not easy to do. Most of the club directors I know wouldn't bother to try.

[olegru]

blackshoe, on 2012-January-31, 10:05, said:

So what was your contract on 27?

3♠ from W made. Opponents had misdefended.

[axman]

olegru, on 2012-January-31, 09:23, said:

Sowirry, my English is far from the perfect.
I don’t know the exact set of circumstances. As a player I am following the Directors instructions and I have no way to know about exact decisions taken by Director until he informed me about them.
And things look confusing because they are confusing.  There was too much mess for the single board.
By word “protocol” I meant the scoresheet, sorry. Basically this thing:

Now, I believe, I understand the set of circumstances better and it looks more like computer score problem for me. I will put all my finding together one more time. Hopefully it is more comprehensible now.
1. 1 round. Board 21 started on the table 11. 3 bids made. 11EW pair left the table (I have no ideas why and where). New pair 11EW arrived. East complained about bid made. Director replaced board 21 by board 27 and instructed to skip this board and have a late play.
2. Boards moved to table 10. I don’t have information what board been played on the table 10. It definitely was not the board drown on the web site, because result 11 trick by EW is not reachable there.
3. Board moved to table 9. They played the same board as a table 10.
4. Something happened after third round because the next table 8 played the different board. And this second board is not the board drown on the web site too.
5. Starting this moment we have 2 different sets of result in the scoresheet for the board 21: The first 2 marked as F, and the rest marked as G. In the scoresheet this board marked as 21 but board with number 27 in use.
6. After the last round we have the late play. I am pretty sure we played the same board with other field except tables 10 and 9.
7. Director manually enters our result on the board but does not specify if it belong to F or G group. I guess he did not realize that the late board is the same board he already had so much troubles with.
8. Now system sees 3 different sets of results in the scoresheet. Set F played on the tables 9 and 10. Set G played on tables from 1 to 8. And set with no letter played on the table 11 only. With no comparison available system automatically assigned ave+/ave+
9. Director did not make any decisions about adjusting our result, this “decision” was made by computer system and, I guess, Directors had never noticed it.

Now, I notice all this mess in a couple of days.
Could anything be done at this moment?

Given that it is the first round and there is but one section the TD should have shuffled #21 while you were playing #22, recorded the board to revise the internet hand record and hopefully you would be able [you only lost one minute] to play #21 within the first round.

revision**: Given that an ACBLwide game is a multisection event, the TD haas fouled the board by bringing you to the table prior to picking up the bidding cards. This makes the board unplayable/unrecoverable and requires an artificial score. There is no methodology for substituing some other board [because there would be no comparisons it would still have an art score].

Apparently, the TD additionally fouled the comparisons unneccessarily of Greenberg and Radin.
**Apologies, I'd forgotten about ACBLwide.

I might have surmised that the TD had started a fill-in pair except that they would have been seated when the TD brought you to T#11.

This post has been edited by axman: 2012-January-31, 12:43

[olegru]

blackshoe, on 2012-January-31, 10:37, said:

The existence of the hand records leads me to believe a Duplimate was probably used. Curtailing a thirteen table movement is not unusual even with pre-duplicated boards.

It may be that the score on "board 21" at table 11 was the result of a determination of director error. Or, I suppose, there are actually three groups in the fouled board procedure.

The board that group G played is not the "board 21" shown in the results. It doesn't look like that's the board that group F played either.

It is possible with ACBLScore to edit a movement such that board 27 would be substituted for board 21, but it's not easy to do. Most of the club directors I know wouldn't bother to try.

It was the simultaneous ACBL-wide 1 International Fund Game.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2012-January-31, 10:37, said:

The existence of the hand records leads me to believe a Duplimate was probably used. Curtailing a thirteen table movement is not unusual even with pre-duplicated boards.

There were hand records at ACBL events even before the Duplimate was invented.

Quote

It is possible with ACBLScore to edit a movement such that board 27 would be substituted for board 21, but it's not easy to do. Most of the club directors I know wouldn't bother to try.

I haven't used ACBLScore in 15 years or more, but back then it was really easy. There was a sort of matrix and you just changed "21" to "27" every time it appeared. I think that most club directors probably do know how to make this sort of change in ACBLScore -- what do they do when a table plays a board in the wrong direction in a Howell movement?

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2012-January-31, 12:36, said:

There were hand records at ACBL events even before the Duplimate was invented.

I haven't used ACBLScore in 15 years or more, but back then it was really easy. There was a sort of matrix and you just changed "21" to "27" every time it appeared. I think that most club directors probably do know how to make this sort of change in ACBLScore -- what do they do when a table plays a board in the wrong direction in a Howell movement?

I know. But there are Duplimates now, and generally speaking, when I see a printed hand record, I can be pretty sure there was a Duplimate involved. Perhaps not in this game though - like Axman I'd missed that it was an "ACBL wide international fund game". As for the ease of change, I suppose I was thinking of one of our local directors, whose knowledge of ACBLScore basically extends to firing it up and going through her pre-memorized list of which buttons to push. I grant that it's pretty easy if you know what you're doing - which makes me wonder why the TD on the day didn't do it. The board 27 that was substituted should (or at least could) have been the pre-dealt 27 for the event.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2012-January-31, 16:57, said:

I know. But there are Duplimates now, and generally speaking, when I see a printed hand record, I can be pretty sure there was a Duplimate involved. Perhaps not in this game though - like Axman I'd missed that it was an "ACBL wide international fund game". As for the ease of change, I suppose I was thinking of one of our local directors, whose knowledge of ACBLScore basically extends to firing it up and going through her pre-memorized list of which buttons to push. I grant that it's pretty easy if you know what you're doing - which makes me wonder why the TD on the day didn't do it. The board 27 that was substituted should (or at least could) have been the pre-dealt 27 for the event.

He apparently knew how to use the Fouled Board feature, although it's kind of strange that the groups were named F and G -- I thought it called the first group A, then B, and so on.

[olegru]

I talk to head director and he fixed the issue. Actually he was working on fixing it when I came to talk about this board. Apparently I was not the only one complaining about that and there there were additional issues I did not know. Anyway just posting this message to admit his good job. http://clubresults.a.../01/120128A.HTM
Now there is the correct board 33 (board I actually played) in the scoresheet.

[gordontd]

Ah yes - the vulnerability question. Well done for your win.

[mycroft]

ACBLScore fouled board procedure, you tell ACBLScore that this board was fouled, and it asks you to mark the fouled ones - which will come out as "F" (for fouled), yes.

On the rare cases where the board was fouled twice, leading to three groups, the third group is marked "G" (for F+1, I guess).

[Gerardo]

The fact that it was an ACBL-wide game might had made the directorreluctant to replace the board for all.

[bluejak]

axman, on 2012-January-30, 17:32, said:

You have used some phrases that do not mean much in America without explanation.

olegru is posting from

Location: NY, NY

Is New York no longer in America?

[barmar]

America is the great melting pot. Many people who play here are not from here.

I've never heard the phrase "in protocol" used here in a bridge context.