[lamford]

In the Spring Fours at Warwick, most of the matches in round 1 are "triangles" with three teams playing each other in 32-board matches. Two boards between team A and team B were mis-duplicated (by the organisers), and had to be scrapped. It was decided for some reason that replacement boards could not be played, although there seemed to be a reasonable amount of spare time, and team A and team B were each awarded +6 IMPs for the two boards that were scrapped.

Team C complained, but were told this was the regulation, and, if each team won one match, total IMPs would decide the triangle winner. The second and third team would each "lose a life". The two boards in question did not affect the result of the triangle, but it seemed to most neutral observers present that the regulation, punishing a non-offending team, was unfair. What do readers think?

[weejonnie]

The problem is probably over-exaggerated. Teams A and B only had 62 boards to score imps, while team C had 64.

Team A scored 6 imps on the two boards - and could not score any more.
Team B scored 6 imps on the two boards - and could not score any more.
Team C could have scored 48 imps on the two boards. (OK very unlikely, but even a non-vulnerable game Vs part score is 6 imps).

If team A felt they were losing after 30 boards there is nothing they could have done about it.
If team B felt they were losing after 30 boards there is nothing they could have done about it.
If team C felt they were losing after 30 boards they might decide to try something to pull back the victory.

Am I missing something?

Anyway it is written in the laws (Law 86) what to do (unless the EBU have stipulated otherwise)

[pran]

lamford, on 2018-May-07, 12:30, said:

In the Spring Fours at Warwick, most of the matches in round 1 are "triangles" with three teams playing each other in 32-board matches. Two boards between team A and team B were mis-duplicated (by the organisers), and had to be scrapped. It was decided for some reason that replacement boards could not be played, although there seemed to be a reasonable amount of spare time, and team A and team B were each awarded +6 IMPs for the two boards that were scrapped.

Team C complained, but were told this was the regulation, and, if each team won one match, total IMPs would decide the triangle winner. The second and third team would each "lose a life". The two boards in question did not affect the result of the triangle, but it seemed to most neutral observers present that the regulation, punishing a non-offending team, was unfair. What do readers think?

I once had a science lecturer who told us that whenever we wanted to test the sense in a result from a theory we should vary the parameters to (possible) extremes and then evaluate.

An extreme situation here would be that each and every board played and scored in the three matches ends as draws i.e. with a zero IMP score.

The theory above will then give each of teams A and B a total score of +6 IMPs while team C will just receive its score of 0 IMPs.

The applicable laws are §§86B2 and 12C2b.

I don't think that the regulation referred to by OP is contrary to the laws of Bridge but I do indeed question its fairness.

[weejonnie]

pran, on 2018-May-07, 16:49, said:

I once had a science lecturer who told us that whenever we wanted to test the sense in a result from a theory we should vary the parameters to (possible) extremes and then evaluate.

An extreme situation here would be that each and every board played and scored in the three matches ends as draws i.e. with a zero IMP score.

The theory above will then give each of teams A and B a total score of +6 IMPs while team C will just receive its score of 0 IMPs.

The applicable laws are §§86B2 and 12C2b.

I don't think that the regulation referred to by OP is contrary to the laws of Bridge but I do indeed question its fairness.

I suppose it is no different from playing duplicate where every single contract is 3NT making 9 tricks, but pairs A and B cannot play two boards through no fault of their own - and get AV+, AV+, and so win each section. http://www.bridgeweb...d=1&club=durham

The thing is: you have increased the total matchpoints available from 100% to (100+n)%. Normaly this is hidden in the randomness of results.

[lamford]

The EBU site was down yesterday but I have accessed the White Book for the relevant regulation and it appears that the ruling was wrong:

<snip. the TD shall exercise their Law 6 authority to order the board to be redealt and replayed unless §3.3.4.3 (e) (ii) applies (not applicable here as the board was misduplicated - PL). In general this means that boards are always replayed in knockout tournaments (except single boards where the result of the match otherwise could be known), but not usually otherwise unless it is discovered in time to replay it immediately. Any replay shall take place at the first convenient opportunity.<snip>

There was clearly time to replay the two boards, as the error was in stanza 2, discovered at the end of stanza 2, and two boards could have been added to stanza 3 or 4 for the affected teams. A complainant who wishes to remain anonymous states:

"There was an hour break between stanza 4 and the start of Round 3, I was told by a director that there was not time to play extra boards, but that seemed wrong."

And what would have happened if, at the end of the triangle, the scores would have been A +3 v B, A -2 v C, B 0 v C? Now after adding the 6 IMPs to A and B we have A +9 v B, B +3 v A, A -2 v C, B 0 v C. Originally team C goes through as they have a win and a draw, but now team B goes through as they have a "win", although I think that +3 is not a win if the opponents have +9, and a draw, C has a win and a draw, and A has a win and a loss, but team B has more net IMPs than C even though they did not win either match at the table! And if all three matches were drawn, there would have to be extra boards anyway to split the tie between A and B with C being eliminated. Essentially, the +6 IMPs for two of the three teams is an unacceptable way of handling the situation in a triangle.

The event was very well organised, and the hotel was good, but it does appear that the EBU has some major issue in far too many events. Recently there has been the dispute over the Women's Trials, the Gold Cup semi-final with two teams sitting in the same direction despite a TD present throughout and the Ranked Masters Pairs where the boards were played AFTER they had been inadvertently sent out to at least some competitors by email. Perhaps they are spending their time deciding how to regulate a Two Club opener ...

[Tramticket]

This feels wrong.

Take an analogous example: say a pair is forced to withdraw from a pairs event through illness you would award Av+ to the opposing pairs who miss out on playing the withdrawn pair. But if they withdraw at an early stage with more than half of the boards still to play you would not award Av+ to over half of the field, you cancel the board. It is considered that once you reach this 50% threshold, you are disadvantaging the pairs who do not receive Av+.

I would suggest that awarding Av+ to two thirds of the triangle also passes the 50% threshold and if this ruling is in accordance with the regulations, there is something wrong with regulations.

[barmar]

Tramticket, on 2018-May-08, 09:06, said:

I would suggest that awarding Av+ to two thirds of the triangle also passes the 50% threshold and if this ruling is in accordance with the regulations, there is something wrong with regulations.

There's only 3 teams in this triangle, but they're presumably not the whole field.

[lamford]

Tramticket, on 2018-May-08, 09:06, said:

I would suggest that awarding Av+ to two thirds of the triangle also passes the 50% threshold and if this ruling is in accordance with the regulations, there is something wrong with regulations.

Perhaps there was something wrong with the application of the regulations, as they do say "In general this means that boards are always replayed in knockout tournaments". However, in the majority of recent cases, the EBU, even if aware of the criticism, has declined to comment in the various forums.

[chrism]

I recall the same issue a few years ago at the Gatlinburg regional tournament. As a result of an erroneous ruling by the director (me, unfortunately), one board in a 3-way match was ruled by the DIC as +3 IMPs to each of the teams involved. The third team, learning of this at the first break, was concerned that their result could be affected even though they were not in any way involved in what happened.

Fortunately in that case the assigned scores ended up having no effect on the outcome of the matches.