[Cyberyeti]

Just checking how this should be handled:

Teams of 8, add all 4 scores then IMP(->VPs).

A board is placed on the table the third or fourth time it's played out of 6.

The board is rotated 180' and the cards put back in one section. The change of dealer radically changes the nature of the board so the results can't stand.

So we have one set of tables where NS/EW from each team have played the board in its original form, and one set of tables where it's been played correctly once and incorrectly once.

How do you sort out the scoring for the affected teams, and how much of a penalty would you normally give at the table the switch occurred ?

[ArtK78]

Does it really matter that the board is rotated 180 degrees? So South is now North and East is now West, but EW are still EW and NS are still NS.

I can see that the actions taken on the same cards might be different, but the differences are essentially random. The comparisons are still valid.

I would let the scores stand as played and not assess a penalty.

And what is the reference to a change of dealer? The same compass direction should be dealer in all cases. Or are you saying that the hands have been reversed so that the North hand is now in the South and the South hand is now in the North, etc. Now there is a different dealer on each board. THAT makes a difference.

If, in fact, you are saying that one table played the boards with a different dealer than the rest of the tables, the comparisons are inherently flawed and no result is possible. Normally, in this situation, both teams get a zero result. But that doesn't seem right, as you did get valid results from 3 of the 4 tables. I don't know if this is an acceptable procedure or not, but I would average the total points results at the two tables where Team A sat NS and IMP that average score against the result obtained at the table where Team A sat EW, dropping the result of the fouled table.

As for assessing penalties, why bother? Hopefully the embarrasment is penalty enough.

[Cyberyeti]

ArtK78, on 2012-February-17, 17:21, said:

Does it really matter that the board is rotated 180 degrees? So South is now North and East is now West, but EW are still EW and NS are still NS.

I can see that the actions taken on the same cards might be different, but the differences are essentially random. The comparisons are still valid.

I would let the scores stand as played and not assess a penalty.

And what is the reference to a change of dealer? The same compass direction should be dealer in all cases. Or are you saying that the hands have been reversed so that the North hand is now in the South and the South hand is now in the North, etc. Now there is a different dealer on each board. THAT makes a difference.

If, in fact, you are saying that one table played the boards with a different dealer than the rest of the tables, the comparisons are inherently flawed and no result is possible. Normally, in this situation, both teams get a zero result. But that doesn't seem right, as you did get valid results from 3 of the 4 tables. I don't know if this is an acceptable procedure or not, but I would average the total points results at the two tables where Team A sat NS and IMP that average score against the result obtained at the table where Team A sat EW, dropping the result of the fouled table.

As for assessing penalties, why bother? Hopefully the embarrasment is penalty enough.

The cards are taken out of the board, the board is rotated 180' and the cards put back in.

The N cards are put back in the S hole etc.

In the board's original form, W was dealer with a 2♣ opener.

In the rotated version, the original E hand was in W's slot as dealer and opened 3♠ making finding 6♥ a lot more difficult. Hence the board is fouled.

[ArtK78]

OK. I thought that was what you were getting at.

As I said, normally, when one cannot get a valid result of a team match due to some irregularity caused by the teams involved, both teams get a zero result. But that doesn't seem right, as you did get valid results from 3 of the 4 tables. So, again, while I don't know if this is an acceptable procedure or not, I would average the total points results at the two tables where Team A sat NS and IMP that average score against the result obtained at the table where Team A sat EW, dropping the result of the fouled table.

At least you get a result this way.

[Trinidad]

ArtK78, on 2012-February-17, 18:56, said:

OK. I thought that was what you were getting at.

As I said, normally, when one cannot get a valid result of a team match due to some irregularity caused by the teams involved, both teams get a zero result. But that doesn't seem right, as you did get valid results from 3 of the 4 tables. So, again, while I don't know if this is an acceptable procedure or not, I would average the total points results at the two tables where Team A sat NS and IMP that average score against the result obtained at the table where Team A sat EW, dropping the result of the fouled table.

At least you get a result this way.

If I understand you correctly, that is effectively the same as assigning an AS at the fouled table equal to the result of the other table where the teams were sitting in the same direction. (And then divide by two.)

Rik

[RMB1]

I was consulted when this came up recently. The only real answer is "there should be regulations" in the conditions of contest for the competition.

If there are three comparable results and one other we should discard the fourth result (but you might have to apply Law 86D). It has previously been recommended to discard the other result from the same sub-section (this is in the regulation in one team of eight league I used to play in).

Alternatively you should estimate the fourth result from the other 3 and then add and IMP. If the scores are A, B in one direction and C in the other, then this amounts to IMP((A+B-2C)/d) -- for some "pre-determined" value of d.

d=1 corresponds to replacing the missing score by C, the other score in the same direction
d=2 corresponds to replacing the missing score by (A+B)/2, the average of the scores in the other direction
d=1.5 corresponds to replacing the missing score by (A+B+C)/3, the average of all the scores.

What was done in OP was d=2.

Having written this, d=1.5 appears to be the "right" solution: IMP( (2/3)A + (2/3)B - (4/3)C )

[Cyberyeti]

RMB1, on 2012-February-18, 11:05, said:

I was consulted when this came up recently. The only real answer is "there should be regulations" in the conditions of contest for the competition.

If there are three comparable results and one other we should discard the fourth result (but you might have to apply Law 86D). It has previously been recommended to discard the other result from the same sub-section (this is in the regulation in one team of eight league I used to play in).

My purpose in posting was partly because I felt there should be something set out in the regulations for this as it's not an uncommon form of scoring in the UK.

Certainly in the ECL (the county league I play in, although not the competition this hand came from), there is no designation of sub-sections, although it would be easy enough to do so.

Any thoughts on PP or not at the table it happened ?

[ArtK78]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-February-18, 11:46, said:

My purpose in posting was partly because I felt there should be something set out in the regulations for this as it's not an uncommon form of scoring in the UK.

Certainly in the ECL (the county league I play in, although not the competition this hand came from), there is no designation of sub-sections, although it would be easy enough to do so.

Any thoughts on PP or not at the table it happened ?

Why bother?

[gordontd]

ArtK78, on 2012-February-19, 07:37, said:

Why bother?

To discourage them from doing it again.

Ten days ago I was called to a table to deal with a board that seemed to have been fouled. I corrected it, cancelled the score, and fined the previous table, asking them if they had taken the board off the table or anything else that could explain it. They said no, but looked a little shifty.

Then I was called back to the first table again for the same problem on the next board. I checked it and the other two boards in the set and found that they were all fouled, so I was able to correct two of them before they were played. When I went back to the other table again, they confessed that North (a visitor) had each time rotated the board at the end of the auction. I guess we were unlucky that NS had been declarers four times in a row!

[WellSpyder]

Just in case it is useful in considering what regulations you might want in future, here is what the regulations say for the Wessex League - an inter-club teams of 8 competition organised by Oxfordshire that uses the approach of adding all 4 scores and then converting to imps using the ordinary (teams of 4) imp scale:

Quote

(xiv) If, whilst scoring, it is discovered that a board was fouled, then the following rules apply:

(a) If the board was fouled as it was played on the fourth time (e.g. arrow-switched), there will be, say, two NS scores for one team and only one EW score. The arrow-switched score is not to count. The two NS scores are averaged and then added to the EW scores and IMPed. If this results in a score that lies between two IMP ranges, the lower value is taken, e.g.

+430 and +120 for the NS pairs
averaged (430+120)/2
=275

-400 for the EW pair
add on to the averaged score
- 400

Results in a score of
- 125

This lies between 3 and 4 IMPs, to be scored as -3 IMPs.
(b) If the board is fouled after being played twice e.g. two hands being transposed, then you have two pairs of comparable scores. All four scores are still added up and IMPed as usual (not as two teams of four).
(c ) In all other situations the principles described above can be applied.

(xv) If, during the play, it is discovered that a board has been fouled, then the following rules apply:

(a) If a board is arrow-switched on the second or third time it is played and noticed, then the fourth table (or third as appropriate) should switch it as well to correct this error. It does not matter that different pairs are now NS than on other boards in the stanza.
(b) In all other situations the principles described in (xiv) can be applied

[Vampyr]

gordontd, on 2012-February-19, 07:53, said:

When I went back to the other table again, they confessed that North (a visitor) had each time rotated the board at the end of the auction. I guess we were unlucky that NS had been declarers four times in a row!

How bizarre! Did North give a clue as to why he had done this?

[gordontd]

Vampyr, on 2012-February-20, 06:29, said:

How bizarre! Did North give a clue as to why he had done this?

To give more space for the dummy. I've often seen inexperienced players do this, but they get out of it once it's been explained to them why it's a bad idea. In this case North is not inexperienced, but he usually plays in a fairly weak club, so I expect they mis-board quite often but it doesn't get noticed.

[bluejak]

Each year I run the President's Cup, inter-County team-of-eight [scored as to8] for Northern Counties [like Herefordshire ]. For many many years I have had a very simple rule: if a board is fouled/destroyed or anything in section A, the other score from section A is cancelled, and section B scores are imped.

You must issue a PP to both sides at the table that fouled it because they removed the board from the table, or allowed it to be removed. They will do it again if not penalised. 0.5 VP is the standard PP.

[Zelandakh]

bluejak, on 2012-February-21, 09:55, said:

Each year I run the President's Cup, inter-County team-of-eight [scored as to8] for Northern Counties [like Herefordshire ]. For many many years I have had a very simple rule: if a board is fouled/destroyed or anything in section A, the other score from section A is cancelled, and section B scores are imped.

I would be extremely displeased if you cancelled our super board (an impossible grand slam making or taking the opps for a telephone number, or whatever) just because the opponents fouled the board on the other table in our section. This sounds like an excellent way of penalising the NOS on occasion.

[WellSpyder]

bluejak, on 2012-February-21, 09:55, said:

For many many years I have had a very simple rule: if a board is fouled/destroyed or anything in section A, the other score from section A is cancelled, and section B scores are imped.

No such thing as a section A and a section B for most, I suspect, when playing teams of 8 (unless they are scored up as 2 teams of 4, of course )

[bluejak]

Zelandakh, on 2012-February-21, 10:01, said:

I would be extremely displeased if you cancelled our super board (an impossible grand slam making or taking the opps for a telephone number, or whatever) just because the opponents fouled the board on the other table in our section. This sounds like an excellent way of penalising the NOS on occasion.

Would you not be just as displeased when it happens at a team of four?

Anyway, it is time you read Law 86D.

Furthermore, you might also consider Law 12B2 if Law 86D does not apply. Sh*t happens. I got a very good board in the Mid Wales Congress and was displeased when the board was fouled by the organisers! The DIC declined to apply Law 86D because of advice [since changed]. That's life.

[Zelandakh]

bluejak, on 2012-February-21, 10:19, said:

Would you not be just as displeased when it happens at a team of four?

It is worse at team of 8 because, as WellSpyder also points out, there is no reason to tie any particular 2 boards together so it is completely artificial which of the 3 valid scores gets thrown out.

bluejak, on 2012-February-21, 10:19, said:

Anyway, it is time you read Law 86D.

Furthermore, you might also consider Law 12B2 if Law 86D does not apply.

There was no mention in your previous post about considering an adjusted score based on the cancelled board. If you say you are cancelling the score from a board I think it is reasonable to assume you mean that it is void and not considered further. If you have a way to include the score from the third board in an adjusted score then I would tend to ask why you do not use it all of the time rather than only on a cancelled score with an exceptional result.

bluejak, on 2012-February-21, 10:19, said:

Sh*t happens. I got a very good board in the Mid Wales Congress and was displeased when the board was fouled by the organisers! The DIC declined to apply Law 86D because of advice [since changed]. That's life.

Rather than just accepting "That's life" I would prefer to see if there is a better way to handle the situation that represents fairness to both sides. This is similar to the Cross-IMPs versus Butler thread in some ways. You have taken the line in both that this is the way things are done so why consider a change rather than thinking what is the best and fairest method. I think using the latter criteria is the better choice and advancing bridge in that direction where things are currently done in a sub-optimal manner.

[VixTD]

Zelandakh, on 2012-February-22, 03:04, said:

It is worse at team of 8 because, as WellSpyder also points out, there is no reason to tie any particular 2 boards together so it is completely artificial which of the 3 valid scores gets thrown out.

That is why the EBU includes the following guidance to cope with the eventuality of a fouled board, even when scoring by total points -> IMPs or cross-IMPs:

Quote

[WB147.3]Tournament organisers which conduct Teams-of-eight (or more) competitions in some form other than the above (eg aggregating together all scores) are encouraged to devise their own regulations in this regard. One possibility is to define pairs of tables as linked and treated as two Teams-of-four for the purposes of this regulation. In the absence of any such regulation, a fouled board or similar shall be cancelled and the regulations outlined below shall apply.
Example For the purposes of a fouled board, Red tables are one team of four, Blue tables the other (or Upstairs and Downstairs tables).
Distinction is made between games where the teams share the same set of boards
(see #147.4) and other teams games (see #147.5).

If I'm playing in a private match between two teams-of-eight with no independent director, I try to persuade the captains to agree to an arbitrary pairing of tables. I then have to spend some time explaining to them that I haven't misunderstood the method of scoring and that it will only apply if a board is fouled. I don't always succeed.

[bluejak]

Zelandakh, on 2012-February-22, 03:04, said:

It is worse at team of 8 because, as WellSpyder also points out, there is no reason to tie any particular 2 boards together so it is completely artificial which of the 3 valid scores gets thrown out.

Why on earth is that worse? I am quite sure that if you lose a lucky 13 imps at teams of four you do not say to your team-mates: "Cheer up mates, it could have been worse: it could have been teams of eight." And when they say "Why?" in a puzzled fashion what do you answer?

Zelandakh, on 2012-February-22, 03:04, said:

There was no mention in your previous post about considering an adjusted score based on the cancelled board. If you say you are cancelling the score from a board I think it is reasonable to assume you mean that it is void and not considered further. If you have a way to include the score from the third board in an adjusted score then I would tend to ask why you do not use it all of the time rather than only on a cancelled score with an exceptional result.

Because I follow the Laws of bridge? That is my answer, and why I did not realise I needed to say I followed the laws.

Zelandakh, on 2012-February-22, 03:04, said:

Rather than just accepting "That's life" I would prefer to see if there is a better way to handle the situation that represents fairness to both sides. This is similar to the Cross-IMPs versus Butler thread in some ways. You have taken the line in both that this is the way things are done so why consider a change rather than thinking what is the best and fairest method. I think using the latter criteria is the better choice and advancing bridge in that direction where things are currently done in a sub-optimal manner.

I do not like your suggestions which seem unfair and illegal. It is not an advance to ignore Laws which you do not like.