[olegru]

I am scoring the result of small tournaments and found protocol with the following unbelievable results:
Board 19
Table 1: 3NT from North, 12 tricks, 490 for NS
Table 2: 3NT from West, 8 tricks, 100 for NS
Table 3: 3NT from South, 8 tricks, 50 for EW
Table 4: 3NT from West, 9 tricks, 600 for EW

Looks like cards changed directions after been played on 2 tables but it was not noticed during the game.

What is the correct way to score the board?

I guess answer for this question should be right from the book but I am not the regular TD.

[gordontd]

olegru, on 2014-May-23, 08:57, said:

I am scoring the result of small tournaments and found protocol with the following unbelievable results:
Board 19
Table 1: 3NT from North, 12 tricks, 490 for NS
Table 2: 3NT from West, 8 tricks, 100 for NS
Table 3: 3NT from South, 8 tricks, 50 for EW
Table 4: 3NT from West, 9 tricks, 600 for EW

Looks like cards changed directions after been played on 2 tables but it was not noticed during the game.

What is the correct way to score the board?

I guess answer for this question should be right from the book but I am not the regular TD.

Hi Oleg

I think you need to try to get hold of the players and see if they can remember what form they were played in, but what looks surprising is that they seem to have changed and then changed back again. Were they perhaps played in some other order than table order, maybe in a Howell?

[olegru]

Hi Gordon,
It was Howell. I believe it was played in following order: table 1, table 3, table 2, table 4.
Couple of players at table 1 and table 3 remember what they played and their stories are the same.
I did not bother to ask players at tables 2 and 4, I am almost sure they will not be able to recall the board. I also almost positive that mistake was made on the table 2 - NS players took EW cards and after game put then to NS, but there are no prove of it. Unfortunately board was shuffled after the game and I am unable to check how it was played by 2 latest tables.
Question is - do I have rights as a director to score the board differently from what was written in traveler or I should score as it is in traveler? Do I have right to discount the board as fouled?

[barmar]

While really strange results happen occasionally, if it's practically impossible for both sides to bid to 3NT and also make or come close to making with these particular hands, I think you can use this as evidence that the board was fouled. Especially since the direction change in the results is consistent with the order the boards were played -- one outlandish result is a glitch or fix, but two is a pattern. You don't need absolute proof, just preponderance of evidence.

[pran]

olegru, on 2014-May-23, 10:41, said:

Hi Gordon,
It was Howell. I believe it was played in following order: table 1, table 3, table 2, table 4.
Couple of players at table 1 and table 3 remember what they played and their stories are the same.
I did not bother to ask players at tables 2 and 4, I am almost sure they will not be able to recall the board. I also almost positive that mistake was made on the table 2 - NS players took EW cards and after game put then to NS, but there are no prove of it. Unfortunately board was shuffled after the game and I am unable to check how it was played by 2 latest tables.
Question is - do I have rights as a director to score the board differently from what was written in traveler or I should score as it is in traveler? Do I have right to discount the board as fouled?

Board 19 is so high a number that it seems quite unusual to have it start at table 1 (where boards are usually played in numeric sequence). On the contrary I would expect it to having ended its "tour" at table 1.

From the results I would guess that the second last table to play the board was table 3 and that the error has occurred after the board was played the second time (at either table 2 or table 4) but before it was played at table 3.

Which would make it reasonable to score fouled board with the results at tables 1 and 3 in one group and tables 2 and 4 in the other.

[blackshoe]

You should probably also shoot NS at table 2.

[axman]

pran, on 2014-May-23, 11:25, said:

Board 19 is so high a number that it seems quite unusual to have it start at table 1 (where boards are usually played in numeric sequence). On the contrary I would expect it to having ended its "tour" at table 1.

From the results I would guess that the second last table to play the board was table 3 and that the error has occurred after the board was played the second time (at either table 2 or table 4) but before it was played at table 3.

Which would make it reasonable to score fouled board with the results at tables 1 and 3 in one group and tables 2 and 4 in the other.

[a] the most likely order will be on the guide card.

[b] many howells are set up with board progression down- this suggests that [given the contracts] the boards started at 3 and was fouled [suspected] after 2 when the cards were returned, and played in fouled form at 1 and then 4; or, complementary- started at 1?? and were fouled prior to playing at 3.

[inquiry]

I almost lost a first place club championship in Austin Texas due to one of these "obviously" the hand were scored wrong.

I will try to look the hand up (notebooks, not in excel, sadly)... The bidding went something like this...

RHO me LHO CRO
1NT --- DBL -- Pass -- 2NT
Dbl --- 3NT --- DBL -- Pass
Pass --- Pass

Every table but ours made 3NT their way. I had a weak minor two suiter (6-5 or similar) and meant 2NT for partner to pick a suit. I naturally assumed his 3NT was for me to pick a suit, I passed the decision back to him and he turned out to be clueless and he passed.

The defense, cashed their top winners in the minors off the top setting my suits up, and I made 9 tricks. When they scored it up, they assumed it was 3NT doubled the other way and erased the great score for us (undeserved perhaps) and gave it to our opponents changing 100% for us to 0% for us. Luckily I had stayed around to see how we did, and after dragging out the board and showing how it made, and chasing down one our opponents who score card agreed with mine, they reluctantly changed it back to 3NTx making my way.

[RMB1]

olegru, on 2014-May-23, 10:41, said:

Question is - do I have rights as a director to score the board differently from what was written in traveler or I should score as it is in traveler? Do I have right to discount the board as fouled?

You have the right to make a ruling (or finding of fact) based on evidence. I think the standard of proof required here is just balance of probabilities: is it more likely than not that the board was fouled? I think you have decided it was.

The next question is how to score it. This may be subject to regulation. You have two sub-fields each with two results. (I believe the ACBL have regulations for scoring small sub-fields.) In the absence of regulation, you should Neuberg each sub-field. A top is 6 (4 results), so in each sub-field the top result scores 5 matchpoints and the bottom result scores 1 matchpoint. But I guess your scoring program may do this for you - and implement local regulations for fouled boards.

[blackshoe]

I think Robin is using "European" matchpoints, which are twice the size of the ones we use in the ACBL.

I'm pretty sure ACBLScore will work it out properly, once you tell it the sub-fields, but it's been a while since I looked at it, so maybe I'm wrong... again.

[Vampyr]

Could the board have been played arrow-switched instead of having been fouled?

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2014-May-23, 21:30, said:

Could the board have been played arrow-switched instead of having been fouled?

Independently at two different tables?
Possibly, but unlikely.

[axman]

axman, on 2014-May-23, 12:43, said:

[a] the most likely order will be on the guide card.

[b] many howells are set up with board progression down- this suggests that [given the contracts] the boards started at 3 and was fouled [suspected] after 2 when the cards were returned, and played in fouled form at 1 and then 4; or, complementary- started at 1?? and were fouled prior to playing at 3.

correction: delete [b] as it does not satisfy the data. Further, there is insufficient data to treat this as a puzzle. Besides talking to the players, I suggest that it is possible that the board was not fouled [but perhaps the record keeping was].

[chrism]

If the cards were put back in the wrong slots, then the board is fouled and you will need to apply the standard fouled-board procedure (presumably ACBL from the NY, NY by-line). Within each group of 2 results, the ACBL regulation is that the better score receives 65%, the worse 55%.
If the board was just played rotated, which could happen in a movement where a stationary pair changes between N/S and E/W in different rounds, for example, it is easy to edit the movement to swap the N/S and E/W pairs for two rounds. Since this could be the problem, you should also look at the results for the other boards in the same round to see if the scores look odd.

[pran]

chrism, on 2014-May-24, 12:25, said:

[...]
If the board was just played rotated, which could happen in a movement where a stationary pair changes between N/S and E/W in different rounds, for example, it is easy to edit the movement to swap the N/S and E/W pairs for two rounds. Since this could be the problem, you should also look at the results for the other boards in the same round to see if the scores look odd.

We have been told that it was a Howell movement and then there is only one stationary pair. This pair sits in the same direction during the entire event.

The registered scores indicate that if the board was simply swapped during two rounds then it was played with swapped dealer in those two rounds. When this is the case the board is "fouled" as defined in Law 87A. You cannot just "swap" it back.

[Vampyr]

For the E/W and N/S hands were switched, than all four hands must have been removed from the board after the play of the hand. I cannot imagine this happening.

What could have happened is that the players at one table took their hands out of the board and then removed the board from the table(this may sound implausible, but I have seen it happen!).

So, when they took the hands out the board was arrow-switched, but nobody remembered that, and the board was placed back on the table correctly, with all the hands going back into the wrong slots.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2014-May-24, 15:22, said:

For the E/W and N/S hands were switched, than all four hands must have been removed from the board after the play of the hand. I cannot imagine this happening.

What could have happened is that the players at one table took their hands out of the board and then removed the board from the table(this may sound implausible, but I have seen it happen!).

So, when they took the hands out the board was arrow-switched, but nobody remembered that, and the board was placed back on the table correctly, with all the hands going back into the wrong slots.

Yes, that is what probably happened; with the result that they have two score groups with two results in each.

[barmar]

pran, on 2014-May-23, 11:25, said:

Board 19 is so high a number that it seems quite unusual to have it start at table 1 (where boards are usually played in numeric sequence). On the contrary I would expect it to having ended its "tour" at table 1.

He said table numbers, but from his later description of the progression of play, I suspect what he meant was pair number. In a Howell, the boards move down sequentially through the tables, but the pairs play them in a jumbled up order. And if they use travelers, they're usually scored by NS pair number, not table number.

[pran]

barmar, on 2014-May-24, 21:08, said:

He said table numbers, but from his later description of the progression of play, I suspect what he meant was pair number. In a Howell, the boards move down sequentially through the tables, but the pairs play them in a jumbled up order. And if they use travelers, they're usually scored by NS pair number, not table number.

Precisely
So at each table the boards are played in ascending sequence. I have never seen a Howell schedule where table 1 does not begin with board 1 and also has the stationary pair which usually has the highest pair number.

[jnichols]

pran, on 2014-May-24, 23:00, said:

Precisely
So at each table the boards are played in ascending sequence. I have never seen a Howell schedule where table 1 does not begin with board 1 and also has the stationary pair which usually has the highest pair number.

The Howell schedules used in the ACBL (published by the ACBL and Baron Barclay) for 5 tables have the stationary pair (highest number) at table 3. Board 1 starts at table 1.

For 7 tables the stationary pair (highest number) is at table 4 and again board 1 is at table 1.