[swag]

BBO always assigns a score of 50% when a board is not played. ACBL rules dictate that average should be assigned as equal to the average of each pair's other boards. My partner and I recently had a game with a 66% average and the assignment of a 50% board lowered our score enough to cost us an overall position. I believe the online scoring programs at the ACBL site and bridge mate software gets it right.

[Gerardo]

swag, on 2020-December-04, 09:29, said:

BBO always assigns a score of 50% when a board is not played. ACBL rules dictate that average should be assigned as equal to the average of each pair's other boards. My partner and I recently had a game with a 66% average and the assignment of a 50% board lowered our score enough to cost us an overall position. I believe the online scoring programs at the ACBL site and bridge mate software gets it right.

Please quote said ACBL rules.

That would be equivalent to a No Play, which is NOT a legal result.

[Gerardo]

Excerpt of Law 12:

2.(a) When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained [see also C1(d)], the Director awards an artificial adjusted score according to responsibility for the irregularity: average minus (at most 40% of the available matchpoints in pairs) to a contestant directly at fault, average (50% in pairs) to a contestant only partly at fault, and average plus (at least 60% in pairs) to a contestant in no way at fault.

[gordontd]

I wish I were able to "like" Gerardo's posts, but instead I'll have to say "I agree".

The only time the laws mandate that you get your session score for a cancelled board is if you were awarded Av+ and got more than 60% over the session.

[pescetom]

gordontd, on 2020-December-04, 10:21, said:

I wish I were able to "like" Gerardo's posts, but instead I'll have to say "I agree".

The only time the laws mandate that you get your session score for a cancelled board is if you were awarded Av+ and got more than 60% over the session.

I agree with your agree and I like Gerardo's posts, but I don't much like the laws in this respect.
Weighting an artificial adjusted score to average session score seems reasonable to me.

[Vampyr]

pescetom, on 2020-December-05, 15:21, said:

I agree with your agree and I like Gerardo's posts, but I don't much like the laws in this respect.
Assigning your average session score even for single board episodes seems more reasonable to me.

“Average” means you are partially at fault. So if your score is reduced, you did something to deserve it.

[mikestar13]

gordontd, on 2020-December-04, 10:21, said:

...
The only time the laws mandate that you get your session score for a cancelled board is if you were awarded Av+ and got more than 60% over the session.

Also when you get Av- and got less than 40%.

[gordontd]

mikestar13, on 2020-December-06, 07:49, said:

Also when you get Av- and got less than 40%.

That's true - I tend to forget it because it's so unlikely to matter, but I suppose it could in a multi-session event. Until 2007 it was less precisely required and I think was usually ignored for an offending side who got less than 40% on the session.

[mycroft]

In the 2008 Law book, the ACBL decided that A- was lower of 40% or (100%-opponents' score), rather than 40% or your score.

I actually prefer that; I realise there's a "don't give them a better result when they were wrong", but as Gordon says, it seems punitive for the 38%ers. However, for the "booked for 30% against Levin-Weinstein, how can we mitigate?" crowd, who might have had a 55% game against the rest of the field, I see no reason why this incentive should exist.

But I don't see that election in the 2017 Laws.