[oojah]

You are runing games on BBO and your policy is to give unfinished boards an actual result when at all possible. NS held up the play and the board was unfinished in the time allowed. It was adjusted to 4♠+1 and EW objected, wanting +2 and their rationale;
‘ I just think the non offenders deserve benefit of doubt on something like that; it was irrational when he didn’t play King earlier and I always give the benefit of the tricks to the team that was fouled...which is what ACBL suggests is fair.”

Do you adjust +1, +2 or award an artificial adjusted score A+ for no’s, is there any doubt?

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

- - - Pass
1♠ Pass 3NT Pass
4♠ Pass Pass Pass


CQ C8 C6 CK
SK S4 S9 S5
SA S6 SJ SQ
ST S7 H8 D9
C2 C3 CT H4
D5 DQ D4 C5
D3 D2 C7 D6
DK

[david_c]

What, E/W are saying South might duck the ♦K? Yeah right.

+1 is obvious IMO.

[inquiry]

Clearly plus one... there is no question.

BTW, how do you, the director, know it was NS that held up play. Did they agree they did? One was disconnected for a while? Anyway, +1 is extremely clear.

[blackshoe]

When you've decided to award an assigned adjusted score, you use

Law 12C2 said:

When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a result actually obtained after an irregularity, the score is, for a non-offending side, the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred or, for an offending side, the most unfavorable result that was at all probable. The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance and may be assigned either in matchpoints or by altering the total-point score prior to matchpointing.

So the question is "which side, if any, is the offending side?" If neither side committed an irregularity, which is certainly possible here, then both sides get "the most favorable result that was likely" for their side. That might be 4♠+2 for EW and 4♠+1 for NS. I don't know about the BBO software, though. Does it allow a split score? If not, then IMO the software is flawed. But there's another problem here: no result was actually obtained, because the play was never finished. So it's not appropriate to use this law. Instead, you should use

Law 12C1 said:

When, owing to an irregularity, no result can be obtained, 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 partially at fault; average plus (at least 60% in pairs) to a contestant in no way at fault (see Law 86 for team play or Law 88 for pairs play). The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance.

Here we need to know who, if anyone, was at fault and to what degree. If neither side was at fault, both get Average plus. If both sides were partly at fault, both get average. If it was all NS's fault, then NS get Average minus, and EW get Average plus. But you need to decide fault on the basis of evidence, not assumption.

NB: 12C1 is overused by directors who either don't understand the laws or are too lazy to figure out what might have happened. So in cases where 12C2 is the correct law, I advise against using 12C1. In this case, however, it's clear that 12C1 is the right law.

[helene_t]

I do not agree with the statement that no result could be obtained. The contract was 4♠ and if it's possible to decide on a realistic outcome of that contract, then that score should be assigned. Law 12C1 is intended for situations in which the board becomes completely messed up.

As I understand it, North American directors almost always make either-or decisions, while European directors sometimes assign scores corresponding to one-and-a-half overtrick or some such in borderline cases.

[blackshoe]

"A result could (in theory) be obtained" is not the same thing as "no result can be obtained". The board was not finished; it will be never be finished. You can predict, perhaps with some expectation of accuracy, what the result might have been, but that's not, as I read it, what the law requires.

Look at 12C2. It says "in place of a result actually obtained". No result was actually obtained. Law 12C2 cannot apply.

European directors have Law 12C3 available. North American directors do not.

[inquiry]

blackshoe, you are being too pedantic in applying bridge laws from the real world to the world of online bridge....

Let me give just a few examples. The laws say that the auction may be reviewed by anyone when it is their first time to play. Yet online, the auction is always displayed for everyone to review at anytime.

Another one is about inspecting the last trick... which says something along the lines, until you turn your card over and before the next trick is lead too, you can ask to inspect the last trick. Online the trick is turned for you, and all players can point to the last trick to see what card was played.

How to handle unfinished boards, is another area where where the rules of F2F don;t match up with online bridge. Imagine this ending with hearts trumps...

Contract 7♥, 12 tricks in, lead in north... the club ace is lead and time runs out before east plays the club two....

---

.. Under your rule, NS would get, at most AVERAGE PLUS, and EW would get at worse AVERAGE minus. I think we can all see how unfair that would be, assuming few if anyone else bid the grand slam. In the real world, of course, time is more flexible than online. People continue to play well after the round is called, that DOES NOT HAPPEN online.

If you want to have a "law" that would allow the sponsoring orginazation to make such adjustments, you might use the change the WBF made in its online rules for bridge made to handle this situation, if you assume that one security issue would be to prevent people from playing slow to "run out the clock". The modification in 2001 was:

Quote

H. Security
To establish appropriate security procedures, which may include direct
supervision of play, establishment of a means to record play and communication,
and other measures as may be deemed necessary by the sponsoring
organisation. The sponsoring organisation shall establish a means for recording
and investigating allegations of potential impropriety.

The phrase "and other measures as may be deemed necessary by the sponsoring
organisation." could be interpreted by those needing justification for correcting the scores to mean, that for security against possible cheating via intentional slow play would allow "adjusting the score" for uncompleted hands to the most likely result.

[oojah]

I know NS held up the play because I was at the table.

In cases where I have no information other than one players word against another’s I will first see if an outcome is obvious, usually <3-4 tricks remaining otherwise I will make the adjustment using an artificial adjusted score.

I agree the bridge laws do not fit ideally to the online world but nor do they to live play. This is where a TDs knowledge, judgement and common sense must be applied. The problem is not restricted to online play. In real life, some TD’s do make actual score adjustments to unfinished boards where the result is obvious.

[blackshoe]

inquiry, on Dec 23 2007, 11:39 AM, said:

blackshoe, you are being too pedantic in applying bridge laws from the real world to the world of online bridge....

Am I now? So be it.

Where I use "you" in the following, I'm not singling out any particular individual - rather the body of players and administrators of online bridge.

Oojah asked what his readers would do in a particular situation. I told him what I would do, and I told him why. I have been told repeatedly in these forums that "the f2f laws don't apply to online bridge" and "nobody cares what the rules are" and other such manure. Fine. But if a question like "what are the rules" comes up, I'm gonna answer it. Correctly, to the best of my ability. If you all want to do something not within the rules, go right ahead. You can use whatever specious excuse you like, too. That doesn't change the fact that Law 12 in the online version of the laws published by the WBF is identical to Law 12 in the f2f lawbook.

The preface to the online laws contains this:

Quote

Game Providers will note the powers given to them to regulate temporary changes of the provisions where these are necessitated by the limitations of the software. The WBF anticipates that developments in software configuration will eliminate any such requirement in due course.

IMO, that doesn't justify awarding an assigned adjusted score when the laws call for an artificial one, or at least not after there's been time to correct the software, if that's a problem, but again, do what you damn well please - you will anyway.

There's also the introduction to the online laws, in which the WBF points out that "The primary objective of the WBFLC in considering laws for online bridge is and must be the protection of the integrity and unity of the game." I don't think letting directors (or players) do whatever they damn well please is compatible with that goal, but I also recognize that I can't stop them. But that doesn't mean I have to like it.

I'm not sure whether "all players can point to the last trick to see what card was played" refers to the card they played, or the whole trick. Doesn't matter. The online laws say

Law 66A said:

Until the completion of a trick, declarer or either defender may, if permitted by the sponsoring organisation, inspect the previous trick.

This is different to the f2f laws, and I don't have a problem with that.

What's "fair" is what the rules of the game say is fair, not what somebody thinks ought to be considered fair. If you think an assigned adjusted score is appropriate for certain situations because the software won't allow you to comply with Law 8B (again, identical in both versions of the laws) then you either lobby the software provider to change the software, or you lobby the WBF to change the law. That's what's fair.

[blackshoe]

oojah, on Dec 23 2007, 02:24 PM, said:

I know NS held up the play because I was at the table.

In cases where I have no information other than one players word against another’s I will first see if an outcome is obvious, usually <3-4 tricks remaining otherwise I will make the adjustment using an artificial adjusted score.

I agree the bridge laws do not fit ideally to the online world but nor do they to live play. This is where a TDs knowledge, judgement and common sense must be applied. The problem is not restricted to online play. In real life, some TD’s do make actual score adjustments to unfinished boards where the result is obvious.

If NS held up the play, they were at fault. If they did it deliberately, they should receive a nice juicy procedural penalty, as an incentive not to do it again.

That some TDs "in real life" (what is so "unreal" about online bridge?) violate the rules, whether through ignorance or just because they feel like it, does not make their rulings right. Judgement and common sense, surely, but equally surely, use of those does not extend to violating the laws. I want to trust, when I play bridge, that the laws will be upheld to the best of the TDs ability. If he's gonna make it up as he goes along, I'll choose a different game.

[dburn]

blackshoe, on Dec 23 2007, 09:45 AM, said:

When you've decided to award an assigned adjusted score, you use

Law 12C2 said:

When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a result actually obtained after an irregularity, the score is, for a non-offending side, the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred or, for an offending side, the most unfavorable result that was at all probable. The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance and may be assigned either in matchpoints or by altering the total-point score prior to matchpointing.

So the question is "which side, if any, is the offending side?" If neither side committed an irregularity, which is certainly possible here, then both sides get "the most favorable result that was likely" for their side. That might be 4♠+2 for EW and 4♠+1 for NS. I don't know about the BBO software, though. Does it allow a split score? If not, then IMO the software is flawed. But there's another problem here: no result was actually obtained, because the play was never finished. So it's not appropriate to use this law. Instead, you should use

Law 12C1 said:

When, owing to an irregularity, no result can be obtained, 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 partially at fault; average plus (at least 60% in pairs) to a contestant in no way at fault (see Law 86 for team play or Law 88 for pairs play). The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance.

Here we need to know who, if anyone, was at fault and to what degree. If neither side was at fault, both get Average plus. If both sides were partly at fault, both get average. If it was all NS's fault, then NS get Average minus, and EW get Average plus. But you need to decide fault on the basis of evidence, not assumption.

NB: 12C1 is overused by directors who either don't understand the laws or are too lazy to figure out what might have happened. So in cases where 12C2 is the correct law, I advise against using 12C1. In this case, however, it's clear that 12C1 is the right law.

There is no requirement in law for an assigned adjusted score only to be awarded in place of a result that has been obtained. Law 12A1 (1997 Laws) says:

The Director may award an assigned adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to the non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation of law committed by an opponent.

In online bridge, failure to complete play of a board at all is something against which the non-offenders are not indemnified by any of the existing Laws. The assigned adjusted score should clearly be EW + 650 for four spades making five.

[blackshoe]

dburn, on Dec 24 2007, 04:31 PM, said:

There is no requirement in law for an assigned adjusted score only to be awarded in place of a result that has been obtained.

I didn't say there was. I said there's a requirement to award an assigned adjusted score when a result has been obtained. Or, a requirement not to award an artificial adjusted score in such cases.

Quote

Law 12A1 (1997 Laws) says:

The Director may award an assigned adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to the non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation of law committed by an opponent.

In online bridge, failure to complete play of a board at all is something against which the non-offenders are not indemnified by any of the existing Laws. The assigned adjusted score should clearly be EW + 650 for four spades making five.

Okay, fair enough.