[malcolmb]

I was caught with scoring the following unplayed boards caused by a pair on a 7 table, hesitation mitchell. The EBU white book looks unneccesarily draconian about how scores should be assigned. I would appreciate other views and guidance.

12 E/W started at table 5, then 6, then 7, playing correctly each time. Next round they are scheduled for phantom/sitout pair, no problem there. Next round they decided to stay at table 7 N/S, wrongly play the boards against the arriving EW. Pair 12 have been playing bridge for 10+ years, they should have realised there is no bridge movement where you move a few rounds, then play 3 sets at the same table in various directions. This is despite not finding the hesitation directions "hidden" under a bidding box.

Now the fun, they move to Table 1 EW (mine as director) and realise after a while that they have played the boards. I tell them to move to Table 2 which will have their correct boards. Unfortunately NS thinking they have a sitout have looked through the boards.

So, I at Table 1 have 3 unplayed boards, through no fault of mine (the previous set, rather than the current set) and and pair 2 also have 3 unplayed boards (it is customary for sitouts to look at unplayed boards at our club).

Giving myself and Pair 2 three lots of AV+ seems far too generous and 6 lots of AV- to pair 12 far too draconian (there may be other views here ).

My feeling is that it would be equitable to give myself and Pair 2 only one set of AV+, give pair 12 either one or 2 boards of AV-. Score the residue AV.

There is a final consequence, Pair 12 continue to Table 4 and find that they have also played the boards there. I cannot see how to recompense NS4 for the unplayed boards as there is no match as such. However, I think this situation is analogous to a pair playing a wrong board or opponents (played score stands, the correct opponents never get to play the board).

[FrancesHinden]

Without answering the question, as TD I think you are partly at fault. If you are playing a hesitation Mitchell with one pair missing, make the missing pair NORTH SOUTH. Then everyone knows that they are sitting out when they get to a particular table.
There's also more people at fault than just those you have mentioned.
On the round where pair 12 should have moved to table 1, but instead stayed a bonus round at table 7, the NS at table 1 clearly did not check they had the right opponents; they should not have been sitting out.

I have to admit I have never seen a movement where a pair move incorrectly and no-one notices until halfway through the move after that.

[blackshoe]

malcolmb, on 2012-May-20, 02:48, said:

I was caught with scoring the following unplayed boards caused by a pair on a 7 table, hesitation mitchell. The EBU white book looks unneccesarily draconian about how scores should be assigned. I would appreciate other views and guidance.

Quote

Law 81B2: The director applies and is bound by these Laws and supplementary regulations announced under authority given in these Laws.

Quote

Law 12C2a: When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained (and see c1(d) above), 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.

It seems to me that anyone who did something wrong in this mess (that would include the pair who thought they had a sit out, so looked at the boards) is at least partly at fault. There may or may not be some pairs in no way at fault, I haven't looked at it that closely. But the bottom line is that you must figure out who fits in which category, and assign ArtASs according to that determination.

Frances has suggested an alternative: rule that the movement as set up was "Director error" and rule under

Quote

Law 82C: if a ruling has been given that the director subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score, treating both sides as non-offending for that purpose.

Unfortunately, this won't work, because the establishment of the movement is not a ruling. However, Frances is right that setting up a bad movement does make the director at least partly at fault for the problem. So I don't think you can give yourself A+ for any of these boards.

[FrancesHinden]

blackshoe, on 2012-May-20, 07:10, said:

Frances has suggested an alternative: rule that the movement as set up was "Director error" and rule under
Unfortunately, this won't work, because the establishment of the movement is not a ruling. However, Frances is right that setting up a bad movement does make the director at least partly at fault for the problem. So I don't think you can give yourself A+ for any of these boards.

I didn't suggest ruling on that basis - I think I was clear I was not trying to answer the question but observing that there were ways to avoid this sort of mess happening again.

[ahydra]

Quote

However, Frances is right that setting up a bad movement does make the director at least partly at fault for the problem. So I don't think you can give yourself A+ for any of these boards.

I disagree: even if you are a playing TD, surely your TD role is separate to your player role? That is to say, the TD (and his partner!) should not have their score affected simply because the TD made a mistake in the ruling/movement/etc.

If Pair 12 are the only ones who moved incorrectly, then instead of Table 4 they should have gone wherever they were meant to be. In the meantime I think there's nothing wrong with scoring any boards that are unplayable as A6040, except perhaps for Pair 2 who should get A5040 because they "shouldn't have looked through the boards until they confirmed it was the sitout" (yes most people wouldn't bother checking which pair is the sitout pair, but IMHO that doesn't excuse them). I guess you might also award the EW pair that arrived at the hesitation table and played incorrectly against Pair 12 A5040 as well for not checking the pair numbers.

ahydra

[blackshoe]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-May-20, 09:52, said:

I didn't suggest ruling on that basis - I think I was clear I was not trying to answer the question but observing that there were ways to avoid this sort of mess happening again.

Fair enough.

[blackshoe]

ahydra, on 2012-May-20, 09:57, said:

I disagree: even if you are a playing TD, surely your TD role is separate to your player role? That is to say, the TD (and his partner!) should not have their score affected simply because the TD made a mistake in the ruling/movement/etc.

Well, there is no legal sanction on a non-playing TD who screws up the movement (I suppose he might get fired, or if he owns the club people might stop playing there, but that's outside the laws). I think though that if a playing TD's error affects a result at his table (which I understand to have happened here; perhaps I misread it) he is at least partly at fault as the law reads. I would agree that if the error does not affect a result at his table, he should not get a score adjustment.

ahydra, on 2012-May-20, 09:57, said:

If Pair 12 are the only ones who moved incorrectly, then instead of Table 4 they should have gone wherever they were meant to be. In the meantime I think there's nothing wrong with scoring any boards that are unplayable as A6040, except perhaps for Pair 2 who should get A5040 because they "shouldn't have looked through the boards until they confirmed it was the sitout" (yes most people wouldn't bother checking which pair is the sitout pair, but IMHO that doesn't excuse them). I guess you might also award the EW pair that arrived at the hesitation table and played incorrectly against Pair 12 A5040 as well for not checking the pair numbers.

I have not, as I said earlier, looked at it in depth, but I say again: when you are considered an ArtAS, you have to consider the facts, and decide in the light of those facts the degree to which each involved pair is at fault. It's not enough to just arbitrarily say that 60/40 or 50/40 looks good enough.

[ahydra]

blackshoe, on 2012-May-20, 11:11, said:

I have not, as I said earlier, looked at it in depth, but I say again: when you are considered an ArtAS, you have to consider the facts, and decide in the light of those facts the degree to which each involved pair is at fault. It's not enough to just arbitrarily say that 60/40 or 50/40 looks good enough.

I agree with that. I'm going on the facts as presented in the OP and my (novice TD) opinion. Pair 12 moved incorrectly and caused havoc as a result, so they are "directly at fault" for any unplayable boards, hence A40 for them. Pair 2 and the pair who didn't check the pair numbers at the hesitation table could be deemed to be "partly at fault" hence A50 for them. Everyone else isn't at fault (they were in the right place and would have been playing the right boards), hence A60.

ahydra

[blackshoe]

ahydra, on 2012-May-20, 15:09, said:

I agree with that. I'm going on the facts as presented in the OP and my (novice TD) opinion. Pair 12 moved incorrectly and caused havoc as a result, so they are "directly at fault" for any unplayable boards, hence A40 for them. Pair 2 and the pair who didn't check the pair numbers at the hesitation table could be deemed to be "partly at fault" hence A50 for them. Everyone else isn't at fault (they were in the right place and would have been playing the right boards), hence A60.

ahydra

I'm trying to reconstruct events in my head.

Rounds 1-4: no problems.
Round 5: 12 vs. 10, board set 4, because 12 was at the wrong table. Where was 11? Hm. It appears 11 was the phantom pair. 12 directly at fault, 10 partly at fault. It also appears that pair 1 thought they had a sit out this round, and didn't play the boards (set 5). For that, 12 directly at fault (they weren't there like they were supposed to be), pair 1 partly at fault.
Round 6: 12 vs. 1, board set 6. But this is supposed to be pair 1's sit out round, so they aren't scheduled to play these boards. Cancel these boards at this table, don't score them. Pair 12 is supposed to be at table 2 playing pair 2 and board set 7. 12 is directly at fault again, 2 is partly at fault (because they looked at the boards).
Round 8: 4 vs. 12, board set 4. But 12 has already played these boards, so they keep their score vs 10, even though they played it in the wrong direction (the scoring program should be able to handle this). Pair 4 gets A+.

Summary of boards and scores:
Board set 4: 12 vs 10, score stands. Pair 4 gets A+ on all three boards.
Board set 5: 1 vs 12, A to pair 1, A- to pair 12.
Board set 7: 2 vs 12, A to pair 2, A- to pair 12.

I agree that people who've been playing for ten years should not screw this up, particularly if a hesitation Mitchell is not unusual at this club. So I'd give 'em a PP. For the same reason, I'm tempted to give pair 1 a PP as well, because the TD ought also to know enough to check the movement at his table each round.

I suppose a kinder and gentler TD would forget the PPs, and give pair 12 average on the six boards in sets 5 and 7, on the grounds that if one pair is only partly at fault, the other must also be only partly at fault.

[gordontd]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-May-20, 03:48, said:

I have to admit I have never seen a movement where a pair move incorrectly and no-one notices until halfway through the move after that.

I've seen precisely this thing happen once before (I wasn't the director) and the solution that was adopted was a practical one for a club game: new board-sets were introduced whenever a pair were due to play boards for the second time, and they were scored as fouled boards so that very few artificial scores needed to be given.

[blackshoe]

gordontd, on 2012-May-21, 01:14, said:

I've seen precisely this thing happen once before (I wasn't the director) and the solution that was adopted was a practical one for a club game: new board-sets were introduced whenever a pair were due to play boards for the second time, and they were scored as fouled boards so that very few artificial scores needed to be given.

If I'm not mistaken, there was only one board set (4) where that was the case here, and it was only due to be played for a second time once, and that was in the last round. So the TD would have had to figure out, at the time the problem came to light (round six), where this would be the case, and replace set four then. If he does it early enough, there will be 4 and 3 comparisons in the two sets, otherwise there will be 5 and 2. If he doesn't replace the set until "we played these already" comes to light, there will be 6 and 1, and the fouled board procedure won't help.

[malcolmb]

Thanks all for the very useful replies.
To pick up a few points -

1) Yes, I will play ghost pairs as non-moving in future. I do not consider myself at fault for a "bad movement", it has always proved perfectly playable in the past. However the more possibilities for error can be eliminated, the better.

2) I think no one can be penalised in this case for failing to spot wrong opponents, there are no assignment cards on tables and we have never found the need for them. No bridgemates either. So, my view, is that N/S at table one and table 2 should be considered for AV+ on the boards they have missed.

3) Sorry to put Blackshoe to the trouble of constructing the movement. Yes, pair 11 was the ghost. I will work through your suggested scoring with a large sheet of paper tomorrow (out to bridge tonight, no surprise there).

4) Board set 4: 12 vs 10, score stands. Pair 4 gets AV+ on all three boards. - Not sure how I implement that in Scorebridge (probably same issue in other programs or even manually on paper). The problem is I don't have valid hands on which to score these AV+s, 4 is scheduled against 12 and 12 has already played.

[blackshoe]

malcolmb, on 2012-May-21, 11:04, said:

Thanks all for the very useful replies.
To pick up a few points -

1) Yes, I will play ghost pairs as non-moving in future. I do not consider myself at fault for a "bad movement", it has always proved perfectly playable in the past. However the more possibilities for error can be eliminated, the better.

2) I think no one can be penalised in this case for failing to spot wrong opponents, there are no assignment cards on tables and we have never found the need for them. No bridgemates either. So, my view, is that N/S at table one and table 2 should be considered for AV+ on the boards they have missed.

3) Sorry to put Blackshoe to the trouble of constructing the movement. Yes, pair 11 was the ghost. I will work through your suggested scoring with a large sheet of paper tomorrow (out to bridge tonight, no surprise there).

4) Board set 4: 12 vs 10, score stands. Pair 4 gets AV+ on all three boards. - Not sure how I implement that in Scorebridge (probably same issue in other programs or even manually on paper). The problem is I don't have valid hands on which to score these AV+s, 4 is scheduled against 12 and 12 has already played.

1) Not for a bad movement (a Hesitation Mitchell is a perfectly good movement) and not "at fault" in the sense of score adjustment or PP. Just that it is prudent, as you've realized, to minimize the chance that a pair will screw it up.

2) I disagree. While there's no law specifically requiring it, as I learned duplicate, checking that the arriving opponents are the expected pair number is just something you (should) always do. If you want a law, I would suggest you look at Law 7D.

3) It was no trouble. IMO it's a useful exercise to do at least once in a while.

4) I'm not familiar with Scorebridge. In ACBLScore, I think you have to edit the movement. Not sure I understand the problem — you're not giving an assigned adjusted score, you're giving an artificial one. 60% of a top is what it is; the hands involved are irrelevant. As you say, 4 is scheduled against 12, they didn't play that set because 12 screwed up, so 12 is directly at fault and 4 is in no way at fault.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2012-May-21, 15:32, said:

2) I disagree. While there's no law specifically requiring it, as I learned duplicate, checking that the arriving opponents are the expected pair number is just something you (should) always do. If you want a law, I would suggest you look at Law 7D.

But if there are no guide cards telling them who to expect, how are they supposed to do that?

[blackshoe]

I count on my fingers. OTOH, I know that at any table where I'm stationary, I'll see the moving pairs in decreasing order, with the highest numbered pair following the pair who sat NS at the highest numbered table in the first round (here, 14 follows 7).

[bluejak]

In my view, there are three types of tournament in clubs.

• Those with Guide cards, normally Howells
  
• Mitchells and similar
  
• Funny movements, usually Mitchell based, like Hesitations

Now, if you do not check your opponents when there are guide cards, I think you are partly at fault. With Mitchells it is not normal to check your opponents and no fault of yours if the wrong opponents appear.

But #3 is interesting. As far as I am concerned, there are three rules:

• If it is custom + practice to check opponents in your club, then you are partly at fault if you do not do so
  
• If you are warned by the TD to check opponents in your club, then you are partly at fault if you do not do so
  
• Otherwise you are not at fault if you do not do check opponents

So perhaps the solution is that if your movement is a little strange you explain to N/S what pairs to expect and then ask them to check them.

[barmar]

If you have a funny movement, I think it's a director error if they don't provide the resources to make it feasible to check the opponents. Either guide cards on the table, or printed movement slips that include the opponents. If the director doesn't provide such, I don't think you can consider the players at fault for not checking their opponents.

[malcolmb]

barmar, on 2012-May-23, 10:23, said:

If you have a funny movement, I think it's a director error if they don't provide the resources to make it feasible to check the opponents. Either guide cards on the table, or printed movement slips that include the opponents. If the director doesn't provide such, I don't think you can consider the players at fault for not checking their opponents.

Let us be realistic, my club does not have the resources to print out full movement cards for all possible movements. If I did they would soon be lost within the couple of crates we use to hold the club. We do have a card at table 7 telling pairs where they go.

I cannot consider players to be at fault for not checking opponents, however I can consider them at fault if they considered there might be a movement where you progress EW5 EW6 EW7 followed by a further 2 rounds on table 7.

It is not a popular option to settle for a 7 table Mitchell, 21 boards and lots of pairs get a 3 board sitout to boot.

[mycroft]

Well, we do 7 tables, 28 boards and a 4-board sitout. That's so much better :-). Note, by "we", I don't mean "me" - I find a better movement. But sometimes I play...

I'd run a 24-board hesitation mitchell if we did 24 boards, and I'd make the sitout pair 1NS, so that there was no board sharing. I have an 8-table hesitation mitchell guide card at my club (so I can do 9 rounds, 27 boards), which I put out on table 8 (as everybody else is (usually) fine).

There are programs out there - if you hunt hard, sometimes - that will print guide cards for your movement on demand. If you run the 7-table, 24-board Hesitation Mitchell frequently, I'd print out at least the hesitation table (and possibly the tables opposite the bye-stand).

[blackshoe]

Here's how I envision a day at the club, in my dreams:

1. TD arrives about 45 minutes before game time, digs all the "stuff" out of the closet, brews the coffee, puts out the table cards (we're hoping for a Mitchell), puts out pencils, System/Score cards (in the ACBL, they're the same thing, unfortunately) and bidding boxes for the players to take to their tables.
2. Players start arriving about the same time. Maybe they help out, maybe they talk amongst themselves. They do not all crowd into the kitchen, asking "where's the coffee", etc.
3. At about 5 minutes to start time, the players all sit down at their chosen tables, and shut up.
4. The TD walks the room, checking to see how many tables he has and whether they're all full. Then he decides what movement he'll use.
5. The TD announces to the players something like this: "Today, we have six and a half tables. The movement will be a seven table Mitchell, pair one EW is the phantom pair, so NS will have a sit out when scheduled to play EW pair one. Please do not mess with the BridgePads until I tell you that you can enter your ACBL numbers. Also please check to make sure you have the right pair at your table and the right boards, and that the Bridgepad agrees. Also do not start any boards until I give the signal. We have no clock today, so I will be calling the rounds. Please do not move and do not ask for boards until the round is called."
6. TD adds any other announcements he wants (or folks ask him) to make. He might do 5 and 6 in reverse order, so the instructions in 5 are fresh in people's minds.
7. TD passes out the Bridgepads, and then the boards.
8. TD announces "you may begin playing", and checks the time.
9. TD collects the table money. Making change is not necessary, because everyone brought the exact amount. It occurs to me that if making change is likely to be necessary (it always is, really) the best time to collect the money is before you make the announcements, in order to minimize disturbing the players in the middle of a hand.
10. Towards the end of the allotted round time, TD checks to make sure most folks are done and announces "all move for round N please", where N varies from 2 to whatever.
10. TD answers calls for rulings, or a new pencil, or whatever, as appropriate, and deals with them.
11. When calling the move for the last round, TD announces "all move for the last round, please".
12. At the end of the allotted time for the last round, TD announces "please bring your bridge pads and boards to the front of the room, and clean up around your table. I will print the final results as soon as the last scores are reported via the bridge pad".

It's a pleasant dream, but alas it's only a dream. The reality is quite different.