BBO Discussion Forums: Unshuffled boards - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Unshuffled boards EBU, club duplicate

#1 User is offline   par31 

  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 18
  • Joined: 2011-April-09
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2014-November-27, 18:55

Matchpoint Pairs

In the last round of tonight's duplicate at the club, one of the players noticed that two of the three boards in the round had not been shuffled and dealt (he remembered playing them the previous week). It was clearly too late to redeal them at that point and have everyone play them again. How should the boards in question be scored?

6D2 and 12C2(a) suggest to me that everyone who playeds these board should be awarded Ave+ on them (all but one pair as there was a sit-out). But it feels strange to give everyone Ave+ on a board so I wondered if this was the usual practice or if it was more normal to do something else instead, e.g. simply not score the boards at all.
0

#2 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,693
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2014-November-27, 21:26

Well, you're right in referring to 6D2 and 12C2(a): no result on these boards can be allowed to stand, they can't be corrected at this point, and so every pair who played these boards should get average plus. Yes, it feels strange - so strange that you're not the only one who'd look for another way to deal with this. But the laws here are clear, and the director is bound to follow the laws. So I would just do that.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#3 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,611
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2014-November-27, 21:35

View Postblackshoe, on 2014-November-27, 21:26, said:

they can't be corrected at this point,


No, but if anyone else is still to play these boards (on another occasion) they must be redealt.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
0

#4 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,693
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2014-November-27, 23:44

View PostVampyr, on 2014-November-27, 21:35, said:

No, but if anyone else is still to play these boards (on another occasion) they must be redealt.

Of course.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#5 User is offline   RMB1 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,841
  • Joined: 2007-January-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Exeter, UK
  • Interests:EBU/EBL TD
    Bridge, Cinema, Theatre, Food,
    [Walking - not so much]

Posted 2014-November-28, 01:41

The table that was supposed to deal these boards should get AVE-/AVE-
Robin

"Robin Barker is a mathematician. ... All highly skilled in their respective fields and clearly accomplished bridge players."
0

#6 User is offline   Aardv 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 120
  • Joined: 2011-February-16
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cambridge, England

Posted 2014-November-28, 02:37

Suppose there were time for the last table to deal and play one or more of the boards. What score should the players there get? They could get results on the redealt boards, but there would be no comparisons.
0

#7 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,693
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2014-November-28, 03:43

Generally speaking when there is no one else with whom to compare results, you award an artificial adjusted score. In this case that would be A+ to both sides, but they're getting that anyway, so redealing for the last table seems pointless.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#8 User is offline   gnasher 

  • Andy Bowles
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,993
  • Joined: 2007-May-03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 2014-November-28, 10:32

It seems very unlikely that anyone recognised the boards and then used the knowledge instead of telling the director about it. For bridge purposes an unshuffled board that the players don't recognise is no different from a freshly dealt board. And nobody goes to their bridge club in order to collect average pluses.

Hence I'd do something illegal but practical: the people who played it keep their score; the people who noticed it, and their opponents, get average plus; the people who omitted to deal it get fined.

I realise, of course, that this post doesn't belong in a Laws forum.
... that would still not be conclusive proof, before someone wants to explain that to me as well as if I was a 5 year-old. - gwnn
1

#9 User is offline   aguahombre 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 12,029
  • Joined: 2009-February-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St. George, UT

Posted 2014-November-28, 10:55

View Postgnasher, on 2014-November-28, 10:32, said:

It seems very unlikely that anyone recognised the boards and then used the knowledge instead of telling the director about it. For bridge purposes an unshuffled board that the players don't recognise is no different from a freshly dealt board. And nobody goes to their bridge club in order to collect average pluses.

Hence I'd do something illegal but practical: the people who played it keep their score; the people who noticed it, and their opponents, get average plus; the people who omitted to deal it get fined.

I realise, of course, that this post doesn't belong in a Laws forum.

It seems appropriate for "simple rulings" :rolleyes: I would probably be simple and do it, too.
"Bidding Spades to show spades can work well." (Kenberg)
0

#10 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,344
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2014-November-28, 11:10

View Postgnasher, on 2014-November-28, 10:32, said:

It seems very unlikely that anyone recognised the boards and then used the knowledge instead of telling the director about it. For bridge purposes an unshuffled board that the players don't recognise is no different from a freshly dealt board. And nobody goes to their bridge club in order to collect average pluses.

Hence I'd do something illegal but practical: the people who played it keep their score; the people who noticed it, and their opponents, get average plus; the people who omitted to deal it get fined.

I realise, of course, that this post doesn't belong in a Laws forum.

Law 6D2 said:

Unless the purpose of the tournament is the replay of past deals no result may stand if the cards are dealt without shuffle from a sorted deck* or if the deal has been imported from a different session. (These provisions shall not prevent arrangements, where desired, for exchange of boards between tables.)
and is pretty clear: It doesn't matter if anybody can recognize any cards, no result may stand.
0

#11 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,693
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2014-November-28, 11:35

View Postgnasher, on 2014-November-28, 10:32, said:

[I realise, of course, that this post doesn't belong in a Laws forum.


View Postaguahombre, on 2014-November-28, 10:55, said:

It seems appropriate for "simple rulings" :rolleyes: I would probably be simple and do it, too.


View Postpran, on 2014-November-28, 11:10, said:

[Law 6D2] is pretty clear: It doesn't matter if anybody can recognize any cards, no result may stand.

Sven is right. Both gnasher and agua would fail in their duty to follow the laws (Law 81B2, Law 82A).
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#12 User is offline   Aardv 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 120
  • Joined: 2011-February-16
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cambridge, England

Posted 2014-November-28, 12:26

Quote

Sven is right. Both gnasher and agua would fail in their duty to follow the laws (Law 81B2, Law 82A)

What's worse, it's quite likely that some pairs will have gained an advantage by being familiar with the hands, even if they didn't consciously recognize them.

What troubles me about the popular solution is that it has the effect of handicapping the pair who sat the boards out, relative to the rest of the field. My favourite law, 84D, tells me that I have to adjust the score in favour of a non-offending side which has been damaged by an irregularity for which the Laws otherwise offer no rectification. So I'm obliged to make it up to this pair somehow.

I doubt the scoring program will allow me to give them matchpoints for a board they sat out. The only way I can think of to get round this is to throw the boards out. And add a PP to the offending pair to restore its disadvantage.
0

#13 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,344
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2014-November-28, 12:53

View PostAardv, on 2014-November-28, 12:26, said:

What's worse, it's quite likely that some pairs will have gained an advantage by being familiar with the hands, even if they didn't consciously recognize them.

What troubles me about the popular solution is that it has the effect of handicapping the pair who sat the boards out, relative to the rest of the field. My favourite law, 84D, tells me that I have to adjust the score in favour of a non-offending side which has been damaged by an irregularity for which the Laws otherwise offer no rectification. So I'm obliged to make it up to this pair somehow.

I doubt the scoring program will allow me to give them matchpoints for a board they sat out. The only way I can think of to get round this is to throw the boards out. And add a PP to the offending pair to restore its disadvantage.

I don't understand what you are really saying here, but what is clear is that no result may stand at any table on such boards. However, the Director should award PP to any contestant who is proven guilty of an irregularity resulting in such cancellation of board(s).
0

#14 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,693
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2014-November-28, 13:31

I'm not sure what Aardv is saying either, but I don't see how the laws, even 84D, suggest that the pair who sat out, or any other pair, should "get something" because they're adversely affected by rulings at other tables.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#15 User is offline   aguahombre 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 12,029
  • Joined: 2009-February-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St. George, UT

Posted 2014-November-28, 13:53

View Postblackshoe, on 2014-November-28, 11:35, said:

Sven is right. Both gnasher and agua would fail in their duty to follow the laws (Law 81B2, Law 82A).

I think we both knew that.
"Bidding Spades to show spades can work well." (Kenberg)
0

#16 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,693
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2014-November-28, 14:03

View Postaguahombre, on 2014-November-28, 13:53, said:

I think we both knew that.

But Dick Jones, who just got his director's card yesterday, and is reading this thread, doesn't. B-)
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#17 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,611
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2014-November-28, 16:30

View PostAardv, on 2014-November-28, 12:26, said:

I doubt the scoring program will allow me to give them matchpoints for a board they sat out. The only way I can think of to get round this is to throw the boards out. And add a PP to the offending pair to restore its disadvantage.


If you really wanted to give them something, you could find a board on which they scored close to their session score and change their score to A+. This is not legal, of course.

But it's not something to worry too much about at a club game anyway. What are the prizes, something like $20-30 divided between four pairs? That is all that is at stake, unless this session is part of a series, eg a ladder.

Now what would you do if the sit-out pair were one of the pairs that dealt the board before the tables were counted and they became a rover, or whatever? :)
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
0

#18 User is offline   gnasher 

  • Andy Bowles
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,993
  • Joined: 2007-May-03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 2014-November-29, 18:02

View Postblackshoe, on 2014-November-28, 14:03, said:

But Dick Jones, who just got his director's card yesterday, and is reading this thread, doesn't. B-)

You mean he got his director's card without being able to read? I did day that my "ruling" was illegal and didn't belong in this forum. How much clearer should I have made it?
... that would still not be conclusive proof, before someone wants to explain that to me as well as if I was a 5 year-old. - gwnn
1

#19 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,693
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2014-November-29, 18:29

"Illegal, but practical" you called it. Mr. Jones isn't very familiar with his law book yet. In particular, while he read them, he hasn't assimilated Laws 81 and 82.

I know some very experienced TDs who think they can make any ruling they want. In fact, some years ago I had one tell me that in just those words. We don't want to give the impression here that that is a valid approach.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users