[euclidz]

Not played or Averaged

When a board is not played, the Director should enquire as to why and award a score, adjusted taking into account several factors. For many reasons my Club are not going to do that, that board will either be given an 'average' or deleted (as not played).

My question is, of those two options, which is fairest and why . . . .

(It looks like boards averaged or deleted affect the score by a difference of about 0.005%).

It seems to me that if both pairs are equal then averaging it or deleting the hand from the calculation produces the same effect i.e. neither pair gains or loses anything. If the pairs are unequal (strong pair against a weak pair) then the strong pair lose and the weak pair gain whether it is 'averaged' or 'not played.' Is that correct?

[Vampyr]

This last is not correct.

Anyway it depends why the boards are not played. If the movement is curtailed for some reason, then boards that weren't played are scored as "not played"; your sorting programme may allow the possibility of simply removing the last round(s) from the movement.

If a board is not played at a particular table due to time pressure or the wrong board having been layer or similar, it is not legal to score the board as "not played". And whether a pair scores 40%, 50% or 60%, it will have an effect on the score for each pair.

It is also not legal to give an average to a pair not at all responsible for the inability to play the board.

And by the way, when a board is scored as "not played", a pair doing very well benefit.

So neither of your options is fair or legal.

[barmar]

I've moved this thread to the Laws and Rulings forum. This is the best place to post questions about director rulings.

[blackshoe]

Quote

Law 12A2: The Director awards an artificial adjusted score if no rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board (see C2 below).

Law 12C2:
(a.) 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.
(b.) When the Director awards an artificial adjusted score of average plus or minus at international matchpoints, that score is normally plus or minus 3 IMPs, but this may be varied as Law 86A allows.
(c.) The foregoing is modified for a non-offending contestant who obtains a session score exceeding 60% of the available matchpoints or for an offending contestant who obtains a session score that is less than 40% of the available matchpoints (or the equivalent in IMPs). Such contestants are awarded the percentage obtained (or the equivalent in IMPs) on the other boards of that session.*

As Vampyr says, when no result can be obtained, it is illegal to score the board as "not played" unless the director is for some reason removing that board from the schedule of boards to be played. The typical "slow play" example is not a case for that. Once you get beyond "not played" and look at Law 12C2, clearly it is illegal to award average to both sides unless both sides were partly at fault. In order to determine fault, the director has to investigate. She can't just arbitrarily award average to both sides. So as much as it may pain a club director to do it right, and as much as it may pain the perennially slow to see a string of average minuses on their score, that's the way to go.

[euclidz]

Sorry about this but . . .

Looking for answers I found I'd asked this question a year back.

In deciding how to score a board not played (due to slow play)the choices are:
1. Average
2. Not played
3. Adjusted score

In the case of a board not played due to slow play by both pairs i.e. both pairs equally at fault which is fairest Average or Not played?

(I presume the answer comes down to score achieved by each option and I presume (?) Not played means both pairs get zero points (?) i.e. both would be penalised?)

[euclidz]

Sorry again in answering my own question but I think I've found the answer in the White Book

8.12.8(b) A table loses a board because of slow play. They only just run out of time and the TD decides both sides are equally at fault. If one side had played a little more quickly the slowness of their opponents would not have lost the board, so both sides are only partly at fault. So AVE/AVE is the normal ruling.
8.12.8(c ) A player is taken ill and misses three boards. How should they be scored? The other side is not at fault, of course, but the player who is ill is ‘directly at fault’ for the boards being cancelled, so the correct ruling is AVE+/AVE-.
8.12.9 ‘Not played’ Computer software usually has a possibility of inputting ‘not played’ for a table on a specific board. Some TDs or scorers use this when a table loses a board for slow play, late arrival or other similar reasons but this is illegal. At such a time the TD should decide whether to give AVE+, AVE or AVE- to each side as is required by Law 12C2(a).

[blackshoe]

When there are two options*, one is legal, and the other is not, the answer to "which is fairer" is easy: the legal option.

You listed three options, but one of them is "average" which is an artificial adjusted score, so it's the same as your option 3.

[VixTD]

blackshoe, on 2016-May-23, 18:31, said:

hen there are two options*, one is legal, and the other is not, the answer to "which is fairer" is easy: the legal option.

I don't understand why that answer is so easy. I know a lot of people who strongly believe the illegal option is fairer.

[aguahombre]

VixTD, on 2016-May-24, 07:00, said:

I don't understand why that answer is so easy. I know a lot of people who strongly believe the illegal option is fairer.

I believe the problem you and I have is with the word 'fair'. As a Director, I am supposed to score boards by the rules; a game is fair if I do that, and not fair if I don't.

As a person, I believe that when a board cannot be played and a pair is not at fault, NP which (as a practical matter) gives that pair their "percent of game" for that board would be more equitable. But, Bridge is not governed by my personal sense of fairness.

[blackshoe]

In my (American English) version of the OED, the first definition of 'fair' is 'in accordance with the rules or standards', so I agree with Aqua as to that point. 'Fair', like 'ethical', does have another, more subjective meaning, but as this is a game, I'll stick with meaning 1.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2016-May-24, 08:09, said:

In my (American English) version of the OED, the first definition of 'fair' is 'in accordance with the rules or standards', so I agree with Aqua as to that point. 'Fair', like 'ethical', does have another, more subjective meaning, but as this is a game, I'll stick with meaning 1.

But right below that is "just or appropriate in the circumstances". When people express the opinion that the rules themselves aren't fair, that's what they mean, and that's essentially what they're saying when they say they would prefer not to follow the rules when handing out a ruling.

For instance, suppose the law imposed more severe penalties for petty theft than murder, and a judge's conscience wouldn't allow him to impose the harsher sentence to the minor criminal.

[jeffford76]

blackshoe, on 2016-May-23, 18:31, said:

When there are two options*, one is legal, and the other is not, the answer to "which is fairer" is easy: the legal option.

You listed three options, but one of them is "average" which is an artificial adjusted score, so it's the same as your option 3.

We've had this disagreement before, but I think that a director who wishes to award "not played" can use Law 8A1 as a legal basis for it.

[VixTD]

jeffford76, on 2016-May-24, 09:05, said:

We've had this disagreement before, but I think that a director who wishes to award "not played" can use Law 8A1 as a legal basis for it.

If the director cancels the play of a board under law 8, they have to award an artificial adjusted score under law 12, so I don't think "not played" would be legal.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2016-May-24, 07:30, said:

I believe the problem you and I have is with the word 'fair'. As a Director, I am supposed to score boards by the rules; a game is fair if I do that, and not fair if I don't.

As a person, I believe that when a board cannot be played and a pair is not at fault, NP which (as a practical matter) gives that pair their "percent of game" for that board would be more equitable. But, Bridge is not governed by my personal sense of fairness.

In what way is "not played" fairer than A+?

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2016-May-24, 09:30, said:

In what way is "not played" fairer than A+?

In what way is an arbitrary plus fair at all? Answer: it is a rule of the game, and equally arbitrary to everyone.

Not played does not mean zero, it just means the board doesn't affect your game percentage one way or the other.

[gordontd]

jeffford76, on 2016-May-24, 09:05, said:

We've had this disagreement before, but I think that a director who wishes to award "not played" can use Law 8A1 as a legal basis for it.

I can't see any connection. Is that really the law you intended to cite?

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2016-May-24, 09:44, said:

In what way is an arbitrary plus fair at all? Answer: it is a rule of the game, and equally arbitrary to everyone.

Not played does not mean zero, it just means the board doesn't affect your game percentage one way or the other.

I am not the person who said something was more fair or less fair. Sorry for the confusion.

[chrism]

Quote

8B2 When the Director exercises his authority to postpone play of a board, for that board the round does not end for the players concerned until the board has been played and the score agreed and recorded or the Director has cancelled the play of the board

Quote

82B Rectification of Error
To rectify an error in procedure the Director may:
1. award an adjusted score as permitted by these Laws.
2. require, postpone, or cancel the play of a board.
3. exercise any other power given to him in these Laws

Quote

90B The following are examples of offences subject to procedural penalty (but the offences are not limited to these): ... 2. unduly slow play by a contestant ...

So the director certainly has the power to cancel an unplayed board (in addition to the explicit provisions of 15C). and 90B2 would seem to qualify as an error in procedure since it is potentially subject to a PP
Edit 90B2 would normally result in an Ave- for at least one contestant, so would not be a "not played" as described here.

[blackshoe]

I cannnot buy your argument, chris. It's built on sand.