[ahydra]

Teams of 4

The hands were something like

Dealer E , EW vul

---

and after

1D-p-1S-2C; p-2D*-2H-p; 2S-p-3S-all pass
* good raise in clubs

partner makes the rather unfortunate (but, as it turns out, immaterial) lead of the CA and the opps make 10 tricks. They then open the traveller and discover the entire board is backwards - E still dealer, but NS hands are swapped, as are EW.

The director is called and opponents claim they would find the cold 4S if the hands had been the right way around. The TD sensibly defers his decision until after the session ends (so I don't yet know what the outcome is). But can the score be kept/adjusted, or is the board simply fouled?

ahydra

[blackshoe]

Quote

Law 87A: A board is considered to be “fouled” if the director determines that a card (or more than one) was displaced in the board or if he determines that the dealer or vulnerability differed between copies of the same board, and the contestants who should have had a score comparison did not play the board in identical form for such reason.

So yes, it's a fouled board.

[schulken]

If I read the sequence correctly, it seems that regardless of the direction in which the cards were held, NS could have been mischievous and EW could have figured out a way to let each other know they had game-going values. As the cards were played, E missed a chance to insert a support double at his second call, letting W know they had a 9-card fit. Further, W knew they had game-going values and could have forced the issue. E should have known that W had at least 5 ♠ since he bid ♠ first, then ♥. I would also expect some extra values for a free bid. It strikes me that both E and W became timid after NS got in the auction. If N was willing to make a 2♣ overcall with his weak hand in the fourth seat, I must assume he'd be willing to make it in the second seat as well, keeping E from being able to bid 2♦ and entering a 2/1 game-forcing auction. It would be interesting to see how many Ns (or Ss, with the cards arranged correctly) even entered the auction. Based on the above, I don't think I'd be inclined to award an adjusted score.

Having said that, you didn't mention when the board became fouled (if that was known) and how many times it had been played fouled. It may be that others had played it fouled and still found their game contract. Also, there are provisions for scoring boards before and after becoming fouled, without specifically awarding an adjusted score.

[blackshoe]

East was dealer, whichever way round the hands were. So the auction would have been completely different with the boards fouled compared to what it would have been with the boards not fouled. That's one reason why there can be no comparison between the board played in one state and it played in another.

The only time you award an adjusted score in a fouled board situation is when there is only one table in a comparison group. That table then gets an artificial adjusted score, probably A+ to both sides if neither was at all responsible for the fouling.

The TD must investigate and find out when the board was fouled and by whom. This table then gets grouped, for comparison purposes, with the other tables that played the board in the same fouled state. If everyone else their way in the group got to game, then these guys will get a bottom. Since that would also be true had the board been dealt this way, rather than fouled, they would get to keep that bottom.

[jnichols]

The board is fouled. If there are other pairs who played it in the same condition we have some valid comparisons that will allow us to matchpoint the board per the "fouled board procedures"

If no one else played the board in that condition then the "fouled board procedure" tells us what score to assign. However, what we do not do is adjust the score based on E/S suggestions of what would have happened if they had played the board in the correct condition. That is irrelevant.

[ahydra]

schulken, on 2011-December-08, 11:22, said:

If I read the sequence correctly, it seems that regardless of the direction in which the cards were held, NS could have been mischievous and EW could have figured out a way to let each other know they had game-going values. As the cards were played, E missed a chance to insert a support double at his second call, letting W know they had a 9-card fit. Further, W knew they had game-going values and could have forced the issue. E should have known that W had at least 5 ♠ since he bid ♠ first, then ♥. I would also expect some extra values for a free bid. It strikes me that both E and W became timid after NS got in the auction. If N was willing to make a 2♣ overcall with his weak hand in the fourth seat, I must assume he'd be willing to make it in the second seat as well, keeping E from being able to bid 2♦ and entering a 2/1 game-forcing auction. It would be interesting to see how many Ns (or Ss, with the cards arranged correctly) even entered the auction. Based on the above, I don't think I'd be inclined to award an adjusted score.

Having said that, you didn't mention when the board became fouled (if that was known) and how many times it had been played fouled. It may be that others had played it fouled and still found their game contract. Also, there are provisions for scoring boards before and after becoming fouled, without specifically awarding an adjusted score.

This is the EBU - so no support doubles, no 2/1 GF. A double would be for takeout, 16+ or so, and 2/1 is only 10pts+.

And North was a "she", though you weren't to know that

---

After we discovered the fouled board the hands were replaced in the correct slots - but I've no idea how many times it was played back-to-front.

Results still not up - let's hope the TD gets this one right!

ahydra

[mycroft]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-08, 12:33, said:

The only time you award an adjusted score in a fouled board situation is when there is only one table in a comparison group. That table then gets an artificial adjusted score, probably A+ to both sides if neither was at all responsible for the fouling.

I agree with everything cut in this post. I agree with everything quoted as well, as long as we add "follow the RA's fouled board procedure" in there somewhere.

The EBU says what Ed says above: White Book 147.2 says:
one play, A+ both sides - WB 12.1.1 example a)
more than one play, Neuberg each subfield - WB 78.3

So, for the OP, there we are. But others may have a different result in different RAs.

For instance, the ACBL says something very different (Codification, 12G):
The formula (which might not be Neuberg, but first blush is "similar" if not equivalent) applies if there are 4+ scores in a subgroup.
3 scores get assigned 70%, 60%, and 50% (equal scores share the awarded scores (so 65%== and 50% or 70% and 55%== or 60%===)
2 scores get 65% and 55% (or 60% if they match).
1 play gets 60% each way.

[blackshoe]

It looks to me like the formula is supposed to be Neuberg, but it was messed up. If it's two terms, as it should be, the second term, at least in my pdf copy, is always zero (N-N), where it should be N-n).

I wonder if the ACBL considered the possibility that the players themselves fouled the board somehow before they played it. Unlikely, of course, but still…

That regulation is legal under 87B, but I'm not sure that artificial scores is the best way to go about it for two and three table subfields, particularly those artificial scores.

The EBU formula is MPs= ((MxE)+E-A)/A, where M is the matchpoint score within the group, E is total number of scores on the board, and A is the number of scores in the group.

The ACBL formula is probably supposed to be MPs=(N*S)/n+(N-n)/2*n, where N is the total number of scores on the board, S is the matchpoint score within the group, and n is the number of scores in the group. So N==E, S==M, and n==A. Substituting: MPs=(E*M)/A+(E-A)/2*A = (E*M+(E-A)/2)/A. I haven't examined it further, but I suspect that 2 is in there because the ACBL gives half as many match points in comparisons as does the rest of the world.

I just checked my brand new (got it yesterday) 7th edition of the ACBL Encyclopedia, and that's the formula. "The ACBL adopted the WBF formula in 1990".

[ahydra]

Well that raises another interesting question I guess - how does the Director determine how many times it was played backwards? There's no practical way to do so [except asking people at the time it was discovered, which he didn't do], so should he assume we were the only table to play it backwards, and hence award both sides 3 imps which cancels itself out?

[Sorry, it appears I forgot to mention it was teams in the OP]

ahydra

[gordontd]

The usual thing is to work backwards asking players which hands they held. If you have travellers or Bridgemate results, you can often get a good idea where the error was most likely to have been introduced and check there first.

[barmar]

The players themselves were apparently able to infer that everyone else had played it differently, based on the results on the traveler.

I'm a little confused now, though: since when is there a traveler in team games?

P.S. I object to the word "backwards". "Rotated" seems more appropriate. Backwards would seem more appropriate if only EW or NS had been swapped.

[bluejak]

Before Bridgemates travellers were common in team games in the UK. Whereas pickup slips seem to have been predominant in the ACBL for pairs and teams, travellers were the norm in the UK.

But the same applies to pickup slips, of course. A comparison of the board and the results on the pickup slips will often tell you when the board was fouled.

The basic rule for deciding when a board was fouled is the same as for any other judgement decision by a TD: get as much evidence as possible then make a judgement.

[ahydra]

Finally saw the results a few days ago. Unfortunately the TD did not get this one right - he seems to have ruled "result stands". Good result for us, but not an ideal outcome It seems the major problem here was not going to ask the previous table if the board was "backwards".

barmar - "rotated" is used when the board was literally rotated. In this case the board was in the correct orientation, but North's hand was in the South pocket, South in North, and similarly with East in West and West in East. True, "backwards" is not a very descriptive term , but what would you call this?

ahydra

[pran]

ahydra, on 2011-December-21, 13:42, said:

Finally saw the results a few days ago. Unfortunately the TD did not get this one right - he seems to have ruled "result stands". Good result for us, but not an ideal outcome It seems the major problem here was not going to ask the previous table if the board was "backwards".

barmar - "rotated" is used when the board was literally rotated. In this case the board was in the correct orientation, but North's hand was in the South pocket, South in North, and similarly with East in West and West in East. True, "backwards" is not a very descriptive term , but what would you call this?

ahydra

Cards (or hands) were rotated 180 degrees within the board!

[barmar]

Right. It's the cards that were rotated, not the board.

[bluejak]

ahydra, on 2011-December-21, 13:42, said:

barmar - "rotated" is used when the board was literally rotated. In this case the board was in the correct orientation, but North's hand was in the South pocket, South in North, and similarly with East in West and West in East. True, "backwards" is not a very descriptive term , but what would you call this?

Fouled?

It is a common occurrence - well, relatively common - in clubs where players are not stopped from taking the board off the table.

[barmar]

bluejak, on 2011-December-23, 10:59, said:

Fouled?

That's extremely general. I'm trying to come up with a specific term for this form of foulness.

[barmar]

BTW, one way I can imagine this happening without any clear wrongdoing would be if someone spills a drink on the table after everyone has removed their cards from the board. While cleaning up the mess, it would be pretty easy for the board to get rotated. Then when the hand is done, they put their cards back into the rotated board and pass it along to the next table.

Whether it would be considered fouled before or after the board rotation would depend on whether the auction had already taken place (since the rotation would change the dealer).

[gnasher]

barmar, on 2011-December-23, 14:16, said:

That's extremely general. I'm trying to come up with a specific term for this form of foulness.

"Rotationally fouled"?

[pran]

That the board is fouled is obvious.

Are we now questioning this - or in what way it is fouled?