[Cyberyeti]

 blackshoe, on 2012-December-18, 16:48, said:

Why?

Because he cancelled the 3♥ bid and decided that there would be bits of 4♦=, 4♥=, 5♦x-1 and 4♥-1 (plus possibly small amounts of other things like 4♦x=) and he couldn't work out how much of each as in the wait for the director to finish playing the other pair scarpered so he couldn't ask them about their agreements as to what X of 3♦ or 4♦ would be. If these doubles are for pens (as I'm sure X of 4♦ would be for this pair, not sure about 3) then we're getting a much better adjustment than if they're for T/O.

[blackshoe]

 Cyberyeti, on 2012-December-18, 17:03, said:

Because he cancelled the 3♥ bid and decided that there would be bits of 4♦=, 4♥=, 5♦x-1 and 4♥-1 (plus possibly small amounts of other things like 4♦x=) and he couldn't work out how much of each as in the wait for the director to finish playing the other pair scarpered so he couldn't ask them about their agreements as to what X of 3♦ or 4♦ would be. If these doubles are for pens (as I'm sure X of 4♦ would be for this pair, not sure about 3) then we're getting a much better adjustment than if they're for T/O.

Then IMO he should have applied Law 12C1{d} and awarded an artificial adjusted score.

[Cyberyeti]

 blackshoe, on 2012-December-18, 20:15, said:

Then IMO he should have applied Law 12C1{d} and awarded an artificial adjusted score.

Which is sort of what he did, he just put it in as a real score.

[blackshoe]

The logic by which he got to the score is flawed. Who's to say he won't use flawed logic in some other case to arrive at a completely ridiculous ruling?

[Cyberyeti]

 blackshoe, on 2012-December-19, 09:15, said:

The logic by which he got to the score is flawed. Who's to say he won't use flawed logic in some other case to arrive at a completely ridiculous ruling?

Flawed logic is a lot better than the "logic" applied to most rulings in my part of the world sadly, most rulings seem to more depend on who you are than what you've done.

[pran]

 Cyberyeti, on 2012-December-19, 10:41, said:

Flawed logic is a lot better than the "logic" applied to most rulings in my part of the world sadly, most rulings seem to more depend on who you are than what you've done.

There is a major error in finding an assigned score that will match an artificial score and awarding this instead of the artificial score:

An assigned score "participates" in the calculation of matchpoints or IMPs (as the case may be), an artificial score does not. It can be argued that this doesn't make much difference, but it does and such argument is irrelevant.

[bluejak]

 Cyberyeti, on 2012-December-18, 17:03, said:

Because he cancelled the 3♥ bid and decided that there would be bits of 4♦=, 4♥=, 5♦x-1 and 4♥-1 (plus possibly small amounts of other things like 4♦x=) and he couldn't work out how much of each as in the wait for the director to finish playing the other pair scarpered so he couldn't ask them about their agreements as to what X of 3♦ or 4♦ would be. If these doubles are for pens (as I'm sure X of 4♦ would be for this pair, not sure about 3) then we're getting a much better adjustment than if they're for T/O.

So looking a the results is unprofessional - and yes, that is a far politer word than I am thinking.

Why not just go for
.. 40% of 4♦ =, NS +130
+ 10% of 4♥ -1, NS +100
+ 25% of 5♦x -1, NS -100
+ 25% of 4♥ =, NS -620

If this comes to a poorer score than the table result then there's no damage.

Presumably if this was a County pairs Final he is using Jeff Smith to score, so the software will do it for him? If he is using Scorebridge [why?] then he shall have to do a bit of work.

[Cyberyeti]

 bluejak, on 2012-December-23, 18:58, said:

So looking a the results is unprofessional - and yes, that is a far politer word than I am thinking.

Why not just go for
.. 40% of 4♦ =, NS +130
+ 10% of 4♥ -1, NS +100
+ 25% of 5♦x -1, NS -100
+ 25% of 4♥ =, NS -620

If this comes to a poorer score than the table result then there's no damage.

Presumably if this was a County pairs Final he is using Jeff Smith to score, so the software will do it for him? If he is using Scorebridge [why?] then he shall have to do a bit of work.

Unprofessional OK, but the director and scorer were amateur volunteers taken from among the players who happened to qualify. Scoring program was Jeff Smith, but I think only one person there knows it well, certainly a couple of weeks before at my local club, everybody knew a weighted score was needed, but nobody was able to enter one as that one guy was away on holiday.

[blackshoe]

Before he goes on holiday again, insist that he train some others in how to use the program.

A program without proper and well written documentation is poor - doesn't this "jeff smith" thing have a manual, or internal help, or better yet, both?

[bluejak]

While Jeff Smith programs are not always easy [don't tell Jeff I said so, but I am afraid it is true] weighted scores are trivially easy.

Also, I am beginning to worry about bridge events which are run by TDs and scorers who do not know what they were doing. This happened to me earlier this year and it was one of the worst weekends I have ever played. I think it is time organisers realised that saving money is great until you realise you lose players by providing poorly run bridge.

[campboy]

There is plenty of documentation on Jeff Smith's website, and I easily and quickly found full instructions on entering a weighted score. It's also so simple that it is difficult to see how someone could try to do it and fail, even without the documentation.

[blackshoe]

And yet "everybody knew a weighted score was needed, but nobody was able to enter one as that one guy was away on holiday".

[campboy]

I only said it was difficult to be unsuccessful; perhaps no-one felt confident enough to try.

[barmar]

I was directing a couple of weeks ago at our club, and decided to give a table a DP for starting a board when I'd explicitly told them to take a late play. Took me forever to figure out how to do it in ACBLScore -- the word "penalty" doesn't appear anywhere in its documentation.

[blackshoe]

ACBLScore fits my definition of "poor".

[bluejak]

 barmar, on 2012-December-26, 10:49, said:

I was directing a couple of weeks ago at our club, and decided to give a table a DP for starting a board when I'd explicitly told them to take a late play. Took me forever to figure out how to do it in ACBLScore -- the word "penalty" doesn't appear anywhere in its documentation.

I don't know ACBL Score, so I don't know the answer. But I can guess. Based on years of experience with various pieces of software my guess is that penalties are put in as adjustments with a minus sign.

[blackshoe]

And the prize goes to David Stevenson!

The three letter command "ADJ" is used for "outside adjustments". Neither the manual nor the built in help explains what that means. I've found that the easiest way to find how to do something in this program is to hit F11, which brings up a list of commands with short descriptions, from which one might hope to figure out what to do.

The word "penalty" appears nowhere in the ACBLScore documentation.

ISTR there's an online course in how to use ACBLScore. I wonder if it covers PPs and DPs?

[gordontd]

 bluejak, on 2012-December-26, 19:34, said:

Based on years of experience with various pieces of software my guess is that penalties are put in as adjustments with a minus sign.

Conversely, Scorebridge only allows adjustments as Fines. So, if you want to give a positive adjustment (eg in order to do a weighted ruling, which isn't otherwise catered for), you have to give a negative Fine!

[bluejak]

It's ok, Gordon, I didn't fall for that one either. When a good player went on after unalerted Bergen and a signoff [and was surprised to receive a PP for it ] and I had to put in a fine via Scorebridge, I put a figure in then checked what it did to the score.

Why did I fine him not adjust? Well, his score was 3NT -4, vulnerable: most pairs, including his opponents' team-mates, got 5♣ = the other way - not vulnerable!

[Cyberyeti]

 bluejak, on 2012-December-25, 20:01, said:

Also, I am beginning to worry about bridge events which are run by TDs and scorers who do not know what they were doing. This happened to me earlier this year and it was one of the worst weekends I have ever played. I think it is time organisers realised that saving money is great until you realise you lose players by providing poorly run bridge.

Unfortunately if you paid anybody to administer, the entry fees would go up, and nobody would enter where I am (you should hear the grumbles when people turn up for a club night and find it's a "hideously expensive" sim pairs). The fields are small enough that other than our county congress and green point weekends, you rarely get non playing directors and scorers and when you do, they're still unpaid.