[Frager]

At the club last week, because of the illness of one of the partners, the pair left after two rounds.

We use Bridgemates and Pairsscorer.

How should we have scored the competition? 9 table Howell, 22 boards. 11 rounds

Thanks

[blackshoe]

The simplest way is to give every pair who missed playing against them average plus. More complicated would be to amend the movement. I’d have to think about how that would work, since it’s been a while since I’ve done it.

[weejonnie]

Your RA probably has guidelines for this sort of situation.

In the EBU all results would be cancelled since they haven't played half the boards. (White book 2.44)

I use EBUscore (which is very similar). I THINK you can delete the results that have been obtained and then go into 'properties' and mark the pair as missing. This still shows some scores as not been entered, though, so I don't know how it would affect submission to the EBU if that is your RA.

[gordontd]

 weejonnie, on 2019-August-12, 06:58, said:

Your RA probably has guidelines for this sort of situation.

In the EBU all results would be cancelled since they haven't played half the boards. (White book 2.44)

I use EBUscore (which is very similar). I THINK you can delete the results that have been obtained and then go into 'properties' and mark the pair as missing. This still shows some scores as not been entered, though, so I don't know how it would affect submission to the EBU if that is your RA.

I think this is ok for submitting to the EBU, but may create objections from Pianola if you submit via them.

[BudH]

From commentary on the 2017 laws, page 6: http://www.worldbrid...sCommentary.pdf

Average plus - The new Law 12C2(d) allows a Regulating Authority to specify what happens when a pair misses several boards during a session. The WBF Laws Committee recommends average plus not be used simply for a sit-out in a movement, and it suggests restricting average plus to two boards per session for a contestant (at pairs or teams). Additional missed boards can be scored as average or, in extreme situations, as if they were not scheduled to be played in the first place.

Effective: January 2019, Updated: January 2019


I've seen guidance about giving average plus for perhaps the first two at most occurrences, then average for all the rest after that. Probably fairer for all to get average. At least that's fairer than a whole bunch of average plusses.

[blackshoe]

And the commentary conflicts with the laws. So which governs?

[BudH]

 blackshoe, on 2019-August-16, 11:07, said:

And the commentary conflicts with the laws. So which governs?

Law 12C2(d): "The Regulating Authority may provide for circumstances where a contestant fails to obtain a result on multiple boards during the same session. The scores assigned for each
subsequent board may be varied by regulation from those prescribed in (a) and (b) above."

Ed, this appears crystal clear to me in the new laws.

Due to this, I urged my local club as the "Regulating Authority" to have all missed boards be scored as average if more than the equivalent of one round of boards is missed.

As for ACBL tournament play (or the EBL, EBU, ABF, or other major national bridge organization), I have not been able to find (yet) a definitive answer. I did find the ABF has supposedly not made a determination yet but may soon in the future.

[Vampyr]

 BudH, on 2019-August-16, 15:46, said:

Due to this, I urged my local club as the "Regulating Authority" to have all missed boards be scored as average if more than the equivalent of one round of boards is missed.

This is severely damaging to any pairs who are performing above average. It’s even worse than simply marking all the boards “not played”. Which is, after all, in line with the commentary I’d this qualifies as an extreme situation. I think it does.

By the way, I am very curious to know why you think “average to all” is fairer than “average plus to all” when the opposite is true. Fairer still would be the percentage achieved in the rest of the session, but then you might as well go with “not played”.

[blackshoe]

 Vampyr, on 2019-August-16, 17:15, said:

By the way, I am very curious to know why you think “average to all” is fairer than “average plus to all” when the opposite is true. Fairer still would be the percentage achieved in the rest of the session, but then you might as well go with “not played”.

I suspect he's worried about "the field", who might complain that it's "not fair" that all those people who didn't play the boards got A+, while the complainers only got whatever their table result was.

IMO if the rules say they get average plus, then it's fair that they get average plus.

[Vampyr]

 blackshoe, on 2019-August-16, 23:01, said:

I suspect he's worried about "the field", who might complain that it's "not fair" that all those people who didn't play the boards got A+, while the complainers only got whatever their table result was.

That doesn’t make sense, because every pair will get average plus on two boards.

Quote

IMO if the rules say they get average plus, then it's fair that they get average plus.

This comment is bizarre.

[pescetom]

 Vampyr, on 2019-August-16, 17:15, said:

This is severely damaging to any pairs who are performing above average. It’s even worse than simply marking all the boards “not played”. Which is, after all, in line with the commentary I’d this qualifies as an extreme situation. I think it does.

By the way, I am very curious to know why you think “average to all” is fairer than “average plus to all” when the opposite is true. Fairer still would be the percentage achieved in the rest of the session, but then you might as well go with “not played”.

The percentage achieved in the rest of the session is clearly a fairer solution. It might be fairer still to modulate it against the same percentage achieved by the destined opponents, if they have completed enough boards.

[sanst]

What I’ve missed in this topic, is the fact that in these cases one of the players who left, has not been feeling well for sometime. Mostly they hang on till it’s impossible to continue, but their play has been bellow par for quite some boards. Therefore I think it’s wise to cancel there results if they played less than half the boards.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2019-August-16, 11:07, said:

And the commentary conflicts with the laws. So which governs?

Commentary on the 2017 Laws of Duplicate Bridge said:

Introduction
The focus of this document is to highlight the changes from the 2007 Code and to amplify
WBFLC interpretations. As such, it is first and foremost a guide for TDs and not part of the 2017
Code.

(My enhancement)

I think that answers your question?

[blackshoe]

 Vampyr, on 2019-August-16, 23:18, said:

That doesn’t make sense, because every pair will get average plus on two boards.

People don't always make sense, particularly when they're complaining about something.

 Vampyr, on 2019-August-16, 23:18, said:

This comment is bizarre.

A response to my comment that the rectification provided in the rules is perforce fair. "Fair," according to my dictionary, means "in accordance with the rules". How is that bizarre?

[blackshoe]

 pran, on 2019-August-17, 02:17, said:

I think that answers your question?

For me it does, yes.

[Vampyr]

 blackshoe, on 2019-August-17, 10:40, said:

A response to my comment that the rectification provided in the rules is perforce fair. "Fair," according to my dictionary, means "in accordance with the rules". How is that bizarre?

The rules may not be fair.

[blackshoe]

 Vampyr, on 2019-August-17, 13:35, said:

The rules may not be fair.

The rules may not be in accordance with the rules? Now that's bizarre.

Okay, a secondary meaning for "fair" is "just", which (again according to my dictionary) means "based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair". Seems a bit circular to me, unless you focus on the "morally right" part. Is that what you mean? Is moral rightness really in the purview of the rules of a game? Is moral rightness an absolute? Who decides?

[Vampyr]

 blackshoe, on 2019-August-17, 13:46, said:

The rules may not be in accordance with the rules? Now that's bizarre.

No, I said that rules themselves may not be fair.

Quote

Okay, a secondary meaning for "fair" is "just", which (again according to my dictionary) means "based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair". Seems a bit circular to me, unless you focus on the "morally right" part. Is that what you mean? Is moral rightness really in the purview of the rules of a game? Is moral rightness an absolute? Who decides?

Well, I don’t have a law book handy at the moment, so I forget which are is the law that stipulates that after an illegal opening ( or any illegal call, I think) which specifies two or more more suits, lead restrictions apply only to the suits tits that were NOT specified. This, Is unfair (unjust if you prefer) to the non-offenders.

Also, the penalty an illegal discard, say, on a long suit, which makes no difference whatsoever to the hand is perhaps unjust, but of course it’s necessary for the deterrent effect , such as it is nowadays.

The “comparable call” thing is unfair, because whether you get one depends on the skill and experience of the director and in fact her expertise as a player and quickness at grasping a system which may be unfamiliar to her. And it is unfair to the non-offenders, in that they don’t get to be fully informed before they make their choice. Again, this is according to the rules, but I do feel that the concept of natural justice should not be trampled upon.

[blackshoe]

 Vampyr, on 2019-August-17, 14:08, said:

No, I said that rules themselves may not be fair.

You are using a different definition of "fair" than the one I originally posited.

 Vampyr, on 2019-August-17, 14:08, said:

Well, I don’t have a law book handy at the moment, so I forget which are is the law that stipulates that after an illegal opening ( or any illegal call, I think) which specifies two or more more suits, lead restrictions apply only to the suits tits that were NOT specified. This, Is unfair (unjust if you prefer) to the non-offenders.

Quote

Law 26B: When an offending player’s call is withdrawn and it is not replaced by a comparable call, then if he becomes a defender declarer may, at the offender’s partner’s first turn to lead (which may be the opening lead), prohibit offender’s partner from leading any (one) suit which has not been specified in the legal auction by the offender. Such prohibition continues for as long as the offender’s partner retains the lead.

Is that the one you mean? So offender withdraws a call that specifies hearts and spades. During the remainder of the auction he makes a bid which specifies hearts. Declarer can prohibit, at the offender's partner's first term to lead, the lead of a spade. He cannot prohibit the lead of a heart. How is the latter unjust?

 Vampyr, on 2019-August-17, 14:08, said:

The “comparable call” thing is unfair, because whether you get one depends on the skill and experience of the director and in fact her expertise as a player and quickness at grasping a system which may be unfamiliar to her. And it is unfair to the non-offenders, in that they don’t get to be fully informed before they make their choice. Again, this is according to the rules, but I do feel that the concept of natural justice should not be trampled upon.

Perhaps what's unfair about this law is asking directors to figure out what the hell it means. So it's unfair to directors. I suppose it's also unfair to players in that case, but what remedy do you suggest? Keep in mind the reason why the law was added to the book (IMO to allow a "normal bridge result"). Is there any way to get such a result without this law?

I doubt there will ever be a book of rules for anything with which everyone agrees.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2019-August-17, 17:08, said:

You are using a different definition of "fair" than the one I originally posited.

Obviously.

One definition of "fair" is "confirming to the rules", it's used to judge the behavior of the participants.

But another is "equitable", and this can be used to judge the rules themselves.

If there were a Law that says "If you can't decide, rule in favor of NS", a TD would be fair in doing so, but we would consider this a very unfair law.