AV+, AV-, are they always fair?
A recent post got me thinking about when a board cannot be played.
There are numerous reasons why a board cannot be played, and the rights and wrongs are subtly different in each case.
Let's start with a clear case. North takes out and looks at the East Cards after South has looked at his hand. The board cannot be played by NS (and in practice not by EW either). NS are at fault, EW blameless. EW have been deprived of the opportunity to earn a good score and so get AV+.
Why should NS get a poor score? They have also lost the the opportunity to earn a good score (by their own actions) - why penalise them further? If this is a penalty for not following the procedures, isn't that what procedural penalties are for?
Now let's look at a case where a wrong board is played at a table (having not been played by either pair before). The result stands, and when those pairs meet the board properly, their opponents are given AV+. They of course do not get an AV- on that board as they have already played it.
What of the board that they should have played when they played the wrong board? If they did play it, then all is well and neither offending pair gets AV-.
If not, then (according to the other discussion) they should both get AV-. Not only can I not see where it state this in the laws, but it again seems unfair. To repeat the previous paragraph, they have also lost the the opportunity to earn a good score (by their own actions) - why penalise them further? If this is a penalty for not following the procedures, isn't that what procedural penalties are for?
I appreciate the AV+ / AV- has a nice symmetry to it, but to me the argument for the AV+ is a lot stronger than the one for AV-.
Thoughts?
Less
Comments
The answer to why is that Law 12 tells us how to deal with these situations, so that's what we apply. You might as well ask why we apply the revoke laws. If you would like the laws to be different, you have the opportunity to suggest that they be changed in 2027.
That depends on whether you interpret not having enough time to play a board as "no result can be obtained". Clearly a result can be obtained, but we choose not to do so for practical reasons.
Don't get me wrong - I know custom and practice is to interpret such a situation as AV+/AV-, and it's good to have a clearly defined approach. My comment on the laws is incidental to my main point - is this worth changing?
A result can't be obtained if there is not enough time for the board to be played.
Why would you want to change things to benefit those who create problems at the (slight) expense of the rest of the field?
Because I feel the procedural penalties (which have director discretion) are better suited for this than an automatic penalty. After all this isn't a test of bridge skill.
I suspect a lot of these cases happen at club level, where "keeping it friendly" by using discretion is better than being unduly harsh on someone who just gets it wrong.
Using discretion is one way of producing inconsistent and unpredictable rulings. What you haven't said is what you would change Law 12 to, that would allow you to do what you want.
Let's not forget it's a game, with rules and consequences for failing to follow these rules even if unintentionally. It's when it's intentional, or arises from repeated carelessness, that procedural penalties are more likely to come into play.
Oooh a challenge!
Watch this space...
I think that averages Av+ and Av- are generally fair (at the table issued), but do impact the results at other tables too, which seems unfair to those not involved.
At the other tables they are unable to compare scores against the table awarded Ave+ for example, it seems that they are given 1MP for a draw against that table, but they have lost the ability to score a top. Their max number of MPs remain unadjusted and so can make a difference.
Lets say that in a 3-table movement playing 5x5 board rounds - so scoring is out of a max of 100 match points. Perhaps there is an outlandish score of 7NTXX -13 tricks, something went horribly wrong and a silly result that warrants a top and a bottom. However, at another table something happens and those pairs are awarded Ave+
It means that the stupid score is no longer worth 100% and 0% (or 4 MPs and 0 MPs) they are now worth 75% and 25%, or 3 and 1 MPs.
As this is an all play all movement, that results in a 2% swing between those 2 pairs which can have an impact on the final rankings! Is that fair to those players?
Agreed - I've been developing this idea and will have a detailed treatise soon!
No, it isn't.
Actually they get 3.5 / 4, or 87.5%. If you were running a 2-winner Mitchell, the scores for each direction would not average out to 50%.
Moreover I think I've just seem something I don't like in the way EBUScore (and indeed probably all other scoring programs) processes AV+/AV-.
I feel another post coming on!
I guess that comes from the Neuberg formula? If so, I am not sure that Scorebridge is applying that correctly (or rather, not applying that at all). I have checked a couple of times that I know that this has happened and it is simply giving 1 additional MP for the missed comparison.