Zero or Average
I understand when and how an Average is scored in the BridgeMate. I also understand when you’re removing a board from every table a Zero is used.
I’m trying to explain the difference why this is the case to some TDs and hoped someone could please point me to a reference or document which explains this better than I can.
Thank you, Steve
I’m trying to explain the difference why this is the case to some TDs and hoped someone could please point me to a reference or document which explains this better than I can.
Thank you, Steve
Comments
Boards are discounted if they are not scheduled to be played at all - or the movement is curtailed and they become "not scheduled". This is based on the principal of only scoring boards which are played.
If no result is possible on a board which has been played at other tables, or will be be played, the board is scored according to Law 12C2.
The White Book covers bit of this in various places. WB 8.12.9 tell the TD not use "not played" when a single board cannot be played.
Some TDs automatically put in a Zero “Not Played” for slow play (as an average); because it’s easier, but this is Illegal.
Can you or someone please explain for me, the effect on the results (to that pairs results, or overall pairs ranking) by putting in “Not played vs 50%/50% Average.
Thanks again Steve
If you enter "Not played" for Pair A v Pair B for a board not played due to slow play on the previous boards in the round, and if Pair A end the session with 65% and Pair B finish the session with 40%, then for the board the pairs didn't play, you have effectively given Pair A 65% and Pair B 40% for that unplayed board, rather than 50% each.
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
Not played will score the session for the pairs as if they had not played the board: their session score as a percentage is their percentage over the other boards.
50/50 or AVE/AVE will score the session as if the pairs played the board and scored average: their session score will be closer to 50% than their percentage over the other boards.
If no one is at fault, Not Played always seems to be the fairest score to me. I reflects what might have happened if the board would have been played.
I regularly Direct in a session where I allow generous time for relatively new players. Sometimes a pair look slow because everyone else is playing too fast. I always mark missed boards as not played - because it's my decision to truncate the round early.
Alan
Anything might have happened if the board had been played, but it wasn't and Law 12 tells us what to do in this situation, which is what you seem to be willfully disregarding.
Law 12C2 states “When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained” (Is Slow play considered an irregularity ?)
I must admit also the WB 8.12.9 seems a bit strong by saying “…this is illegal” in Bold. I try to pass this on to other TDs who feel Zero is much easier to implement (and they say makes marginal difference to the final session scores).
Kind regards Steve
From Senior_Kibitzer
“If you enter "Not played" for Pair A v Pair B for a board not played due to slow play on the previous boards in the round, and if Pair A end the session with 65% and Pair B finish the session with 40%, then for the board the pairs didn't play, you have effectively given Pair.”
Kind regards Steve
It amazes me how often I get called Brian!
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
I can't see anthing in Law 12 that says this.
It does talk about adjustments where there have been infractions, but slow play is not an infraction, only unduly slow play. And even then that's a PP. Surely the director has a right to determine whether play is unduly slow or slow for a good reason.
The White book 8.12.9 does indeed specify what Gordon says, but that is not the laws, and clubs are not bound by them.
L12 C2. (a) When owing to an irregularity no result can be
obtained [see also C1(d)] 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.
I repeat my point - slow play is not automatically an irregularity.
Moreover, a result (on the board) clearly can be obtained.
It's worth noting that 12C refers to irregularities rather than infractions.
And I'm content with the assertion that if a board is not played within the allotted time limits than this is a disruption to the regular running of the tournament, so an irregularity has occured. The degree of blame, and whether the irregularity counts as an infraction, is something for the director to determine, yes. Whether a result can be obtained is down to the conditions of play, mostly they preclude playing a board after the end of the round.
Higher level competitions, particularly ones played in an online environment where you can clock individual plays, do tend to treat slow play as a de facto infraction with automatic penalties.
That's not repeating your point - last time you said it wasn't an infraction. And yes it is an irregularity, since it prevents the regular progression of pairs.
A result clearly can't be obtained if the board has been cancelled. No, Law 12 doesn't tell you when to cancel a board but it does tell you how to score it when you have done so. None of the options available allows for Not Played to be awarded rather than Av/+/-
Earlier you said:
Yes, indeed, that's why you have the option to award Av/+/- depending on the degree of fault.
Aaargh - I find those terms confusing. I meant irregularity the first time.
Not if you remove the next board from the schedule
I think what I object to here is that not playing a board, through no fault of their own, does not seem sufficient reason to give them an artificial score.
I completely agree that regular slow play should be penalised, that anyone at fault should get 40%, and anyone missing out the opportunity to get a good score because of someone else's fault should get 60%. But sometimes a contract is just difficult to bid or play.
Sorry yes - complete brain-fart there. I was thinking of if they played it, which of course isn't the situation here.
And yet most of the field manages to play these difficult boards in time. I don't recall ever seeing a board taken away due to a single instance of a pair, who otherwise play to time, having one of these difficult boards.
And I do. But then I see a lot of club bridge, played by club players. Those the EBU represents.
Could I suggest a way of dealing with slow play which has always worked for me. After a pair has been consistently holding up play for a couple of rounds, I say to them " when you move to the next table you will only play one board" (assuming 2 board rounds). I then remove the second board at that table. Then I give them 40% and the non offending pair 60% for that board. But I find that has the miraculous effect of making them play the first board more quickly so they then ask me for the second board. At the end of the round I congratulate them on catching up and I rarely have any further problems.
The directors at my club have all adopted this method of dealing with slow play, and say it result in less hassle and arguments over whose fault the slow play was.
Hope this is useful for other clubs.