# Fouled Board in Subfield of 2

Neuberg’s formula is not used.' I was wondering why the second constraint is there as it doesnt seem used in WBF and European Laws?

The particular example occured in a recent duplicate of five results on each board. On one board, three scores are followed by Fouled scores -110,-200.

Because the Fouled Group has only two scores, it is not a third of the scores. Applying Neuberg the Fouled score of -110 scores

(0 x 5) + (5 - 2) / 2 = 1.5 MPs. Without the second constraint it woul be 65%-55% so it would score 55% of 8 = 4.4 MPs.

## Comments

Just to clarify EW have 110 and 200 so the MPs for EW with 110 are 1.5 MPs (NS get 6.5 MPs)

It was introduced following a couple of cases in which extremely random results in a small subfield led to outcomes that seemed unfair. Essentially it says that if the subgroup is very small in comparison to the overall field, then artificial scores are awarded rather than using Neuberg.

In your case you have five results of which two are in a subfield, so although this subfield is less than three, it is more than one third of the overall field and Neuberg is still used. Were the second condition not there, all tables would be getting artificial results.

[edited, and I hope my answer is correct now!]