Hesitation Mitchell - Wrong progress at 'Hestitaion' Table
Seeking advice please.
Standard 8 Table Hesitation Mitchell with 15 pairs and NS 1 being missing pair to avoid board sharing. Despite a clear explanation of the movement being played (it is a regularly played movement) at the beginning of the session the following occurred.
After completion of the 1st Round pair 8, at the hesitation table, didn't progress to 'sit-out' but stayed 8 N/S against pair 15 but this wasn't noticed until the end of Round 2. In error Pair 16 progressed to 'sit-out.
Therefore how should round 2 be scored at table 8?
Should both pairs 8 and 16 share the blame as the instructions were very clearly made at the start of play.
In order to correct the movement pair 16 'sat-out' again for Round 3.
Comments
At the end of Round 2, I would have deemed that Pairs 8 and 16 had swapped pair numbers and that Round 1 had been played in an arrow-switched state. That would just involve swapping the names round for pairs 8 and 16, and arrow-switching Round 1 and Table 8 on the scoring program.
Using your solution, you just delete Pair 16 and substitute Pair 8 on the travellers for Round 2 at Table 8, but, as you say, a pair has ended up sitting out two rounds.
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
This does seem the best solution, it's a shame to have a pair sit out twice. I'd probably not have worked that out if I was put on the spot though, and done the same as the original poster.
I was wondering if you could just move the pivot table and have a moving sit out, but then the relay would be in the wrong place. Might also be quite tricky with bridgemates, travellers would actually make that easier. The laws are quite clear, as came up in a recent thread, that in any event the results from round 2 are scored as played.
The first round of hesitation movements is on my paranoia checklist for directing, after round 1 you're OK since following another pair seems to be one concept players easily grasp.
At the main club that I play at the boards are moved by the director, mainly due to the layout of the building with essentially 3 rooms in 1. So this issue does not arise very often.
I normally have a brief shout out at the start of a session I direct, giving details of table numbers and movements and ask that North checks that they have the right boards and opponents. Should I pass on the wrong boards (perhaps forgetting a relay), would the responsibility be mine as director rather than the players (so no penalty) or are they still required to check?
We didn't really have a solution, after some discussion we didn't want to delay the game further so opted to continued as if no wrong progression had occurred and seek advice on how the scoring should be amended. Therefore I assume from the quote above that we just change the scores for Round 2 to Pair 8 who actually played them in error. Is that correct? Seems to me that gives them an unfair advantage but I am merely a scorer.
This doesn't necessarily confer an advantage, some pairs play all the boards after all. It just depends on whether they get a good result or not, is all.
Simmoal, yes, that's correct, but it's just occurred to me that as Pair 16 were "due" to play three boards that they didn't, you should make an adjustment for them to give them three Av+s, but as you can't have a line on a traveller with only one pair, you'd have to do it by working out some negative "fine", effectively giving them 30% of a Top (or more if they scored better than 60% on the session).
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
Thanks, that sounds fine if only I knew how to do it!
OK here is how to do it when you need to give one pair an AVE+ on a board and there is no line in the score sheet to do it. We therefore need to give this pair their average+ by means of an adjustment under the properties button in EBUscore (see below for Scorebridge). We need to calculate that adjustment this way:
Firstly if the pair have scored 60% or more we need do nothing as, in that case, an average+ should not change their overall percentage.
If they have scored less than 60% then say over the boards they have played they have got A matchpoints out of a possible maximum of B. We need to know what adjustment, X, we should add to A so that their percentage is increased to the same that it would have been if they had played another 3 boards and scored 60% on each of them. Let us say that the top on each of the boards they did not play was T matchpoints (in this case it should be the same on all 3 boards) then we want them to end up with the percentage they would have got if they had scored 0.6T matchpoints on each of those boards. i.e.
A+X....... = ......... (A + (3x0.6T))
_____ ...................._________
B .......................... (B+3T)
if we then do the algebra we get:
X................=............T(1.8B - 3A)
................................___________
.....................................T + 3B
(Have had to use ........... to get the fractions to line up properly and to use three lines for them as there is no underscore available))
We can then calculate X as A and B appear in the standard results report and we can easily see T from the score sheet entries.
You can than use the Properties section of EBUScore to add this as adjustment, X, to this pair so that they end up with their correct percentage. You can achieve the same result in Scorebridge by creating a negative penalty, -X, against this pair on any one score sheet on which they appear.
Many thanks Paul, very much appreciated we can now correct the scores.