Board switched during the evening
Board 2 got through 7 rounds of the evening pairs but after being played at Table 5 the cards were switched and the board was, subsequently, played at tables 4, 3 and 2 effectively arrow-switched. Questions were raised and, it transpired, the hands had been moved round 1 slot in the board (presumably the usual way, by Dummy trying to make space for his cards on the table).
Simplistically, the cards that had been West's for the first seven times had ended in the South slot; South's cards were in the East slot, East's cards were with North and North's cards in the West slot.
It was announced at the end of play that results were interim/provisional and that adjustments had to be made. The Scorer takes the computer (and BridgeMates) home after play each evening.
I was TD and I instructed the Scorer to simply arrow-switch the pairs at Tables 4, 3 and 2 to obtain a realistic result.
The Scorer went home and decided not to implement what I had suggested. He decided to treat the board as "fouled" and he created two subsets, one of 7 tables and one of three tables. He says he applied Neuberg and obtained adjustments that he applied to every one of the twenty pairs playing.
My question is two-fold:
1. if the cards are put back into the wrong slots but consistently, am I right in saying the Scorer should just arrow-switch the pairs later playing the board?
2. I understand, from my reading of the white book, that it is acceptable not to penalise the pairs at the table where it was misboarded - is this true?
If you feel the need to smile at this point, I can let you know that the contracts o this board ranged from 1C passed out up to 7H doubled!
Comments
Well law 87 deals with fouled boards
LAW 87 ‐ FOULED BOARD
A. Definition
A board is considered to be fouled if the Director determines that a card (or more than one) was
displaced in the board, or if he determines that the dealer or vulnerability differed between
copies of the same board, and the contestants who should have had a score comparison did not
play the board in identical form for such reason.
B. Pairs and Individual Scoring
In scoring a fouled board the Director determines as closely as possible which scores were
obtained on the board in its correct form and which in the changed form(s). He divides the scores
on that basis into groups and rates each group separately as provided in the regulations for the
tournament. (In the absence of a relevant regulation the Director selects and announces his
method.)
Please note that Board two is not symmetrical i.e. NOT 'played in identical form' since NS are vulnerable and EW aren't. This could have an effect on decisions to compete whilst the board is in play. Similarly the order of bidding has changed: this could affect who was declarer and who had the opening lead. So I think you are wrong with regards to your first question.
You can always 'penalise' the pair that caused the problem by giving them a verbal warning. regulation 2.8.2.f (passing on the wrong 13 cards) suggests a PP, although it is up to the club to decide whether to implement it for a first offence.The standard PP is 25% of a top, but this can be amended at the director's discretion.
No, you are not correct. The board was played with a different dealer and vulnerability at these tables than at the earlier ones.
I think it's a very annoying thing to do, which inconveniences everyone else, so the very least they should get is a stern warning, but they should definitely be penalised if they turn the board again, even if it doesn't get misboarded.
This is one of my hobby-horses, and it led to the change to Law 7 in the last revision of the laws!
TawVale: "I was TD and I instructed the Scorer to simply arrow-switch the pairs at Tables 4, 3 and 2 to obtain a realistic result.
The Scorer went home and decided not to implement what I had suggested. He decided to treat the board as "fouled" and he created two subsets, one of 7 tables and one of three tables. He says he applied Neuberg and obtained adjustments that he applied to every one of the twenty pairs playing."
You were wrong, and the scorer did exactly the right thing, which is what Weejonnnie said, but not nearly forcefully enough. It's not only the vulnerability that's important, the position of the dealer can make a difference to the auction and play.
I would try to find out how the fouling is likely to have happened by talking to the two pairs at the last table where it was played correctly, and warn them to be more careful in future. Quite often it's difficult to identify the culprit, and I wouldn't be too bothered about fining them for a one-off offence.
Thanks, folks, you've put me right again.
:)
Yes the scorer did the right thing to score the event and the scorer has the authority to correct obvious errors; but when the TD has "ruled" that the scores be scored as arrow switched, the scorer should have gone back to the TD and suggested that the TD was wrong.
Can you tell me how to divide into groups and score them separately. Is there a facility in EBUScore to do this or is it a manual exercise if if so how is it done. I have never had the need to do it and have no idea how.
Go to the ENTER scores tab, choose board number and in the extreme right column (score) just enter F for all the tables (pairs) that played the board in the wrong orientation.
Thanks for that. Never used this "F" facility. What is the criteria for using it and setting up a separate group ? How many times should a board be fouled to use this rather than just awarding AV+/AV+ ? Does the White Book define this ?
Yes, it's all in the White Book, section 4.2.3.
Anything more than one should be marked F. EBUScore applies the "small subfield formula" where applicable.
It is worth pointing out that Scorebridge gets the "small subfield formula" wrong. In fact it just applies Neuberg and ignores it. Our club has now switched to EBUScore, but I wrote a document a while back with instructions for scoring a fouled board using Scorebridge. It wasn't that simple!
Black Topaz: "It is worth pointing out that Scorebridge gets the "small subfield formula" wrong."
I imagine ScoreBridge is catering for games played in other jurisdictions which do not follow the English advice for scoring small subfields. It's a bit unfair to call it "wrong". As EBUScore is the official scoring programme of the EBU, it's more likely to follow EBU guidelines.
Anyone know how long it is since the Small Sub-field Formula was introduced? I now wish I hadn't recently thrown out my copy of a version of the White Book of a few years ago!
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
It was reintroduced in August 2015.
Other national and international bodies have used this compromise scoring method for decades(?) It was quietly dropped in England when someone claimed that compensating for not having proper comparisons was illegal.
One player (who cares about the iniquity of such things as triangles and small subfields) was a voice in the wilderness saying that something should change for small subfields. Eventually, his voice was listened to and the arguments of the "neuberg always" lobby were forgotten.
The text in the 2019 White Book says effectively that the formula is a fudge compromise.
Thanks, Robin. It did seem about 3 or 4 years ago but I wasn't sure.
So, it means that the way Scorebridge scores small sub-fields is as per the pre-August 2015 White Book, so it was "right" till not long ago.
The regulation at my club is that we use the method used by whichever scoring program we happen to be using for the event (which means it depends on the day of the week!), which is also a nice fudge compromise. :)
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
As long as you can input raw percentages or match points as an adjustment then you can easily approximate the small subfield scores by putting in two/three artificial scores.