[NickRW]

I wonder if any of you legal eagles can give me a quick answer here please:

A board is played for the first time, result correctly entered on the traveller, but NS compare hands and put them away wrongly.

Next table play the board, but the result is clearly at variance with the previous result and call the director.

The hands are corrected to what they should have been and the remaining tables play this board without incident.

Director wants the 2nd table to be given A+ to both sides (no problem) and the first table result stands for EW, but A- to NS. This is clearly written as his decision on the traveller.

Only problem is that Scorebridge won't accept -620 (the actual table result) for EW and A- for NS. What I can do is give NS a fine. My only problem is that I feel that a 10% fine would be usual - still giving NS a near top - but the director clearly intended 40%.

What is usual in this situation? I can increase the fine to NS to bring their actual matchpoints into line with the directors intentions - but it seems quite steep.

Nick

[Echognome]

Seems obvious to me to clarify with the TD his intent and score accordingly. The fact that you think the fine is too much is irrelevant in my view. As a scorer, it is not really your place to question the TD's decisions is it?

[NickRW]

Echognome, on 2011-April-22, 17:00, said:

Seems obvious to me to clarify with the TD his intent and score accordingly. The fact that you think the fine is too much is irrelevant in my view. As a scorer, it is not really your place to question the TD's decisions is it?

Yeah, but the director has gone to bed - it is gone midnight - and although I perfectly understand his intent (coz I spoke to him about it) he wasn't sure if he was following the rules properly - and since Scorebridge won't allow me to do what he wanted - I tentatively assume what he intended was not strictly the proper way to do it.

Nick

[Echognome]

Fair enough Nick. Then I think the question is not what the scorer should do, but rather what should the ruling be. It's a fair question, just a different one (IMO) than what a scorer should do.

[blackshoe]

The scorer should inform the TD that the scoring program won't allow the score the TD wants to be entered. This should raise a red flag, and the TD should read his law book (which he probably should have done the night before) and figure out the correct ruling. Whether the scorer should wake up the TD to so inform him is a judgement call.

IMO, the correct ruling would be to allow the result at all tables except the second table to stand, give both pairs at that table avg+ (which is what he did), and give NS at the first table a PP.

I suppose another option is for the scorer to enter a PP for NS 1 that will cancel any score beyond 40% of a top on that board, since that seems to be what the TD wanted. But that's still not a good ruling, IMO, and the TD should reconsider. I think whatever the "standard" PP is ought to be enough, though I could see raising it if either North or South touched someone else's hand (see Law 7B3). In effect, that would be a second PP for the violation of 7B3.

[NickRW]

blackshoe, on 2011-April-22, 17:43, said:

The scorer should inform the TD that the scoring program won't allow the score the TD wants to be entered. This should raise a red flag, and the TD should read his law book (which he probably should have done the night before) and figure out the correct ruling. Whether the scorer should wake up the TD to so inform him is a judgement call.

IMO, the correct ruling would be to allow the result at all tables except the second table to stand, give both pairs at that table avg+ (which is what he did), and give NS at the first table a PP.

I suppose another option is for the scorer to enter a PP for NS 1 that will cancel any score beyond 40% of a top on that board, since that seems to be what the TD wanted. But that's still not a good ruling, IMO, and the TD should reconsider. I think whatever the "standard" PP is ought to be enough, though I could see raising it if either North or South touched someone else's hand (see Law 7B3). In effect, that would be a second PP for the violation of 7B3.

OK, well what I gather from that is that a PP is the proper way to do it and that Scorebridge is right in not accepting A- for NS1. The only debate is the amount of the PP. There is no "norm" at this club - we just don't normally do fines (as is common I think in clubs) and 10% is what is typical I gather from the scibblings in various threads here.

It doesn't really make a bucket load of difference as 10% leaves the pair concerned 6th of 10 pairs (which is where they would have been with no fine at all) - and a whopping 60% (to reduce their score to 40% on the board) would only drag them down one place. There being no masterpoints or anything else riding on it I'm happy with 10% and I am pretty sure I think the director will be when I tell him in the morning!

Nick

[blackshoe]

NickRW, on 2011-April-22, 18:00, said:

10% is what is typical I gather from the scibblings in various threads here.

In England, yes. In North America, "standard" is 25% of a top.

NickRW, on 2011-April-22, 18:00, said:

It doesn't really make a bucket load of difference as 10% leaves the pair concerned 6th of 10 pairs (which is where they would have been with no fine at all) - and a whopping 60% (to reduce their score to 40% on the board) would only drag them down one place. There being no masterpoints or anything else riding on it I'm happy with 10% and I am pretty sure I think the director will be when I tell him in the morning!

I do not think the size of a PP should be used as a means to affect a pairs standings. Yes, I realize that some players will take the attitude that "it doesn't affect my standings, so why should I care?" Now I think the TD has good reason to find a size of PP that causes the player concerned to care.

[axman]

NickRW, on 2011-April-22, 18:00, said:

OK, well what I gather from that is that a PP is the proper way to do it and that Scorebridge is right in not accepting A- for NS1. The only debate is the amount of the PP. There is no "norm" at this club - we just don't normally do fines (as is common I think in clubs) and 10% is what is typical I gather from the scibblings in various threads here.

It doesn't really make a bucket load of difference as 10% leaves the pair concerned 6th of 10 pairs (which is where they would have been with no fine at all) - and a whopping 60% (to reduce their score to 40% on the board) would only drag them down one place. There being no masterpoints or anything else riding on it I'm happy with 10% and I am pretty sure I think the director will be when I tell him in the morning!

Nick

THe R1 score is a rightful score and there is no basis for altering it on the facts presented.

The conscientious R2 players brought an irregularity to the attention of the TD before it did additional harm and it is appropriate to assign A+/A+.

The law admonishes players to to put the cards in the proper pockets and not to remove cards from completed boards.

Based on the fact that R1 NS fouled the board causing an Adj score, L90 provides for a PP. This fouling in addition to improperly delaying the game has caused 10 or 15 adj scores [neuberg] and I want these players in the future to be reluctant to allow anyone to remove cards from the pockets of a completed board without a compelling reason; and it wouldn't hurt should they feel obliged to advertize the kind of penalty that it can draw. In america, the normal PP for fouling the duplication of a multi-section event is 100%. Personally, I am reluctant to assess less than 100% in this case, but in no event less than 50%.

[blackshoe]

axman, on 2011-April-22, 19:36, said:

In america, the normal PP for fouling the duplication of a multi-section event is 100%.

Really? Source, please.

[gordontd]

NickRW, on 2011-April-22, 16:52, said:

Only problem is that Scorebridge won't accept -620 (the actual table result) for EW and A- for NS.

I'm surprised by this, but don't have a version of Scorebridge here to check. Have you tried putting in 40% rather than AV-?

NickRW, on 2011-April-22, 16:52, said:

What I can do is give NS a fine. My only problem is that I feel that a 10% fine would be usual - still giving NS a near top - but the director clearly intended 40%.

A valid result was obtained at the table. There is no basis for taking away the score and replacing it with an artificial score. By all means give them a fine for misboarding (10% is the standard amount in the EBU, but you can give more if you think it's justified; 20% would "balance the books"[edited]), but you can't take away their score.

This post has been edited by gordontd: 2011-April-23, 01:24

[NickRW]

gordontd, on 2011-April-23, 01:02, said:

I'm surprised by this, but don't have a version of Scorebridge here to check. Have you tried putting in 40% rather than AV-?

If I put 40% in the NS column and an actual score in the EW column, Scorebridge changes it to 40% and 60%, so, no, I can't do that either. It has to be done by a figure in the fine column - in this case 0.8 (or whatever) for 10% on an 8 point top.

Nick

[bluejak]

The ruling was illegal. Fine, but that's the TD's problem, not the scorer's.

Yes, it is reasonable for a scorer to check a score with the TD, especially when it is clearly illegal, but if that is impractical then the scorer should score it as close as possible to what the TD ruled. This involves putting the table result in then a matchpoint adjustment for the one N/S pair? Ok, there you go.

Incidentally, I am not sure that Scorebridge <spit> allows split scores in any way. Mind you, a split between an artificial score and an assigned score is probably not possible in Jeff Smith either!

[axman]

blackshoe, on 2011-April-22, 19:50, said:

Really? Source, please.

It was publicized via the PA at a nationals.

At some tournament it was announced the PP was 200% to both sides without regard to fault. At that time, I recollect feeling rankled due to being coerced to not trust the other three players at the table.

[blackshoe]

Bah. An announcement via PA does not, as far as I'm concerned, establish policy, except for the tournament (and perhaps the event) at which the announcement is made.

It occurs to me that there is no regulation in ACBL that establishes any "standard PP". Unless there is something in the tech files and the tech files are defined as regulations (which as far as I know they're not, and if they are they should be made available to everyone, not just to TDs who have ACBLScore). The EBU has such a regulation, btw (WB 90.2 and 12.5).

IAC, this was not, afaics, a multi-session event — and it certainly didn't take place in North America.

By law, if you the TD want to give a 100% penalty for this, or 50%, or 200%, or 10,000%, that's within your authority. But I'm not so sure it's a good idea. And if somebody is yammering over the PA system about 100% or 200% penalties, well, I'm going to ask "on whose authority?"

[ddrankin]

blackshoe, on 2011-April-22, 19:50, said:

Really? Source, please.

It is in the ACBL general conditions of contest, but in non-NABC events, fouling at duplication is now 1/4 board.
http://www.acbl.org/...l-AllEvents.pdf

[blackshoe]

Ah. Okay, then.

Quote

1. Fouling or Misduplicating a Board - In Individual, Pair and B-A-M Team events, penalties for fouling a board will automatically apply any time the offense causes the board to be scored as a fouled board.
• a. In NABC+ events, a full board penalty for a foul during duplication will apply to all contestants assigned to the table at which the board was "made" unless the director determines that there are mitigating circumstances.
• In regional and sectional events, a 1⁄4 board penalty for a foul during duplication will apply to all contestants assigned to the table at which the board was “made” unless the director determines that there were mitigating circumstances.
• In all events, a full board penalty for a foul during play will be imposed on the pair or pairs responsible.

I suppose now we can debate whether "all events" applies to clubs.

[pran]

NickRW, on 2011-April-22, 16:52, said:

I wonder if any of you legal eagles can give me a quick answer here please:

A board is played for the first time, result correctly entered on the traveller, but NS compare hands and put them away wrongly.

Next table play the board, but the result is clearly at variance with the previous result and call the director.

The hands are corrected to what they should have been and the remaining tables play this board without incident.

Director wants the 2nd table to be given A+ to both sides (no problem) and the first table result stands for EW, but A- to NS. This is clearly written as his decision on the traveller.

Only problem is that Scorebridge won't accept -620 (the actual table result) for EW and A- for NS. What I can do is give NS a fine. My only problem is that I feel that a 10% fine would be usual - still giving NS a near top - but the director clearly intended 40%.

What is usual in this situation? I can increase the fine to NS to bring their actual matchpoints into line with the directors intentions - but it seems quite steep.

Nick

Table result stands, effective for both sides. NS is awarded a PP. (It seems that the Director intended 10% of a top score)

[Rossoneri]

bluejak, on 2011-April-23, 08:34, said:

The ruling was illegal. Fine, but that's the TD's problem, not the scorer's.

Yes, it is reasonable for a scorer to check a score with the TD, especially when it is clearly illegal, but if that is impractical then the scorer should score it as close as possible to what the TD ruled. This involves putting the table result in then a matchpoint adjustment for the one N/S pair? Ok, there you go.

Incidentally, I am not sure that Scorebridge <spit> allows split scores in any way. Mind you, a split between an artificial score and an assigned score is probably not possible in Jeff Smith either!

I've tried it in Jeff Smith's. I can't seem to get it to work!

[bluejak]

Hardly surprising. My understanding is that it was completely illegal under the last Law book, and under this Law book it is such an unlikely occurrence as not to be worth worrying about, so Jeff probably does not consider it a possibility.

[gordontd]

Rossoneri, on 2011-April-25, 16:52, said:

I've tried it in Jeff Smith's. I can't seem to get it to work!

I imagine there's an imperfect workaround to give 50% (but not 60% or 40%) to one side, and the table result to the other.