|
Thread Index :: FAQ's :: Main Menu :: Posting Hints :: Emoticon Key :: Search David's Lawspage :: EBU :: ACBL :: WBF |
International Bridge Laws ForumIf you need help with the Laws or rulings from |
| To ask a question, click HERE and type in your message. Please specify your country in your query where indicated. Right click your mouse button for help on abbreviations. |
| Welcome, Register :: Log in |
| View Thread Page(s): [ 1 ] |
| [ Get Email Advice of Replies ] | [ Print ] | [ Send ] | [ Watch ] | [ < ] [ Add a Reply ] [ > ] |
|
Guest Reply |
Country: Hong Kong
Duplicate Club Game Hong Kong 16 table Mitchell Movement Halfway through the evening one EW pair had to leave because one of the players was taken ill. When scoring the session I gave the EW pair an average for the remaining tables and I also give an average to the NS pairs who did not play them. Should the NS pairs have been awarded an average plus ? |
bluejak  427 posts Forum Host Reply |
In theory every sponsoring organisation (including your club) should have a regulation to cover this!
 In practice, practically none of them ever do!  Normal is to give the pair that was ill average minus and their opponents average plus. You do not want a pair to win playing fewer boards [unless they have done fantastically well on the boards they actually played] even when they have a very acceptable reason, such as being ill. However, a pair running at 65% will feel justifiably cheated by getting two or three averages when they get no opponents.
|
|
James Vickers Reply |
Country: UK
According to L12C1 any pair who are unable to play a board through no fault of their own are entitled to an Av+. Sponsoring Organisations have no right to deviate from the laws, although many of them try to in instances where several boards have to be scrapped. I agree it is unfair to give a pair several Av+ scores, but that is the law. I believe common practice is to award 60% for the first two such boards, then reduce the percentage to 55 if three or four are to be averaged, and reduce further for more boards. Something like that, anyway. James |
|
bluejak 427 posts Forum Host Reply |
I cannot imagine why a pair should need several Ave+ results, and have never heard of this strange 55% after a few. Better is to follow the Laws.
The pair who is ill, of course, have caused the failure to play, so of course they get Ave- under the Laws.
|
|
James Vickers Reply |
Country: UK
If a pair is taken ill early in a competition you will be scattering several artificial 60% scores around the room, sometimes several to the same pair (depending on how many boards per round you are playing). In a club event where I was playing (but not directing) a sit out pair decided to look at the boards they were due to play during the sit out round (illegal, I know, but they decided to do it). The problem was they looked at the wrong set of boards by mistake, and we were playing four-board rounds. Now I have no problem giving them 4 X Av-, I think that may even be too generous. But do you give their opponents who should have played these boards against them 4 x Av+? If you "follow the law" you certainly should. There is a precedent for this "strange 55%". If a board is played once and then fouled and played at all other tables (say a card or hand is switched between slots) do you not give the lone table 60-40 and Neuberg the rest? And if it is played twice before fouling, don't you score the first two tables something like 60-55-45-40 and Neuberg the rest? Maybe I've remembered it wrong, but I thought there was something in the White Book about this. James |
|
bluejak 427 posts Forum Host Reply |
If a board is fouled then it is correct to follow Law 87 and use Neuberg on the two separate subfields. That is true, though nothing to do with the case under point. Note the figures you quote for small numbers were abandoned about fifteen years ago and Neuberg is now used for any number in the UK.
I really think we should assume the Law-makers know what they are doing and not refuse to follow them. That way madness lies! If a pair manages to screw up four boards by looking at the score-sheets then they get four Average Minuses, and the pair that does not play them get four Average Plusses. Anytrhing else is illegal - see Laws 12C1 and 12B
|
JimO  175 posts Forum Host Reply |
Country: USA
The ACBL still uses artificial numbers for a fouled board played a small number of times, though not the numbers James Bickers quoted. For a board played four or more times, or three times when it is the larger group, the Neuberg formula is used. For a board played once in one form - each side receives 60% For a board played twice - the better score receives 65%, the worse score receives 55%. For a board played three times when it is the smaller group, the scores are 70%/60%/50%. This is the only reference to an artifical 55% that I have been able to find anywhere. And it only applies to the worse of two scores for a fouled board. And only in the ACBL, as far as I know. I don't know if any other SO's use this, and I wish the ACBL would scrap it in favor of the Neuberg throughout. (A pair recently went for 1100 on a partscore deal, and got 55%!) The best solution to the original problem, is of course, to find a sustitute. Fortunately, for several of the clubs around here, I have a list of players who may be able to come over on short notice. (Or if possible I fill in myself).
|
|
James Vickers Reply |
Country: UK
I was not advocating any deviation from the laws of the game (quite the opposite), but I was under the impression that it was common practice not to give a pair too many 60% scores when they are unable to play several boards in a session through no fault of their own. When I talked about giving varied Av+ scores for boards where only two or three comparisons are possible I really had in mind the sort of figures Ed mentioned. I had no idea this was no longer standard practice in the UK - I learn a lot from this forum! I'm beginning to think I misunderstood the whole point of this question. If the law is so clear and so obviously applies to this situation, what need is there for sponsoring organisations to have a regulation about this? Don't they just apply the relevant law? James |
|
bluejak 427 posts Forum Host Reply |
Ah, but there are two quite separate things being discussed in this thread! :grin:
First, if a board cannot be played, then Law 12C1 instructs the Director what to rule - and he has no option. If that means there are a number of 60% scores, so be it. Second, if a board is fouled then Law 87B tells the Director to divide the field into two sub-fields, but it then leaves it up to the sponsoring organisation to actually score it in those two sub-fields. This is the Neuberg formula, or the artificial one for small numbers abandoned by the EBU some years ago, but still used by the ACBL.
|
|
Robert Johnson Reply |
Country: USA
Perhaps I am not following the thread correctly, but the ACBL SCORE program handles boards not played as follows: You enter "N" for the board not played, and the scoring program gives each pair a Match Point score equal to the average the pair has achieved on all (other) boards. So if this happens when a 65% pair is meeting a 50% pair, the first would receive 2/3rds of points available on this board, and the other pair would receive 1/2, thereby neither rewarding or penalizing either, but maintaining their overall average. bob johnson |
|
bluejak 427 posts Forum Host Reply |
Yes, but you have chosen to enter "N" for an unplayed board, and this is not your only choice. You can also enter Average Plusses and Minusses using ACBLScore.
If a board is not played which would not normally be played by a pair then it is correct and normal for them to get no score on a board. However, when they should be playing the board it becomes somewhat different. If a pair would normally be playing a board but cannot do so because their opponents have messed it up in some way to enter an "N" is wrong. It is illegal and very unfair on the pairs who should be getting A+, and benefits unfairly the pair who should be getting A-.
|
| View Thread Page(s): [ 1 ] |
| [ Get Email Advice of Replies ] | [ Print ] | [ Send ] | [ Watch ] | [ < ] [ Add a Reply ] [ > ] |
|
9 bridge player(s) online in the last 15 minutes - 1 bridgetalk member(s), 0 incognito and 8 guest(s). (The most ever was 52 09:45:43 Fri Feb 14 2003) bluejak |
|
Total Members: 393, Newest Member: edm. | Register :: Log in The time is now 00:37:06 Wed Aug 27 2003 |
© 2001-2003 BbBoy.net
|
Thread Index :: FAQ's :: Main Menu :: Posting Hints :: Emoticon Key :: Search David's Lawspage :: EBU :: ACBL :: WBF |
Legend :: 
Read Topic :: 
Unread Topic
Read Topic :: Unread Topic
Help | Full Format: ON :: OFF | Text: ON :: OFF | Email Status