[gordontd]

 aguahombre, on 2013-November-20, 19:25, said:

An award of 3 IMPS to both sides doesn't change the VP conversion.

Certainly it would. It would give VP scores that don't add up to 20, as specifically allowed by Law 12C1f. I'm surprised you don't know this - it's not an unusual procedure.

[gordontd]

 aguahombre, on 2013-November-20, 19:25, said:

A did not play board 3 against B. A did not play board 4 against B. Pran already has it right.

One pair of team A did play board 3 against team B. One pair of team A did play board 4 against team B, and got what was judged to have been an unusually favourable result against them in doing so. That's why we're having this discussion.

[gordontd]

 pran, on 2013-November-20, 17:05, said:

Who are you to state that team A could not possibly have made better than +3 IMPs against their opponents' "successful" play?

As you ought to know, when you assign a score you do so on the basis of what you judge to be likely or probable, not what could possibly happen in unlikely circumstances.

[Trinidad]

The problem is that it is entirely arbitrary to establish which boards were correct and which ones weren't.

Suppose that at table 1 team A got a fabulous result on board 3... and that at table 2 team B got a fantastic result on a different board 3 (bidding and making a cold grand slam in a 4-3 fit). Then which of the results are you going to allow? Should the fact that the rest of the room (playing different matches) played the same board 3 as table 1 decide that table 1 played the correct board and, therefore, team A gets a lot of IMPs and team B loses them?

I would rather see the fact that the rest of the room played the same boards as table 1 as "coincidental" then to judge that the fabulous result stays and the fantastic is thrown out.

Rik

[NickRW]

 aguahombre, on 2013-November-20, 19:25, said:

None of that matters. A did not play board 3 against B. A did not play board 4 against B.

Quite right.

Directors consulting crystal balls about what might have happened on another table where the same deal should have but did not take place, through no fault of any of the participants, is - well - plain silly to put it politely.

Get the organisers to invest in dealing machines that can read the board number next time.

[Trinidad]

 gordontd, on 2013-November-21, 01:18, said:

One pair of team A did play board 3 against team B. One pair of team A did play board 4 against team B, and got what was judged to have been an unusually favourable result against them in doing so. That's why we're having this discussion.

Which pair of team A played the real board 3?

Both pairs got board 3 from the TD as they were dealt, followed the TD's instructions, and played it. They didn't do anything substantially different. The boards were not touched by other contestants.

Both boards 3 are equivalent: There is no real one and a messed up one. There is no reason to prefer one board over the other. The fact that in other matches, or in an other tournament for that matter, board 3 from table 1 was played is irrelevant.

How do you solve this if both teams take 13 tricks in 1NT XX (where the normal contract on both boards would be 12 tricks in 7NT)? Keep the unusually favorable result from one team and discard the unusually favorable result from the other team? Ouch! I can already see the players checking the hand records. They have 40+ IMPs riding on the question what board the TD considers "real" and which one he considers faulty.

Rik

[blackshoe]

 Trinidad, on 2013-November-21, 09:53, said:

Which pair of team A played the real board 3?

Both pairs got board 3 from the TD as they were dealt, followed the TD's instructions, and played it. They didn't do anything substantially different. The boards were not touched by other contestants.

Both boards 3 are equivalent: There is no real one and a messed up one. There is no reason to prefer one board over the other. The fact that in other matches, or in an other tournament for that matter, board 3 from table 1 was played is irrelevant.

If the event was set up such that all matches play the same set of boards, which may well be the case these days with pre-duplicated boards, then which "board 3" was played in the other matches is certainly relevant. As to whether it should make a difference in this ruling, I haven't decided yet.

[gnasher]

 Trinidad, on 2013-November-21, 03:34, said:

Suppose that at table 1 team A got a fabulous result on board 3... and that at table 2 team B got a fantastic result on a different board 3 (bidding and making a cold grand slam in a 4-3 fit). Then which of the results are you going to allow?

Both of them. We have two different boards, each played once. On each board we work out what the likely results were and give them weights, then IMP the actual result against the expected results.

[jallerton]

 Trinidad, on 2013-November-21, 09:53, said:

Which pair of team A played the real board 3?

Both pairs got board 3 from the TD as they were dealt, followed the TD's instructions, and played it. They didn't do anything substantially different. The boards were not touched by other contestants.

Both boards 3 are equivalent: There is no real one and a messed up one. There is no reason to prefer one board over the other. The fact that in other matches, or in an other tournament for that matter, board 3 from table 1 was played is irrelevant.

How do you solve this if both teams take 13 tricks in 1NT XX (where the normal contract on both boards would be 12 tricks in 7NT)? Keep the unusually favorable result from one team and discard the unusually favorable result from the other team? Ouch! I can already see the players checking the hand records. They have 40+ IMPs riding on the question what board the TD considers "real" and which one he considers faulty.

Rik

The real board 3 was the one played at table 2 (and at ten other tables).

The board 3 played at table 1 was not dealt in accordance with the TD's instructions (Law 6E3/4). I think we can assume that the TD instructed his 'assistants' (in thie case, the people operating the dealing machines and the dealing machines themselves) to deal the hands in accordance with the hand records.

[RMB1]

 jallerton, on 2013-November-21, 17:10, said:

The real board 3 was the one played at table 2 (and at ten other tables).

The board 3 played at table 1 was not dealt in accordance with the TD's instructions (Law 6E3/4). I think we can assume that the TD instructed his 'assistants' (in thie case, the people operating the dealing machines and the dealing machines themselves) to deal the hands in accordance with the hand records.

I think the two versions of board 3/4 are fouled boards according to Law 87. In scoring the boards, this law does not distinguish between the original/intended version and the transposed version. So I think that in applying Law 86D and Law 87, a non-offending side should get the benefit of a favourable score on either version of the board, regardless whether it was the original form of the board.

More fundamentally, I think that any score for a non-offending team on a board where they did not get a proper comparison should be at least average plus. Only if it is knockout play (Law 86B) should a non-offending side end up losing the board.

[axman]

 jallerton, on 2013-November-20, 00:14, said:

At a recent EBL event, each table was provided with its own set of boards.

At table 1(team A vs team B) in a VP-ed round robin teams match, there was a duplimating error as the hands belonging to board 3 were 'dealt' into a board 4 (so showing game all, dealer West) and the hands supposed to belong to board 4 were 'dealt' into a board 3 (so showing E/W Vulnerable, dealer South). At all other tables, including table 2 involving teams A & B, the hands were 'dealt' as intended.

How should the TD approach this sort of situation? In particular.

1. Are the results obtained at table 1 (using the wrong dealers/vulnerabilities) relevant?
2. Are the results obtained at tables not involving teams A & B relevant?
3. Say the TD judges that board 3 was most likely to have been flat (but with uncertainties either way) had the board been duplicated correctly at table 1. What score should he assign to teams A and B?
4. Say the TD judges that team A had a potentially good result at table 2 on Board 4 (they defeated 3NT, when the alternative game of 4♠ would often be allowed to make in practice). If he assigns +12 IMPs to team A, what score does he assign to team B?

I would find out what the CoC has to say for the instance where the TD commits the error of misduplicating the boards.

My casual observation is that the TD has effectively truncated the match [which is similar to a match which was originally scheduled to be fewer boards than the field]. Given the non linear character of VPs I would wonder about the efficacy of factoring.

[pran]

 axman, on 2013-November-22, 08:53, said:

I would find out what the CoC has to say for the instance where the TD commits the error of misduplicating the boards.

My casual observation is that the TD has effectively truncated the match [which is similar to a match which was originally scheduled to be fewer boards than the field]. Given the non linear character of VPs I would wonder about the efficacy of factoring.

I have no idea what (if anything) the relevant CoC says here, but we have in Norway a general CoC rule that might be useful here: The IMP to VP conversion shall in certain situations with truncated matches be based on the number of boards actually played and scored, not on the number of boards scheduled.

[nige1]

Law 86d should be applicable here. It really comes into its own, however, when a pair at the first table make what would have been a costly error but, miraculously the board arrives fouled at the second table.

[jallerton]

 axman, on 2013-November-22, 08:53, said:

I would find out what the CoC has to say for the instance where the TD commits the error of misduplicating the boards.

For the benefit of those who have never attended an EBL event, I should point out two general principles:

1.EBL directors and officials have the power to make retrospective changes to the CoC after an event has already started.
2.EBL directors and officials cannot envisage the possibility of an EBL director or official making a mistake.

Following on from the second principle, the CoC do not mention the scenario in this thread.

[jallerton]

Thanks for all your comments on this (especially the on topic ones!).

My team was Team B.

The TD did not explain his reasoning, but he assigned:

Board 3: 0 IMPs to both sides
Board 4: +12 IMPs to Team A, -9 IMPS to team B

Some of our team felt that the Board 4 assignment of -9 IMPS was fair, in the sense that we had done badly on the hands we played, but I was not sure whether it complied with the letter or intention of Law 86. Moreover, I didn't understand why we should not get +3IMPs for board 3.

The Law says:

'In team play when the Director awards an adjusted score (excluding any award that ensues from application of Law 6D2), and a result has been
obtained between the same contestants at another table, the Director may assign an adjusted score in IMPs or total points (and should do so when that result appears favourable to the non-offending side).'

It seems to me that the part in brackets is only helpful when one side has helped to cause the fouled board to be played, because that tells the TD what to do when there is one offending side. What is less clear to me is how "the TD may assign an adjusted score" should be interpreted; one could say that this gives the TD licence to assign whatever scores he wants!

[blackshoe]

 jallerton, on 2013-December-08, 12:11, said:

What is less clear to me is how "the TD may assign an adjusted score" should be interpreted; one could say that this gives the TD licence to assign whatever scores he wants!

Well, no. He still has to comply with Law 12.

[iviehoff]

 blackshoe, on 2013-December-08, 12:37, said:

Well, no. He still has to comply with Law 12.

12A1 and 12C1d give pretty broad scope for some inventive rulings. Although if appeals are to be abolished, then perhaps directors can make "mistakes" and not much can be done about it.

[Vampyr]

 pran, on 2013-November-22, 09:51, said:

I have no idea what (if anything) the relevant CoC says here, but we have in Norway a general CoC rule that might be useful here: The IMP to VP conversion shall in certain situations with truncated matches be based on the number of boards actually played and scored, not on the number of boards scheduled.

I do not think that this regulation is legal. Boards that are scheduled but not played are not scored as "not played". We have been through this before.

[pran]

 pran, on 2013-November-22, 09:51, said:

I have no idea what (if anything) the relevant CoC says here, but we have in Norway a general CoC rule that might be useful here: The IMP to VP conversion shall in certain situations with truncated matches be based on the number of boards actually played and scored, not on the number of boards scheduled.

 Vampyr, on 2013-December-09, 10:13, said:

I do not think that this regulation is legal. Boards that are scheduled but not played are not scored as "not played". We have been through this before.

This regulation applies when there are numerous boards that could not be scored. One example is when half the match is void, for instance because the teams in one room was seated the wrong way. Say that the match is scheduled with 16 Boards in each half-match.

Before you maintain that Our regulation is illegal just consider the alternatives, you have 16 scored boards:
1: Use the 16 results and convert the IMP total to VP using the 16 Boards table
2: Use the 16 results, adjust the IMP total for each team by adding or subtracting 48 IMPs (corresponding to A+ or A-) and convert the final result to VP using the 32 Boards table.