[VixTD]

This is not really a question, just a tale of the strange things that happen at the club. Last night we had ten pairs competing in a five-table Howell, including one very inexperienced pair.

I called the move while one slow table were still playing, expecting them to catch up. They left the board they had been playing (board 21) on the table, not sure where to pass it, and moved for the next round. The new pairs (including the novices) sat down and played the board that was in front of them, then noticed the set of three boards they were due to play.

I overheard them talking about their mistake, but let them carry on and play the scheduled boards, which they managed to do in the time remaining. At no point did they call me. Both pairs played boards 19-21 in subsequent rounds, not in the same direction.

I didn't bother the novice pair, who were probably oblivious to all of this, but I asked the other pair what score they had got originally, and adjusted the traveller on the scoring programme so that score stood, and gave the other two pairs 60%, and fined both offending pairs 10% of a top. I told all the pairs involved what I was doing, but I had a job convincing them it was fair, because the good pair who played the board for the second time managed to get a bottom, so I took a non-offending side's top away and replaced it with 60%. The better of the two offending pairs felt they deserved their bottom and would have been quite happy to have been left with it.

I suppose the only doubt I had in my mind was whether to fine the novice pair, who had been sitting EW. The NS pair had charge of the bridgemate and sight of the movement card, which told them which boards they were to play. The novice pair had to be shown where to go and how to put scores into the bridgemates. Even so, all of them ought to know that three-board sets don't start at 21, so something was amiss.

I would have fined an experienced EW pair with a clear conscience, but do you think I was right in this case? Where do you draw the line?

[gnasher]

I don't understand. When you overheard them talking about their mistake, didn't you tell them not to replay board 21 later?

[barmar]

I don't know if it's supported by a law, but I'd probably have given the NOS in the replay the maximum of their actual score and ave+ -- there's no reason to take away their top because of the opponent's error.

[pran]

 barmar, on 2015-February-08, 16:00, said:

I don't know if it's supported by a law, but I'd probably have given the NOS in the replay the maximum of their actual score and ave+ -- there's no reason to take away their top because of the opponent's error.

Do you have any problem with

Law 15B said:

If any player plays a board he has previously played, with the correct opponents or otherwise, his second score on the board is cancelled both for his side and his opponents, and the Director shall award an artificial adjusted score to the contestants deprived of the opportunity to earn a valid score.

?

(The replay is void for both sides.)

[blackshoe]

 barmar, on 2015-February-08, 16:00, said:

I don't know if it's supported by a law, but I'd probably have given the NOS in the replay the maximum of their actual score and ave+ -- there's no reason to take away their top because of the opponent's error.

Average plus is defined as "at least 60% in pairs". No guidance is given as to what that means, so it's up to the TD. Seems to me this is an ideal place for it.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2015-February-08, 19:48, said:

Average plus is defined as "at least 60% in pairs". No guidance is given as to what that means, so it's up to the TD. Seems to me this is an ideal place for it.

In Norway that means two things:
1: When results are expressed in integers then 60% is rounded up to the next integer when the calculation results in a number with some fraction (however small).
2: If a pair scores more than 60% over the session then AVE+ is the session average for that pair. (Note that it is not the total average over an event with multiple sessions.)

[VixTD]

 gnasher, on 2015-February-07, 05:23, said:

I don't understand. When you overheard them talking about their mistake, didn't you tell them not to replay board 21 later?

I wanted to see if they were going to call me and admit to their mistake. Also, quite often if I have to cancel a board because the score is not allowed to stand the players would rather play the board "for fun" than sit around for ten minutes waiting for the move to be called. Perhaps I should have told them in advance that the score wasn't going to stand, though.

[pran]

Why suddenly so many duplicate posts? (First Blackshoe and then VixTD)

[blackshoe]

 pran, on 2015-February-09, 09:10, said:

Why suddenly so many duplicate posts? (First Blackshoe and then VixTD)

Two is "so many"?

Probably something with BBO's server, or our connections to it. IAC, I've deleted the many (two) duplicates.

[blackshoe]

 pran, on 2015-February-09, 03:03, said:

In Norway that means two things:
1: When results are expressed in integers then 60% is rounded up to the next integer when the calculation results in a number with some fraction (however small).
2: If a pair scores more than 60% over the session then AVE+ is the session average for that pair. (Note that it is not the total average over an event with multiple sessions.)

Two things and only two things?

IAC, that's one country heard from. I think there are some 87 NBOs in the WBF.

[blackshoe]

 VixTD, on 2015-February-09, 07:52, said:

I wanted to see if they were going to call me and admit to their mistake. Also, quite often if I have to cancel a board because the score is not allowed to stand the players would rather play the board "for fun" than sit around for ten minutes waiting for the move to be called. Perhaps I should have told them in advance that the score wasn't going to stand, though.

Hm. Ten minutes? Really?