[gordontd]

pran, on 2017-October-01, 16:11, said:

No wonder, because possible (preferably optimal) solutions for Howell always come in pairs: Pair 1 following pair 2 and pair 2 following pair 1. Within a couple these are always equally well balanced.

This example might cause you a problem on the third round.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2017-October-01, 16:17, said:

by the way, I am obviously assuming that the names are not available on the Bridgemates.

Bridgemate model 1 shows numbers only, Model 2 shows names.

[VixTD]

lamford, on 2017-September-30, 15:20, said:

We accepted the -2 IMPs with good grace, although Blackshoe's quote of Law 8A2 suggests that the official blame rests with the North from the other table who moved them to the wrong table, whether they were moved by North or not.

I would be very reluctant to blame a pair for moving on the wrong boards, even where the movement of boards is simple.

A few months ago I directed an inter-county teams-of-four event in which tables were split between two rooms (on different floors). There were no table cards, but bridgemates were showing the team numbers and boards for each round. As the board movement was not straightforward, and I was going to move the boards between the rooms, I gave a clear announcement before the start that all tables were to check with the bridgemate that they were playing the correct opponents and boards before starting the round, just to guard against mishaps. At some point I carried two boardsets downstairs, got them muddled up and put them on the wrong tables. One table noticed in time, but the other started a board, so I awarded -3 IMPs (average minus) to NS, who have control of the bridgemate, and 0 IMPs (average) to EW, who could have asked NS to check.

NS grumbled a little at this, but didn't raise a big fuss until it became clear they were in the running to win the event. I thought they had a point, perhaps I had been a little mean, but I couldn't really reverse my decision when it looked as if it might decide the winner. When they ended up second by 2 IMPs, they wanted to appeal, so I let the top teams know the situation, and got on the phone to try to sort it out.

While I was talking to Robin, trying to find out if what I had done was clearly right or wrong, or whether there was any precedent for such a situation, the teams got bored of waiting, split the prize money between them and went home. We passed the matter on to a referee, who decided they should bear some responsibility for the error, but not as much as a standard adjustment, so penalised them 1 IMP. Although the referee was unaware of it, this evened the scores so the prize money should indeed have been shared, and the offending team won the title on the tie-break.

I'd never heard of anybody being fined a fraction of a standard fine, but it didn't seem to be unlawful to do so, and it worked out neatly in the end.

I'll try to make sure I don't cause a problem like that again. I shall continue to warn the players to check the movement card or bridgemate before starting the round, but we don't always have movement cards, and bridgemates don't show names accurately for team events, and the pair or team numbers are too small for most players to read once it's moved beyond the first page.

[VixTD]

.

[Lovera]

VixTD, on 2017-October-02, 07:35, said:

I would be very reluctant to blame a pair for moving on the wrong boards, even where the movement of boards is simple.

A few months ago ......

.............

I'll try to make sure I don't cause a problem like that again. I shall continue to warn the players to check the movement card or bridgemate before starting the round, but we don't always have movement cards, and bridgemates don't show names accurately for team events, and the pair or team numbers are too small for most players to read once it's moved beyond the first page.

I take the opportunity you started posting, asking if you can reply to my message in your mail, thank you (and apologize by Lovera for the unusual way).

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2017-October-02, 02:25, said:

Bridgemate model 1 shows numbers only, Model 2 shows names.

LOL felt like posting but couldn't come up with something meaningful to say?

[pran]

VixTD, on 2017-October-02, 07:35, said:

I would be very reluctant to blame a pair for moving on the wrong boards, even where the movement of boards is simple.

A few months ago I directed an inter-county teams-of-four event in which tables were split between two rooms (on different floors). There were no table cards, but bridgemates were showing the team numbers and boards for each round. As the board movement was not straightforward, and I was going to move the boards between the rooms, I gave a clear announcement before the start that all tables were to check with the bridgemate that they were playing the correct opponents and boards before starting the round, just to guard against mishaps. At some point I carried two boardsets downstairs, got them muddled up and put them on the wrong tables. One table noticed in time, but the other started a board, so I awarded -3 IMPs (average minus) to NS, who have control of the bridgemate, and 0 IMPs (average) to EW, who could have asked NS to check.

NS grumbled a little at this, but didn't raise a big fuss until it became clear they were in the running to win the event. I thought they had a point, perhaps I had been a little mean, but I couldn't really reverse my decision when it looked as if it might decide the winner. When they ended up second by 2 IMPs, they wanted to appeal, so I let the top teams know the situation, and got on the phone to try to sort it out.

While I was talking to Robin, trying to find out if what I had done was clearly right or wrong, or whether there was any precedent for such a situation, the teams got bored of waiting, split the prize money between them and went home. We passed the matter on to a referee, who decided they should bear some responsibility for the error, but not as much as a standard adjustment, so penalised them 1 IMP. Although the referee was unaware of it, this evened the scores so the prize money should indeed have been shared, and the offending team won the title on the tie-break.

I'd never heard of anybody being fined a fraction of a standard fine, but it didn't seem to be unlawful to do so, and it worked out neatly in the end.

I'll try to make sure I don't cause a problem like that again. I shall continue to warn the players to check the movement card or bridgemate before starting the round, but we don't always have movement cards, and bridgemates don't show names accurately for team events, and the pair or team numbers are too small for most players to read once it's moved beyond the first page.

Did you ever consider:

Law 90 said:

B. Offences Subject to Procedural Penalty
The following are examples of offences subject to procedural penalty (but the offences are not limited to these):
[...]
8. failure to comply promptly with tournament regulations or with instructions of the Director.

[blackshoe]

Team event at the club today. We started out with Bridgemates (which do show names). Apparently there was some problem, because part way through the first match, the director instructed everyone to abandon the Bridgemates and score manually. No pre-duplicated boards, btw. The director did say he wants to go to pre-duplicated boards, but not until he can get the Bridgemates to work reliably.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2017-October-02, 14:44, said:

Team event at the club today. We started out with Bridgemates (which do show names). Apparently there was some problem, because part way through the first match, the director instructed everyone to abandon the Bridgemates and score manually. No pre-duplicated boards, btw. The director did say he wants to go to pre-duplicated boards, but not until he can get the Bridgemates to work reliably.

What does one have to do with the other?

[VixTD]

pran, on 2017-October-02, 09:02, said:

Did you ever consider:

I not only considered it, I carried it out. Read the account again.

[pran]

VixTD, on 2017-October-03, 05:49, said:

I not only considered it, I carried it out. Read the account again.

I didn't see any reference to 90B8?
(IMHO violation of 90B8 is more severe than most (if not any) other violations.)

[barmar]

pran, on 2017-October-03, 06:36, said:

I didn't see any reference to 90B8?
(IMHO violation of 90B8 is more severe than most (if not any) other violations.)

I guess the issue is whether a director handing you a set of boards is considered to be "instructions" to play those boards, even if you think they're the wrong boards. In many cases, the TD has actually switched to his "caddy" hat when he's doing this, I don't think we should treat him moving boards as TD instructions. Does 90B8 preclude asking the TD "Are you sure these are the right boards?"

[weejonnie]

Vampyr, on 2017-October-02, 15:10, said:

What does one have to do with the other?

Not sure - at our club we use bridgemates and also have pre-dealt hands (by Darlington bridge Club). They send me the hand records and then after the session has ended, I append the hand records to the output from Scorebridge. (Which opens up BCS (Bridgemate Control Software) automatically). (OK I could cheat in theory - but never in practice.)

However, I can enter results manually from travellers into Scorebridge and then append the hand records. Our club plays 3 sessions (novice, hosted and regular) a week and if present at the last session (only one I play), I can post all three sets of results on the website (including pre-dealt hands in the regular) by midnight - and that includes travelling home from the club at 10.30pm.

When you think of how long it took to score travellers (and checking scoring errors) before the advent of computerised software, I am thankfull for large mercies.

[pran]

barmar, on 2017-October-03, 09:57, said:

I guess the issue is whether a director handing you a set of boards is considered to be "instructions" to play those boards, even if you think they're the wrong boards. In many cases, the TD has actually switched to his "caddy" hat when he's doing this, I don't think we should treat him moving boards as TD instructions. Does 90B8 preclude asking the TD "Are you sure these are the right boards?"

I don't see what that has to do with it.

VixTD wrote: "I gave a clear announcement before the start that all tables were to check with the bridgemate that they were playing the correct opponents and boards before starting the round, just to guard against mishaps."

Now, if that isn't an "instruction of the Director" I don't know one when I see it.

With this instruction issued it doesn't matter who gave which boards to the table and how. The players have been instructed by the Director to verify that they play the correct boards - period.