[jillybean]

sfi, on 2023-January-31, 14:56, said:

Adjusted scores generally fall under Law 12. It seems like the director went down the path of 12C2a:If the director ruled that no result can be obtained, it should be average minus to N-S and average plus to E-W. It doesn't look like the laws justify simply skipping the board in the situation you describe.I don't think the director is right about applying 12C2a though - the auction can simply continue with UI for North and South. The director needs to look at what whether either person used the UI and consider adjustments after the hand.

Yes, and this is why I didn't post the hand - can someone PLEASE answer my question?

[sfi]

jillybean, on 2023-January-31, 14:57, said:

Yes, and this is why I didn't post the hand - can someone PLEASE answer my question?

The answer to your question depends very much on why the board was skipped. And I did answer for something akin to this situation - average plus/average minus.

The problem is that the director clearly made up a ruling, so they are already going to be doing something a bit random.

If you're looking for how to calculate a pair not playing a hand due to external circumstances (sitouts, emergencies, fouled boards, etc.), then mycroft covered it in post 12. This won't impact the score for the pair that didn't play the board, but will affect the score for the pairs that did.

[jillybean]

sfi, on 2023-January-31, 15:11, said:

The answer to your question depends very much on why the board was skipped. And I did answer for something akin to this situation - average plus/average minus.

The problem is that the director clearly made up a ruling, so they are already going to be doing something a bit random.

If you're looking for how to calculate a pair not playing a hand due to external circumstances (sitouts, emergencies, fouled boards, etc.), then mycroft covered it in post 12. This won't impact the score for the pair that didn't play the board, but will affect the score for the pairs that did.

Yes, the Director made up a ruling, the board was skipped and I asked for clarification

jillybean said:

Mycroft, am I understanding correctly, skipped boards are given an "average" score based on the average percentage score of the boards we have actually played for that session?

The question seems impossible to answer, I will assume "average"

[axman]

jillybean, on 2023-January-31, 14:43, said:

---

West asks what is 2nt?
North replies strong 20-22
South says no it's not, we play 5-5 minors

West calls the Director (situation explained etc) and is told that the board will be skipped.
What happens to the score on this board if it is "skipped" rather than being adjusted ?


(82C seems a little ironic here)

When the director fouls a comparison via his incompetence he owes everybody $40. And, everybody owes me $80

some advice. Read the CC at the beginning of the round.

[mycroft]

In this case, you have to ask the Director what she did. Just "skipping" a board scheduled to be played without a legal reason isn't legal, as you probably know - so what "skipping" means in this case doesn't have a legal meaning, so we can't tell you what "skipped board" should score.

My first guess would be that she considered this too complicated to fix, and hoped it would go away by treating it as "not played". In which case, she'd set the scoring program the same way she "not played"s a late play, and go from there. Your score will be factored by N+1/N to balance. I may be biased by ACBLScor here; see previous answers about "NPing late plays".

My second guess (which has the benefit of being legal, if lazy) is that she ruled that the information was such that the board could not be played, and assigned an adjusted score. I would hope that score was Average plus to E-W (not at fault) and Average minus to N-S (at fault); that is 60% or session score (whichever is higher) for E-W, and 40% (or session score if lower, but most scoring systems don't know to do that, and nobody really cares) to N-S. Law 12C2a.

But all it is is a guess. The director did what she did, and only she knows what she did. Ask her.

As discussed however, there is a better solution with UI and LAs and all the rest. p-p-2NT-p; 3C (Stayman)-AP seems normal. If that didn't happen at the table, the Director gets to do the use-of-UI song and dance, likely leading to some negative score. The downside of this is (as discussed before) in general[*] it takes a long time (which playing directors don't have), it requires peers to query (which she may not have until *they've* played the board, and they'll be biased from having seen it); depending on the timing, it might cause the board to be unplayable at her table (and causing another "skip" - I rule A+/A on those as I don't consider myself totally at fault for doing my job) - and frankly, it's beyond the competence of many club directors, and A+/A- would end up being fairer than whatever result they assign.

[*] This one's pretty straightforward. I don't see any LA to Stayman with 4-4 majors and a 7 count, and when partner states their choice of minor, South has nothing more to think about. I first wrote as if N was flipped - 3244 with the A and K. Then 3NT from North seems obvious, and what South is allowed to do from there depends very strongly on what their opening 2NT range is. That one could get very complicated.

[jillybean]

Axman, there are no CC in use.

Mycroft, thanks. The board appears on the results page as "adjusted 0 0"

I'm guessing that could a result of "not played" rather than "skipped".

[pescetom]

It's a curious statement of result. I would guess it means 50% 50% rather than 0% 0% or All Pass In any case, Director error within Director laziness.

[axman]

jillybean, on 2023-February-01, 04:26, said:

Axman, there are no CC in use.

Mycroft, thanks. The board appears on the results page as "adjusted 0 0"

I'm guessing that could a result of "not played" rather than "skipped".

Well, it seems to me when players are forbidden to have CC it is a sufficient reason to show up somewhere else. That's what I do.

[blackshoe]

What does "adjusted 0 0" mean? Are those numbers matchpoints, IMPs, or aggregate scores?

It looks to me like it means that both pairs were given 0 matchpoints for the board. That's not a proper score. So the director should apply 82C (Director error) -- assuming she can figure out how to do that.

In ACBLScore, if you enter "not played" for a board, that board is not included in the computation of the concerned pairs' score. It's not that those pairs are given their average score on the rest of the boards, it's as if the board just didn't happen for those pairs.

It looks to me that what the director should have done, at the point West called her to the table, was to investigate what NS's actual agreement was. If it was one of the two agreements presented, then at least there was no MI. In any case, North has the UI that South thinks the agreement is that 2NT shows 5-5 in the minors, and also the UI that South probably has 5-5 in the minors, while South has the UI that North originally thought that 2NT shows a strong balanced hand, but now "knows" that south has and has shown both minors. Both players should be cautioned not to take advantage of UI, that they may not choose a call that is demonstrably (i.e. obviously) suggested over another call if the other call is a logical alternative (it does not matter whether the call suggested is a logical alternative). The director should then instruct that the bidding and play continue, and tell EW that if after the hand is completed they feel they may have been damaged by use of UI, they should call the director back to the table. Aborting a hand in the middle of the auction is clear director error, in which case both pairs should have received the artificial adjusted score "average plus" or 60% of a top unless their average on the other boards that session was higher, in which case they get that higher score.

[jillybean]

I don't know what Adjusted 0 0 means. This is how it appears on the results page.

NS Pair EW pair NS EW NS MP EW MP Contr By Made Lead
9 2 Adjusted 0.0 0.0
12 8 150 25.9 0.1 1 NT N 9 2
7 13 140 22.7 3.3 3 H N 9 A

I did not play this board but it was a partner of mine sitting West who mentioned it after the game. He assumed the result would be changed to A+/A- afterwards.
I wasn't so sure, I had the same adjustment 2 years ago while playing here. I doubt the problem will be resolved until a qualified, preferably non playing Director is directing.


Axman CCs aren't forbidden, they are simply not used. Don't get me started again on CCs.

[blackshoe]

It looks to me like 9 and 2 are the pair numbers, and 0.0 and 0.0 are the matchpoints given on, based on the second and third lines, a 30 top. So the director has given both pairs an absolute bottom.

I suppose that's one way to teach players not to call the TD.

[jillybean]

Oooof, even worse than a skipped board. I will contact NZ Bridge for clarification on what's going on here.

Pair 9 finished 1st overall with 63% so they didn't need any more MP

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2023-February-01, 11:04, said:

It looks to me that what the director should have done, at the point West called her to the table, was to investigate what NS's actual agreement was.

I agree.

jillybean, on 2023-January-31, 14:43, said:

West asks what is 2nt?
North replies strong 20-22
South says no it's not, we play 5-5 minors

blackshoe, on 2023-February-01, 11:04, said:

If it was one of the two agreements presented, then at least there was no MI.

Surely if S was right, there is MI?
And if NS are good enough to place 1st in the tournament, N should have remembered?
And if EW then miss 4♥ making as a result of these shenanigans, they may well be damaged too.

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2023-February-01, 13:48, said:

Oooof, even worse than a skipped board. I will contact NZ Bridge for clarification on what's going on here.

Your choice and your right, but I would not expect a lot of sympathy days after the event.

If it happens during a real competitive tournament then you should ask the Director politely to quote the Laws she is enforcing. If you are genuinely convinced that she is wrong in terms of Law (not just "this feels unfair"), then ask about and initiate the appeal procedure: which may require agreement of both partners and probably requires formal notice within a short time of end of play, plus perhaps a deposit.

[blackshoe]

If the agreement was as South said, then had South said nothing, North's explanation would be MI. But given that South gave a different explanation, if the TD investigates he should at some point tell the table which agreement was correct. In that case North's explanation was only MI in the few seconds or milliseconds between the time he gave it and the time South corrected it. I would not rule on the basis of MI. Also note that damage only exists as the result of an infraction, and I would find it hard to accept an argument from EW that "yeah we heard South's correction, and the TD's determination that South's explanation was the correct one, but we based our subsequent bidding on North's explanation anyway".

[sfi]

pescetom, on 2023-February-01, 16:04, said:

If you are genuinely convinced that she is wrong in terms of Law (not just "this feels unfair"), then ask about and initiate the appeal procedure: which may require agreement of both partners and probably requires formal notice within a short time of end of play, plus perhaps a deposit.

Of course, Jillybean only has a right to appeal if she was at the table - it's not clear to me that she was in this instance. And partner definitely has to agree - that's saved me going through more than one appeal process when directing.

[jillybean]

Pescetom I rotated the hands when I posted the bidding, so it was actually South who called the Director, EW doing the bidding and explanations

[jillybean]

And again, this is why I did not want to post the actual hands and details. I'm not appealing a ruling made days ago, I was not even at the table.
As I've said up thread, I want to understand what effect "skipping" a board in play (as instructed by the Director) has on the score. I have had this "ruling" previously and want to be fully informed if I need to appeal future rulings that involve "skipping" the board.
It appears rather than skipped, the board was adjusted to not played, giving both pairs a complete bottom

[jillybean]

I've had confirmation from a NZ Bridge Director

The board is adjusted to Did Not Play.
The pairs get 0 MP for this board but their total possible MP for the session is reduced so their percentage score is unaffected.

[blackshoe]

Not a legal ruling, then.