BBO Discussion Forums: Mixed Quarter-Final Romania vs. Italy - BBO Discussion Forums

"you both lost": Team A wins by 2, but is assigned a 3 IMP penalty for a procedural issue (normally, not to accrue to Team B). Now, team A loses by 1, and team B loses by 2.

Yes, there will be something in the COC about this, and my comment was my suggestion for what it should be. And a statement that I'm pretty sure that *isn't* what is in there.

sfi, on 2023-September-05, 17:06, said:

That's all I know: I don't know if he sought or obtained permission, only that he looked.

...and as I said, the fact that you don't know is pretty strong evidence that he didn't. Because if he had, it would definitely have been mentioned. A lot. Loudly. Immediately. Tell me I'm wrong.

mycroft, on 2023-September-06, 11:44, said:

I tell you I don't know if you're right or wrong. If I get the chance, I will ask. The penaly was initially removed when Italy complained, which suggests that either he did ask or that it was not considered a decisive aspect. The reinstatement of the penalty was based upon violation of the 30 minute rule apparently.

Full summary of the WBF case review:

Quote

Source document can be found here.

sfi, on 2023-September-18, 22:44, said:

Notably L79C2 2. Subject to approval by the Tournament Organizer, a scoring error may be corrected after
expiry of the Correction Period if the Director is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the
record is wrong.

Well, I suspect that said possibilities depend upon the inclination of the Tournament Organizer.

Ah, interesting, the Law doesn't say what I thought it says. That's just "tradition" (and a reasonable tradition, too).

7D said:

And:

Definitions said:

I know the ACBL states that in team events, each match or time between scoring up is a "session" (why we can change partnerships or directions between halves, or for a specific match, or...) Not sure if the WBF has the same definition.

But if it does, then all 4 players are "contestant[s] remaining at a table throughout a session". Interesting.

Still, I wouldn't be changing boards as East-West, even if the Law was on my side, without warning N-S about it. I think living "letter of the Law" and hoping to avoid penalties when things go wrong because I did something unexpected is a narrow path to walk.

I will admit it is a personal bugbear, but I am quite happy for 7B3 violations to be hit with a hammer. Especially 7B3 violations that cause play problems and aren't just power moves (my right to [whatever means I "have to" look at your cards] trumps your right to [anything, basically] or desires), but them too.

sfi, on 2023-September-18, 22:44, said:

Thanks, will go through it tomorrow (have a tournament to direct).
It conflicts quite significantly with what I gathered from Italian sources, but I imagine the account of what happened is essentially correct and in any case the key legal issues are clear, in particular the right of EW to change boards.

pescetom, on 2023-September-19, 12:22, said:

It would not be careful to characterize EW having the right to change boards, particularly absent defining what you speak of.

axman, on 2023-September-19, 03:32, said:

It wasn’t a scoring error, it’s about the penalty given and waved by the TD’s.

There's a difference (a big one, to my mind) between "this action isn't actually against law or regulation" and "a right to do this action" (or even "the action taken was right").

In this case, it got the actors penalty withdrawn. Next time, when it does the "I have the hands for 14, everybody else has the hands on 15", and there isn't a clear offender, it's not going to save the A= (or even the A-/A-) score. And I'll argue with them that "it says everyone present for the entire session is primarily responsible, and that's all four of you isn't it?"

axman, on 2023-September-19, 13:01, said:

I meant the right or not of EW to change boards. I agree that this is in question.

mycroft, on 2023-September-20, 09:04, said:

FWIW I fully agree. There's a whole bunch of stuff that is only implicitly excluded by Laws and Regulations, but clearly out of bounds all the same. In this case 7D plus the tournament regulations seem to exclude East doing what he pleases with the boards. I find it surprising that the reviewer (who as I understand it should only consider whether the director(s) followed the correct procedure and applied the correct rules) was so convinced of the contrary that he suggested that international level TDs should reconsider, and that they so did.

Quote

This part is a bit of a mystery. It is not clear which "other revelant facts" became clear beyond the time limit, or why a change in the result might be auspicable in their light.

mycroft, on 2023-September-19, 09:24, said:

I think the "contestants remaining at a table" criteria is mainly intended for Mitchell-like movements, where NS are all stationary while EW move from table to table. So the stationary pair is considered primarily responsible for board handling. And in Howell movements, some pairs remain at the same table throughout (perhaps with arrow switches).

It doesn't translate well to team games, although there are 3-way team games where there are two matches per round, with EW moving to the third table between matches.

pescetom, on 2023-September-20, 15:18, said:

It seems to me that players in a game have, within the context of that game, whatever "rights" are defined by the rules of the game, and no others.

barmar, on 2023-September-20, 17:02, said:

I think that if the lawmakers wanted this law to apply only to pair events, they would have said so. And what about individual events?

Unfortunately, David Burn's poem (quote? I can't find it in search) applies here:

Quote

Here, it looks like the letter of the law matters for "avoiding a penalty", and I hope that's the extent of it; that the "established tradition" and problems caused by violating it are socially made clear to East-West.

The Other Site are doing what they're famous for over the appeal reviews; I do share their frustration at the quality (more specifically, the level of detail) of the writeups, but I'm a little tired of "the only people who can't do their jobs more than the directors are the reviewers; if any of them Could Play Bridge..." especially as they all have zero intention of getting in and putting themselves somewhere where they can get criticized help.

But here, I think that "we can't legally apply a penalty here, because there's nothing in the Laws and Regulations that makes this illegal. We all know it's Wrong, and very much contributed to the problem, but our hands are tied." was obvious in the writeup. Unfortunate, but obvious.

And since the Lawmakers are in review session right now, maybe this is a good time to see if there's a better way to write law 7 so that what is Right and what is Legally Enforceable become closer.

And, since it is one of my personal bugbears, I continue to have no sympathy for the "if it's important to me, I can rip your hand out of the board and look at it" brigade, and am quite happy to have a high-level example of how much it can affect them, since "respect your opponents" (L, R, or CH) clearly isn't sufficient. In the Marrakesh call, I absolutely agree that the scoring player had a reason to be upset, and to do something unusual; next time he'll do the (still unusual, but) Lawful thing and call the Director, who will absolutely ensure that he can get the lead into the scoring device. Any blame on "wasting time by bringing in the Bastards in (Stripes/the Black)" can be responded to with a smile, and "well, if you'd answered my question the first two times..."

mycroft, on 2023-September-21, 09:30, said:

I mainly agree. In particular, kudos to WBF for the writeups which were not supplied (IIRC) the year before. The account of this incident begs a few questions towards the end, but at least it is up there for all to read.
No sympathy with anyone who wants to look at the cards in the board, no sympathy with anyone who wants to manage the boards when regulations say different. Contempt for regulations that do not specify who should manage the boards, in absence of clear indication by Law.
And I fully agree that Law 7 can and should be improved this time. Maybe by specifying that NS are responsible for all management of the boards, in absence of indications to the contrary by RA or the Tournament.

blackshoe, on 2023-September-20, 22:19, said:

I said "mainly", not "only" -- other game formats don't tend to have stationary pairs. Although sometimes in team games there are pairs who request a stationary table because of physical disabilities (e.g. a player is in a wheelchair, or needs special lighting).

barmar, on 2023-September-25, 14:13, said:

I don't think 7D was intended to be specifically about stationary pairs, who have no inherent necessity to control the boards, wheelchairs or not - rather it is an indication of a way to resolve the obvious necessity that somebody at table should be responsible for maintaining proper conditions of play. It could and should be edited to apply more clearly in situations where there is no stationary pair, but the underlying aim of assigning responsibility to one pair only is clear IMO.

[maybe this thread too could be moved to the Appeals sub-forum ?]

pescetom, on 2023-September-25, 14:41, said:

Done.