[RMB1]

At the weekend, I erased the score for board 14 when I had been asked to erase board 40 (not listening nor thinking clearly) - "with hilarious consequences".

I replaced the score for board 14 with "not played", so I could get the bridgemate back to round 6; but when I came to assign for round 7, the scoring program was complaining that round 2 hadn't finished yet.

[pran]

PeterAlan, on 2012-April-12, 05:39, said:

This is incorrect, Pran. If the Bridgemate has moved on to the next round, you can still erase a board from the previous round: move on to the point where you are prompted for the Board number to be played, insert the TD key, press 3, and you'll find you can delete the previous round's board(s). [If you've already scored a board in the current round you'll have to erase that first.] There's only a problem if you've reached End of Session.

It is indeed, and I was not aware of the possibility so I made a little testrun.

The possibility to effectively cancel "End of Round" and have the players reenter a corrected result will be of value and I appreciate the notification.

The procedure after any result has been entered in a later round is too awkward to be of any value (at least for me), so in such cases I shall continue to enter corrections through our scoring program (which automatically feeds updates back to the Bridgemate database).

(I also received your direct email, thanks.)

PS: NP is of no interest to me, if needed I shall simply enter an artificial adjusted score and replace it with the corrected score whenever available.

[aguahombre]

One good thing about using NP before posting an actual result per your decision is to remind you to do it. Every time you bring up the current posted standings (f4) it warns you about the NP still outstanding which has not been corrected to a score.

If you never forget anything, or never remember too late to use the remote to correct the score, disregard.

[pran]

aguahombre, on 2012-April-12, 13:13, said:

One good thing about using NP before posting an actual result per your decision is to remind you to do it. Every time you bring up the current posted standings (f4) it warns you about the NP still outstanding which has not been corrected to a score.

If you never forget anything, or never remember too late to use the remote to correct the score, disregard.

It is up to the affected players to report their real score and have their temporary or incorrect score replaced by this when it is available, it is not the Director's job to ascertain that this is done. That is one major reason why I favour temorarily entering the artificial score that is relevant if the board will never be played.

And, in appreciation of the lacking benefit of a distinct NP entry from Bridgemates and the experience that players often (logically) press 0 (zero) instead of the button assigned for PASS when a board is passed out, the author of our scoring program has deliberately chosen to implement NP the same as PASS when reading from the Bridgemate terminals.

I haven't heard of anybody being unhappy with that.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2012-April-12, 16:35, said:

It is up to the affected players to report their real score and have their temporary or incorrect score replaced by this when it is available, it is not the Director's job to ascertain that this is done.

Are you serious?

Quote

And, in appreciation of the lacking benefit of a distinct NP entry from Bridgemates and the experience that players often (logically) press 0 (zero) instead of the button assigned for PASS when a board is passed out, the author of our scoring program has deliberately chosen to implement NP the same as PASS when reading from the Bridgemate terminals.

I haven't heard of anybody being unhappy with that.

If a movement had to be curtailed for some reason, and pass-outs assigned to the unplayed boards resulting in entirely random scores, you might hear of someone being unhappy.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2012-April-13, 09:29, said:

pran, on 2012-April-12, 16:35, said:

It is up to the affected players to report their real score and have their temporary or incorrect score replaced by this when it is available, it is not the Director's job to ascertain that this is done. That is one major reason why I favour temorarily entering the artificial score that is relevant if the board will never be played.

Are you serious?

Absolutely.
The duties of the Director (or scorer) include registering the scores on the boards as reported by the players, not to ascertain that such scores are correctly reported. (Also included is of course the duty to correct errors when duly reported.)

If for whatever reason a score could not be obtained according to schedule the proper action by the Director is to award an artificial adjusted score with the intention of later replacing this temporary artificial score with a properly obtained and reported "real" score, but it must in case be the responsibility of the involved players to report that such score has actually been obtained.

Vampyr, on 2012-April-13, 09:29, said:

pran, on 2012-April-12, 16:35, said:

And, in appreciation of the lacking benefit of a distinct NP entry from Bridgemates and the experience that players often (logically) press 0 (zero) instead of the button assigned for PASS when a board is passed out, the author of our scoring program has deliberately chosen to implement NP the same as PASS when reading from the Bridgemate terminals.

I haven't heard of anybody being unhappy with that.

If a movement had to be curtailed for some reason, and pass-outs assigned to the unplayed boards resulting in entirely random scores, you might hear of someone being unhappy.

I don't understand where the "random" scores would come from?

Our directors know that NP is interpreted as PASS when Bridgemates are used with our current scoring program. (And as I have already mentioned earlier: "NP" was not even permissible with our previous scoring program.)

We have the perfect tool in awarding artificial adjusted scores as authorized by Law 12A2 and that is all we need.

[blackshoe]

Awarding an ArtAS as a first response to a board not played (for example due to slow play) makes the implicit assumption that the board will not be played later. That's fine, I suppose, in most cases, where the board will in fact not be played later, and also where it does not cause confusion when the board is played later. But it's not what the law says to do.

It seems to me that it is up to the TD to allow or disallow a late play. It is not up to the players to schedule it on their own. Or is there a Norwegian regulation implementing this policy?

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2012-April-13, 14:50, said:

Awarding an ArtAS as a first response to a board not played (for example due to slow play) makes the implicit assumption that the board will not be played later. That's fine, I suppose, in most cases, where the board will in fact not be played later, and also where it does not cause confusion when the board is played later. But it's not what the law says to do.

It seems to me that it is up to the TD to allow or disallow a late play. It is not up to the players to schedule it on their own. Or is there a Norwegian regulation implementing this policy?

Have I ever indicated in any way that the players themselves may schedule a late play?

Of course late play is a matter for the Director to allow. (I see nothing in the laws that gives TD the power to order a late play?)

And I see nothing in the laws about whether or not an interim artificial score may, should, may not or should not be recorded while awaiting the eventual result on a late play that possibly may or may not be carried out.

As a matter of fact I have had situations (players wasting time on playing the wrong boards in a Howell round) where I tell them that if they can manage, without delaying the entire event, to play the scheduled boards during some break they will save their scores on that board instead of receiving A-/A-.

Until the late play has been completed I think that A-/A- normally is the "correct" result on such boards.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2012-April-13, 15:28, said:

Have I ever indicated in any way that the players themselves may schedule a late play?

Of course late play is a matter for the Director to allow. (I see nothing in the laws that gives TD the power to order a late play?)

And I see nothing in the laws about whether or not an interim artificial score may, should, may not or should not be recorded while awaiting the eventual result on a late play that possibly may or may not be carried out.

As a matter of fact I have had situations (players wasting time on playing the wrong boards in a Howell round) where I tell them that if they can manage, without delaying the entire event, to play the scheduled boards during some break they will save their scores on that board instead of receiving A-/A-.

Until the late play has been completed I think that A-/A- normally is the "correct" result on such boards.

Have you determined the degree of fault of the participants when you do that, or are you just making an arbitrary assignment?

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2012-April-13, 09:58, said:

I don't understand where the "random" scores would come from?

The boards that ended up not being played would be passed out. Games, slams and partscores would have been made at the other tables. Do you really think that the pass-outs would be other than random?

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2012-April-13, 16:29, said:

Have you determined the degree of fault of the participants when you do that, or are you just making an arbitrary assignment?

I wrote "normally".
And "normally" (unless TD has evidence to the contrary) both pairs are at fault when they fail to follow schedule.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2012-April-13, 17:47, said:

The boards that ended up not being played would be passed out. Games, slams and partscores would have been made at the other tables. Do you really think that the pass-outs would be other than random?

Yes,
If you register a board as passed out then it will of course be scored as passout.

But if you had read my posts you might have noticed that we do not use the NP button on the Bridgemate to mark a board for later play. We register an artificial adjusted score instead and correct this if/when the board has actually been played.

[Vampyr]

Sorry. My post #45 must be appearing in white print on your monitor. I don't think I can correct it from here.

[bluejak]

jallerton, on 2012-April-11, 15:04, said:

Meanwhile, the current method of artificially awarding a 50% score on an unplayed board is a distortion because it arbitrarily makes their score closer to 50%.

What are you suggesting? If a pair is running at 65%, a board is cancelled partly through their fault [as otherwise they do not get average], what alternative do you suggest? NP would give them a totally unfair 65% in effect.

Of course it is arbitrary, but so is almost every penalty and so forth in any sport or mindsport. Arbitrary is not the same as unreasonable: Ave is arbitrary and very reasonable for a pair partly at fault.

pran, on 2012-April-12, 16:35, said:

It is up to the affected players to report their real score and have their temporary or incorrect score replaced by this when it is available, it is not the Director's job to ascertain that this is done. That is one major reason why I favour temorarily entering the artificial score that is relevant if the board will never be played.

If the TD knows that a score is not correct, it his job not the players to make sure it is corrected.

blackshoe, on 2012-April-13, 14:50, said:

It seems to me that it is up to the TD to allow or disallow a late play. It is not up to the players to schedule it on their own. Or is there a Norwegian regulation implementing this policy?

Not solely the TD. Custom & practice dictates this in many clubs. If it is normal to allow a late play in a club I do not expect the TD to not allow one unless there is a good reason not to. Similarly the reverse: most clubs I play in never have late plays, so it would not be normal for a TD to allow a late play in such clubs unless there are exceptional circumstances.

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on 2012-April-23, 09:32, said:

Not solely the TD. Custom & practice dictates this in many clubs. If it is normal to allow a late play in a club I do not expect the TD to not allow one unless there is a good reason not to. Similarly the reverse: most clubs I play in never have late plays, so it would not be normal for a TD to allow a late play in such clubs unless there are exceptional circumstances.

My point was that whatever custom and practice may say, it is not up to the players to decide to have a late play without approval from the TD. Yes, if custom and practice dictate there should be one, he will usually allow it, but I I don't think players should take it on themselves to play a board late. Law 8B2 seems germane.

[jallerton]

bluejak, on 2012-April-23, 09:32, said:

What are you suggesting? If a pair is running at 65%, a board is cancelled partly through their fault [as otherwise they do not get average], what alternative do you suggest? NP would give them a totally unfair 65% in effect.

Of course it is arbitrary, but so is almost every penalty and so forth in any sport or mindsport. Arbitrary is not the same as unreasonable: Ave is arbitrary and very reasonable for a pair partly at fault.

This thread (before it got hijacked by a discussion on Bridgem***s) was inspired by a discussion in another thread in which some very good TDs, including yourself, stated that their practice is to award average (not the only current legal option of average plus) in a particular situation to contestants who have in no way been at fault for a board being unplayable. Whilst I understand that TDs do not want to be accused of giving themselves a good score on an unplayable board, it is far less controversial to not count this board at all in the TD's score.

Now imagine a situation where pairs A and B both play 24 boards and both average 50% on the boards they play. Neither pair makes any procedural error. Most people would assume that pairs A and B will be tied in the ranking list, but no! Owing to a half table in the movement, Pair A gets to sit out the last 2-board round and retains its 50% score. Meanwhile Pair B is unable to play the last scheduled round (against average opponents) when both boards become unplayable for some external reason. Pair B receives 60% for both of these boards and suddenly appears ahead of pair A in the ranking list.

[pran]

bluejak, on 2012-April-23, 09:32, said:

pran, on 2012-April-12, 16:35, said:

It is up to the affected players to report their real score and have their temporary or incorrect score replaced by this when it is available, it is not the Director's job to ascertain that this is done. That is one major reason why I favour temorarily entering the artificial score that is relevant if the board will never be played.

If the TD knows that a score is not correct, it his job not the players to make sure it is corrected.

And how will the TD know that a score is not correct?

Is he supposed to scrutinize all results and double check on every (in his opinion) suspicious result he can find?

Which score do you as TD apply on a board if the players have not reported any score, left the room and cannot be reached? Is it your responsibility to find out if they played the board at all and in case what result they obtained?

Wouldn't A-/A- be a reasonable score in such cases (temporary score to be replaced if eventually a real score is reported)?

(And believe me, the above is not fiction, I have had such happenings more than I care to think about.)

[blackshoe]

If two pairs are scheduled to play a board, but both pairs leave without reporting a result to the TD (or the scorer, I suppose) then I would rule that the board was not played (there is after all no evidence that it was), and award an ArtAs. Who's at fault? I have no evidence that one pair or the other was directly at fault (but would if say one pair came to me and said 'our opponents seem to have left and we still have a board to play') so I would deem both pairs partly at fault and award average to each. If within the correction period one pair (or more likely one player) came to me with a score, I would attempt to verify that score with the opponents before amending the final score.

Most of the club TDs around here would just stick in "not played", but we here all know that's illegal.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2012-April-23, 17:37, said:

And how will the TD know that a score is not correct?

Presumably a TD who has entered a score (rather than recording "not played") for a board that will be played later has kept track of his actions.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2012-April-23, 17:49, said:

Presumably a TD who has entered a score (rather than recording "not played") for a board that will be played later has kept track of his actions.

I certainly hope that if he has entered a score then either it is an artificial adjusted score (temporarily) awarded by him, or it is a score that was reported to him (possibly by the players using Bridgemate).

How shall TD know that this (or in fact any recorded) score is incorrect without being told, preferably by the players involved?

The answer is: He cannot, and therefore neither can he be responsible for correcting this wrong score until he is told the correct score.