Problem with ScoreBridge

[Dave Flower]

Two weeks ago, E/W were awarded average plus and N/S average minus on a board.

On all other boards, E/W averaged 63%.

If I enter AV+ on ScoreBridge, E/W are given 60% (N/S are second overall)

If I enter 63% / 37% on ScoreBridge. E/W are given 62.5% (Rounding to an integral number on MatchPoints) (N/S tie for second)

If the correct score (63%/37%) is entered, N/S are third.

Does anyone know what to enter to obtain the correct score ?

I have been in correspondence with ScoreBridge, who have declined to offer a solution

David Flower

[Steve Foster]

Is ScoreBridge set for simple MPs rather than Neuberg? That's about the
only thing I can think of that might prevent decimal match points
(since they are often decimal with Neuberg).

Failing that, you could try slightly in excess of 63% (whatever is
needed for the next MP interval), or ultimately, a change of scoring
program to one that is technically proficient.

--
Steve Foster
For SSL Certificates, Domains, etc, visit.:
https://netshop.virtual-isp.net

[Robin Barker]

On Saturday, August 3, 2013 10:03:05 AM UTC+1, Dave Flower wrote:
> Two weeks ago, E/W were awarded average plus and N/S average minus on a board.
>

> If the correct score (63%/37%) is entered, N/S are third.

The correct score is (40%/63%) - the offending side do not get less than 40% just because the non-offending side are getting their session average. It would be best if you could enter NS 40%, EW "not played" (so the program would calculate their score based on the other boards - on the assumption EW score is greater than 60%)

There should be no need for the the %ages to balance - they would not balance if it was AVE+/AVE+.

You could try copying the data to a spreadsheet and make the final corrections there. But (as Steve says) best is to use a scoring program that cares about these things and gets them right.

[Travis Crump]

I assumed the same, but from a footnote to 12C2(c) there is this:

* In ACBL sanctioned events, when there is a non-offending and
an offending contestant, the non-offending contestant receives the
score specified by 12C2(c) above. Their opponents shall receive the
difference between that score and 100%, regardless of their score
on the other boards of that session. For example, if the non-offending
contestant receives 64% on the adjusted deal, the offending
contestant receives 36%.

I forget where Dave is located, but I'll assume it is somewhere with
this election.

[Steve Foster]

Dave is in EBUland, so no, that ACBL election does not apply.

[Peter Smulders]

The word election is used for matters where the WBF bridge laws give the
Regulating Authority a choice. This is not one of them. The law is just
overridden.

[Dave Flower]

On Monday, 5 August 2013 08:29:00 UTC+1, Peter Smulders wrote:
> On 5-8-2013 6:26, Steve Foster wrote: > Travis Crump wrote: > >> On 08/04/2013 05:22 AM, Robin Barker wrote: >>> On Saturday, August 3, 2013 10:03:05 AM UTC+1, Dave Flower wrote: >>>> Two weeks ago, E/W were awarded average plus and N/S average minus >> on a board. >>>> >>>> If the correct score (63%/37%) is entered, N/S are third. >>> >>> The correct score is (40%/63%) - the offending side do not get less >>> than 40% just because the non-offending side are getting their >>> session average. It would be best if you could enter NS 40%, EW >>> "not played" (so the program would calculate their score based on >>> the other boards - on the assumption EW score is greater than 60%) >>> >>> There should be no need for the the %ages to balance - they would >>> not balance if it was AVE+/AVE+. >>> >>> You could try copying the data to a spreadsheet and make the final >>> corrections there. But (as Steve says) best is to use a scoring >>> program that cares about these things and gets them right. >>> >>> >> >> I assumed the same, but from a footnote to 12C2(c) there is this: >> >> * In ACBL sanctioned events, when there is a non-offending and >> an offending contestant, the non-offending contestant receives the >> score specified by 12C2(c) above. Their opponents shall receive the >> difference between that score and 100%, regardless of their score >> on the other boards of that session. For example, if the non-offending >> contestant receives 64% on the adjusted deal, the offending >> contestant receives 36%. >> >> I forget where Dave is located, but I'll assume it is somewhere with >> this election. > > Dave is in EBUland, so no, that ACBL election does not apply. The word election is used for matters where the WBF bridge laws give the Regulating Authority a choice. This is not one of them. The law is just overridden.

I am in the EBU, where the 'White Book' applies. A new edition has just been issued (since the events discussed in this thread); section 4.1.1.1 applies, and is unclear - one paragraph says 40% to the OS, whereas another says scores should not add to more that 100% unless the problem was caused by an extraneous source.

If believe that the old White Book (to which I have no access) referred to a WBF ruling - can anyone give me a reference

Dave Flower

[france...@googlemail.com]

You are intended to give 63/40 in this instance. You the TD have given Ave+/Ave- which adds up to 100 it's just that one pair actually get a large number.

The bid in the old white book you are referring to said

Law 12C2: Artificial adjustment [WBFLC]
In a matchpoint tournament, Average Plus is defined as 60% or session average, whichever is greater [see Law 12C2]. Similarly, Average Minus is defined as 40% or session average, whichever is less.

[WBFLC minutes 1998-08-30#1, reviewed but not changed 2000-01-12#9]

A total score of more than 100% should only be given if both pairs are entirely innocent.

Note Despite this statement by the WBFLC it is noted that situations where one pair is entirely innocent and the other pair only partly at fault will usually result in a total score of more than 100%.

[WBFLC minutes 1998-09-01#3]

Except where the session average is greater than 60%, 60% is the most that can be given under this Law. If a non-offending side is damaged by this then Laws 12A1 or 84D may apply.

[WBFLC minutes 2000-08-30#9]

[france...@googlemail.com]

If believe that the old White Book (to which I have no access) referred to a WBF ruling - can anyone give me a reference Dave Flower

The new white book has all the same references to the WBF minutes that the old one did, under the commentary on the laws. Section 8.12.13 in the new version. I found this by looking for 'law 12' on the contents page. It's also in the index under "Law 12 assigned adjusted score" and "assigned adjusted score"

[Steve Willner]

On 2013-08-06 6:30 AM, france...@googlemail.com wrote:
> Law 12C2: Artificial adjustment [WBFLC] In a matchpoint tournament,
> Average Plus is defined as 60% or session average, whichever is
> greater [see Law 12C2]. Similarly, Average Minus is defined as 40%
> or session average, whichever is less.
>
> [WBFLC minutes 1998-08-30#1, reviewed but not changed 2000-01-12#9]
>
> A total score of more than 100% should only be given if both pairs
> are entirely innocent.

In another thread, I commented that EBU regulations are usually clear,
but this one puzzles me. Which part of the above takes precedence?
Let's say the NOS are scoring 65% on other boards. They get 65% for
avg+; no problem there. Suppose the OS are scoring 50% on other boards.
Do they get 40% as specified in the first part or 35% as specified in
the second (limiting the total to 100%)?

> Note Despite this statement by the WBFLC it is noted that situations
> where one pair is entirely innocent and the other pair only partly at
> fault will usually result in a total score of more than 100%.

I was puzzled by this, too, but I gather it covers the case where some
pair at another table (or a caddy or somebody) shares the blame. If
there are only two parties involved, and one is entirely innocent, I
think the other has to be fully at fault.

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@nhcc.net
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA