Re: Wrong boards Played
mark feldman
We do say that if something isn’t covered in our Conditions of Contest, the WBF and ACBL rules should be used. In this case, the WBF is crystal clear that when boards are different at the two tables, substitute boards should be played, except in the one situation where there’s only one fouled board and the teams have already compared, in which case the board is thrown out. Here’s the WBF language. Perhaps we should put that in our Conditions of Contest specifically? Perhaps we also should have a different rule if this happens in a Round Robin, where all of the teams might be inconvenienced if a set had to be replayed?Fouled Boards
A board is considered “fouled” if the Tournament Director determines that one or more cards were misplaced in the board in such a manner that contestants who should have direct comparison did not play the board in identical form. If in a team event a pre-duplicated board is wrongly dealt and Law 13 of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2007 applies in such a way that the board cannot be played, the board is considered to be a fouled board.
22.1 Fouled Boards in Team Tournaments
A board is not considered fouled if the boards played in the same match are identical even though that board may differ from the like numbered board played in simultaneous matches.
In general, a fouled board should be replayed through the substitution of a new board. In addition, penalties will apply in certain circumstances (in accordance with the Supplemental Conditions of Contest). Replays through the substitution of one new board shall not be permitted after the result of a match may be known to the contestants, as to which circumstances the Tournament Director’s decision shall be binding. That match is scored as though the board had never been played *.
The same rules apply whenever a substitute board would normally be played, for example, when a board is nullified by the Tournament Appeals Committee. When the Tournament Director has reason to believe the Tournament Appeals Committee may wish to have a substitute board played in the final Session of a match, he should have a provisional board played during the Session with an extra time allowance of 8 minutes. The Tournament Director, on his own volition, may instruct that a provisional board be played pending a future decision.
*Example: if the 7th board in a 16-board match is fouled and the error is discovered when the contestants are computing the result of the match, the board is disregarded and the match is scored as though it consisted of only 15 boards.
On Apr 14, 2015, at 9:43 PM, Danny Sprung <danny...@gmail.com> wrote:Once again, different boards were played at 2 tables of a match. Interestingly, only 8 of the 16 were in error. How that happened, I have no idea.We don't appear to have any set rule on this unfortunately frequent occurrence. Should the boards always be replayed? If not, does participation in the fouled set count as boards played?Danny--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Technical Advisory Committee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-tc+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Technical Advisory Committee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-tc+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Al Hollander
I would expand the question
Can/should the CoC provide instructions for the following, or should there be some Procedural Appendix somewhere in USBF-land
1) Preventing recurrence
2) Minimizing impact when the problem does arise
a. Early detection
b. Availability of substitute pre-dealt boards and electronic file for vugraph operator
[pre-alert – I’m sure there are other options besides the ones I list. I’m just hoping to spark investigation]
#1 is preferable, but what mechanism should be used?
A) having one hand from each board checked against an official record BEFORE boards are distributed to the table seems both tedious & a security risk
B) in computer speak, perhaps there is some sort of checksum that could be generated when the hands are dealt.
a. The result of this could be included with the set of boards and compared to the director’s expected value before the boards are distributed
i. Among other things, this is dependent upon functionality within the hand generator/dealer
# 2a can be addressed when the match is on vugraph.
Step 1 for the operator when the first board is displayed is to compare the displayed hand with one actually held by a player
· Matching one hand does not guarantee that the entire board is correct, I suspect the odds of a false positive are negligible
· Operator must take into account the situation where the board has been rotated 180-degrees
What can/should the operator do if the hands do NOT match?
M*A*S*H
Henry: The first thing people do in situations like this is panic
Hawkeye: Well at least we’re doing things in the right order
But seriously, the vugraph operator has no inherent responsibility or rights within Laws or CoC
Should the operator be able to have the players stop play until the problem is resolved
Should the operator have the right and/or responsibility to call the Director
Note that the problem could be that the Players have the correct boards, but the Operator has the wrong electronic file
a) Is there a way to quickly resolve this type of disconnect with minimal impact on the players
b) If not, what can be done [a subset of suggestions under #1A & 1B could help here]
If other matches are supposed to be playing same boards, but only one table/match is found to have a problem, how should things proceed?
Options seem to include
1) All matches stop play until the problem is resolved
2) Only stop play in the match where the problem surfaced
3) other
#2a extended
What about the situation that arose on 14-May-2015 at the USWBC, where not all tables have vugraph operators?
1) Should there be some designee who verifies one hand at all tables?
2) Analogous to the old Truscott Cards – should there be some mechanism for a particular player at each table to be able to compare the actual hand with the one expected on the card
a. This seems like huge security risk/breech, but brainstorming brought it into the stream of consciousness
3) Less risky than #2, have someone from each table fill out something [ex: back of a pickup-slip] that documents one or more hands from the first board.
a. Then that information is collected by <director, designee> and compared to official expectation [either vugraph or director]
#2b seems self-explanatory, but:
1) How many sets of alternate boards should be available?
a. Enough for one match
b. Enough for multiple matches
2) Is it obligatory to have the substitute boards visible to vugraph [so someone needs to download the new file to laptops of affected operator
3) Is it acceptable to just to the hand records available to players and/or the USBF Web guru so that the historical record can be archived
The goals of all of this include, but aren’t limited to:
1) Minimize impact on players
2) Maximize chance of reliable historical record
3) Define possible role/responsibility/rights of Vugraph Operator to support Goals #1 & #2
4) Save the spectators from unexpected, unexplained delays of vugraph
Al
From: usbf...@googlegroups.com [mailto:usbf...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of mark feldman
Sent: Tuesday 14 April 2015 23:09
To: Jan Martel; International Team Trials Committee
Subject: Re: Wrong boards Played
Jan,
Is there any chance that it can be determined what was the reason the two tables played different hands?
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 11:48 PM, Jan Martel <mart...@gmail.com> wrote:
We do say that if something isn’t covered in our Conditions of Contest, the WBF and ACBL rules should be used. In this case, the WBF is crystal clear that when boards are different at the two tables, substitute boards should be played, except in the one situation where there’s only one fouled board and the teams have already compared, in which case the board is thrown out. Here’s the WBF language. Perhaps we should put that in our Conditions of Contest specifically? Perhaps we also should have a different rule if this happens in a Round Robin, where all of the teams might be inconvenienced if a set had to be replayed?
Fouled Boards
A board is considered “fouled” if the Tournament Director determines that one or more cards were misplaced in the board in such a manner that contestants who should have direct comparison did not play the board in identical form. If in a team event a pre-duplicated board is wrongly dealt and Law 13 of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2007 applies in such a way that the board cannot be played, the board is considered to be a fouled board.
1. 22.1 Fouled Boards in Team Tournaments
A board is not considered fouled if the boards played in the same match are identical even though that board may differ from the like numbered board played in simultaneous matches.
In general, a fouled board should be replayed through the substitution of a new board. In addition, penalties will apply in certain circumstances (in accordance with the Supplemental Conditions of Contest). Replays through the substitution of one new board shall not be permitted after the result of a match may be known to the contestants, as to which circumstances the Tournament Director’s decision shall be binding. That match is scored as though the board had never been played *.
The same rules apply whenever a substitute board would normally be played, for example, when a board is nullified by the Tournament Appeals Committee. When the Tournament Director has reason to believe the Tournament Appeals Committee may wish to have a substitute board played in the final Session of a match, he should have a provisional board played during the Session with an extra time allowance of 8 minutes. The Tournament Director, on his own volition, may instruct that a provisional board be played pending a future decision.
*Example: if the 7th board in a 16-board match is fouled and the error is discovered when the contestants are computing the result of the match, the board is disregarded and the match is scored as though it consisted of only 15 boards.
On Apr 14, 2015, at 9:43 PM, Danny Sprung <danny...@gmail.com> wrote:
Once again, different boards were played at 2 tables of a match. Interestingly, only 8 of the 16 were in error. How that happened, I have no idea.
We don't appear to have any set rule on this unfortunately frequent occurrence. Should the boards always be replayed? If not, does participation in the fouled set count as boards played?
Danny
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Technical Advisory Committee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-tc+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Technical Advisory Committee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-tc+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com.