[olegru]

ACBL-wide International Fund Game in club.
The first round. We are 1 minute late.
Director instructed us to play EW on the table 11. I am not sure what happened, but 3 bids already are on the table, 1♥ from N, 2♦ from my partner and double from S. Director ask my partner if he has any objection and he does. (Nobody asked, but problem was we are playing Raptor and for us 2♦ intervension deny 4 cards ♠.)
After some thoughts director instruct us to play board 22 and have the late board (number 27) after the last round. If I am not mistaken Director decided to use opportunities given by 1st round and simply decided to replace the fouled board by another one.
We followed instructions and got the result of the board. (Opponents misdefended). Our result is in protocol (http://clubresults.a.../01/120128A.HTM , board 21) but matchpoint score of the board has nothing to do with board result and looks suspiciously like 60%-60%.
Unfortunately we never got informed about any adjustments I can only guess what happened. Board diagram in the protocol on web page is the original board 21, not one we played. I have no information what board was actually played on other tables and why director decided to adjust our score.
If you will look at final results you will see that result of that board (between eventual 1st and 3rd place) very heavily affected the final distribution of the first 4 places.
Because no full protocols were available on the club (only results for each pair) and no information was provided by Director I did not see problem in time and just accidently notice it looking in the protocol on WEB site.

What actually should be done?
Could I do anything now?

[axman]

 olegru, on 2012-January-30, 16:36, said:

ACBL-wide International Fund Game in club.
The first round. We are 1 minute late.
Director instructed us to play EW on the table 11. I am not sure what happened, but 3 bids already are on the table, 1♥ from N, 2♦ from my partner and double from S. Director ask my partner if he has any objection and he does. (Nobody asked, but problem was we are playing Raptor and for us 2♦ intervension deny 4 cards ♠.)
After some thoughts director instruct us to play board 22 and have the late board (number 27) after the last round. If I am not mistaken Director decided to use opportunities given by 1st round and simply decided to replace the fouled board by another one.
We followed instructions and got the result of the board. (Opponents misdefended). Our result is in protocol (http://clubresults.a.../01/120128A.HTM , board 21) but matchpoint score of the board has nothing to do with board result and looks suspiciously like 60%-60%.
Unfortunately we never got informed about any adjustments I can only guess what happened. Board diagram in the protocol on web page is the original board 21, not one we played. I have no information what board was actually played on other tables and why director decided to adjust our score.
If you will look at final results you will see that result of that board (between eventual 1st and 3rd place) very heavily affected the final distribution of the first 4 places.
Because no full protocols were available on the club (only results for each pair) and no information was provided by Director I did not see problem in time and just accidently notice it looking in the protocol on WEB site.

What actually should be done?
Could I do anything now?

I know that it is difficult to write complicated things in a language that is not your native language- but in this case precise details and precise order of events are important. You have used some phrases that do not mean much in America without explanation. If you could talk to others that were there including the TD and have them review what you rewrite there is some hope that your mess can be sorted out.

An important note. It sounds like you never played #21 all the way, or even part of the way [as in somebody else started it and you came in the middle].

One thing you definitely should do is have the TD explain everything that happened. You were entitled to a timely explantion and you ought to let the TD know that you expect it in the future.Understanding this correctly is probably important..

[blackshoe]

If I understand this correctly, some other pair sat EW for part of the auction on board 21, and by the time you showed up, that pair was elsewhere. So the director had you sit EW with a partially completed auction. When your partner complained, essentially, that he would not have bid 2♦, the TD cancelled the board. Later, he had you play a completely different board, one that was not in the original movement, and which no one else played at any time during the session. Is that about right? If so, it seems to me the TD was trying to correct a problem caused by a leaving pair, but he screwed it up.

I might have cancelled the original auction, told your opponents that the fact that the player your partner replaced had originally bid 2♦ is UI to them, and allowed you to play the board, hoping to get a "normal" result, and giving you A+/A+ if a normal result is not obtained. Alternatively, I would have taken board 21 away, substituted board 27, and let everyone play that board. Either way, you'd have gotten a normal score on the board, and so would everyone else. As it happened, in "fouled board" terms (this may have been the way the TD was thinking, but this is not a "fouled board" situation, because it does not meet the criteria of Law 87) you are in a comparison group of one, so the only thing to do is to award both sides an artificial adjusted score, which would be average plus since neither side was responsible for the problem (unless perhaps this NS threw the original EW out the window or something). If the TD recognized that this is not a "fouled board" problem but a "director error" problem, he still would have given both sides A+, "considering both sides as non-offending".

I don't think anything else could be done now, even if the correction period has not expired. But I would ask the TD to explain what the hell he thought he was doing, and ask him why he didn't apply one of the two solutions I suggested here. I suspect the answer to that is "because I didn't think of it".

BTW, comparing the +140 you got on board 27 with the table scores other pairs achieved doesn't work. Different boards cannot be compared. And if the TD awarded you A+/A+ on board 21, which is certainly what it looks like he did, that's what he should have written in there, not the score you got on board 27.

[blackshoe]

 axman, on 2012-January-30, 17:32, said:

I know that it is difficult to write complicated things in a language that is not your native language- but in this case precise details and precise order of events are important. You have used some phrases that do not mean much in America without explanation. If you could talk to others that were there including the TD and have them review what you rewrite there is some hope that your mess can be sorted out.

An important note. It sounds like you never played #21 all the way, or even part of the way [as in somebody else started it and you came in the middle].

One thing you definitely should do is have the TD explain everything that happened. You were entitled to a timely explantion and you ought to let the TD know that you expect it in the future.Understanding this correctly is probably important..

It seemed clear enough to me.

I agree wholeheartedly with that last bit.

[barmar]

The phrase I didn't understand was "in protocol" -- is that what confused you as well, blackshoe axman? I've never heard this term used in a bridge context.

BTW, it doesn't seem like neither side was at fault for the board being skipped. Isn't it because this pair arrived late? I guess what the TD did was have a substitute pair start the bidding while waiting for them, although in my experience the substitutes usually play the entire board, and the late pair takes their place after that.

This post has been edited by barmar: 2012-February-01, 10:20
Reason for edit: Corrected who was also confused.

[blackshoe]

If you seat a pair and they start bidding on a board, it is absolutely bonkers to eject them and seat a late arriving pair. Even the least competent TD I know wouldn't do that.

It doesn't sound to me like this late pair was necessarily expected at all. It sounds a lot more like somebody started at that table, and then had to leave suddenly. It also sounds like the OP's "one minute" was a lot longer, or the TD started the first round early, neither of which would surprise me.

[barmar]

I was thinking the same thing about it being bonkers. The only rationalization I could think of was that he was correct about being only 1 minute late, and the director thought "Well, they only got 3 bids in, let's put the correct pair in." Although when they said they couldn't continue that auction, the substitutes should have been reseated.

Considering the solution the TD actually came up with, I don't think we're talking about a very competent TD. So bonkers isn't out of the question.

[blackshoe]

Point taken.

[axman]

 blackshoe, on 2012-January-30, 17:37, said:

It seemed clear enough to me.

The gentleman asked for advice concerning HIS set of circumstances, but did not state all of his circumstances coherently. If you answer some differnet question instead of HIS question he has not succeeded in getting good advice and may become most displeased if he acts upon it when his circumstances recur next year. It could well be that there were errors such as additional TD errors that cannot be evaluated when facts are missing/ doubtful.

Anyway, one would think that Judi Radin would opt for a game run by a better TD.

[pran]

The only explanation of TD actions than I can imagine having a little bit of sense if this is a case of Law 15C:

If, during the auction period, the Director discovers that a contestant is playing a board not designated for him to play in the current round, he shall cancel the auction, ensure that the correct contestants are seated and that they are informed of their rights both now and at future rounds. A second auction begins. [...]

But nobody has mentioned that as a fact . . . . .

[gordontd]

He seems to have awarded you both 60%, so seems to have cancelled the board and deemed that neither pair at the table was at fault. I think you should ask him to explain what he did.

This post has been edited by gordontd: 2012-January-31, 03:03

[blackshoe]

 pran, on 2012-January-31, 00:52, said:

The only explanation of TD actions than I can imagine having a little bit of sense if this is a case of Law 15C:

If, during the auction period, the Director discovers that a contestant is playing a board not designated for him to play in the current round, he shall cancel the auction, ensure that the correct contestants are seated and that they are informed of their rights both now and at future rounds. A second auction begins. [...]

But nobody has mentioned that as a fact . . . . .

It was board 21. There were 13 tables; this happened at table 11, at round 1. I infer two board rounds, 26 boards in play (corroborated by the posted results), with boards 21 and 22 at table 11 in round one. So 15C would not apply.

I said what I think may have happened. I think I made it clear that it's only what I think happened, not necessarily what did happen.

The advice Olegru should take from this thread, as I and others have said, is that he should ask the TD what he (the TD) did and why he did it.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2012-January-31, 08:35, said:

 pran, on 2012-January-31, 00:52, said:

The only explanation of TD actions than I can imagine having a little bit of sense if this is a case of Law 15C:

If, during the auction period, the Director discovers that a contestant is playing a board not designated for him to play in the current round, he shall cancel the auction, ensure that the correct contestants are seated and that they are informed of their rights both now and at future rounds. A second auction begins. [...]

But nobody has mentioned that as a fact . . . . .

It was board 21. There were 13 tables; this happened at table 11, at round 1. I infer two board rounds, 26 boards in play (corroborated by the posted results), with boards 21 and 22 at table 11 in round one. So 15C would not apply.

I said what I think may have happened. I think I made it clear that it's only what I think happened, not necessarily what did happen.

The advice Olegru should take from this thread, as I and others have said, is that he should ask the TD what he (the TD) did and why he did it.

Sure,
And the three calls already on the table were made by who? Another pair that shouldn't have been there?

Of course the Director has some explaining to do (including how board 27 came into the case at all in a 13 table Mitchell movement).

[olegru]

Sorry, my English is far from the perfect.
I don’t know the exact set of circumstances. As a player I am following the Directors instructions and I have no way to know about exact decisions taken by Director until he informed me about them.
And things look confusing because they are confusing.  There was too much mess for the single board.
By word “protocol” I meant the scoresheet, sorry. Basically this thing:

Now, I believe, I understand the set of circumstances better and it looks more like computer score problem for me. I will put all my finding together one more time. Hopefully it is more comprehensible now.
1. 1 round. Board 21 started on the table 11. 3 bids made. 11EW pair left the table (I have no ideas why and where). New pair 11EW arrived. East complained about bid made. Director replaced board 21 by board 27 and instructed to skip this board and have a late play.
2. Boards moved to table 10. I don’t have information what board been played on the table 10. It definitely was not the board drown on the web site, because result 11 trick by EW is not reachable there.
3. Board moved to table 9. They played the same board as a table 10.
4. Something happened after third round because the next table 8 played the different board. And this second board is not the board drown on the web site too.
5. Starting this moment we have 2 different sets of result in the scoresheet for the board 21: The first 2 marked as F, and the rest marked as G. In the scoresheet this board marked as 21 but board with number 27 in use.
6. After the last round we have the late play. I am pretty sure we played the same board with other field except tables 10 and 9.
7. Director manually enters our result on the board but does not specify if it belong to F or G group. I guess he did not realize that the late board is the same board he already had so much troubles with.
8. Now system sees 3 different sets of results in the scoresheet. Set F played on the tables 9 and 10. Set G played on tables from 1 to 8. And set with no letter played on the table 11 only. With no comparison available system automatically assigned ave+/ave+
9. Director did not make any decisions about adjusting our result, this “decision” was made by computer system and, I guess, Directors had never noticed it.

Now, I notice all this mess in a couple of days.
Could anything be done at this moment?

[Vampyr]

 pran, on 2012-January-31, 09:09, said:

Of course the Director has some explaining to do (including how board 27 came into the case at all in a 13 table Mitchell movement).

It used to be (and might still be) the practice in the ACBL that players are required to prepare boards at the table. Each table would have one round's worth of boards which they would be responsible for duplicating and would necessarily miss.

[blackshoe]

Again, at this moment you can ask the director what happened. It may or may not be past the "correction period", which by default ends 30 minutes after the scores are posted, although clubs often extend it to the beginning of the next session. If the correction period has expired, the posted results will stand. If it has not expired, the director can change a score if he finds an error.

I had not understood what the F and G on "board 21" were about, but yes, it appears the board was fouled somewhere between tables 9 and 8. I have an idea what may have happened, but I'm not going to give Axman another opportunity to razz at me. IAC, it's not really clear whether the board you played at the end of the evening was the same as the board in either group. So my best advice is "ask the director what happened, what he did, and why he did it". Just tell him you're trying to understand the circumstances.

The scoring program is almost certainly ACBLScore, which does not automatically enter any score.

This looks to me like boards pre-duplicated by a Duplimate machine. Besides, if board 27 (and 28) were in play because of hand duplication, they'd show up in the results, and they don't.

Just out of curiosity, Olegru, what was your contract on board 27?

[olegru]

 blackshoe, on 2012-January-31, 09:56, said:

So my best advice is "ask the director what happened, what he did, and why he did it". Just tell him you're trying to understand the circumstances.

I is what I did yesterday. Reply was "I don't know. Talk to head director."

[blackshoe]

Heh. You cross posted with my edit of my last post. I guess you'll have to find the head director and ask him.

So what was your contract on 27?

[gordontd]

 olegru, on 2012-January-31, 09:23, said:

Could anything be done at this moment?

Whether anything can be done now depends on the regulations in force. You may be too late for it to be corrected.

If you are not too late, from what you now tell us it looks as though you should have got 9.33 MPs instead of the 6.6 you were awarded (though the other scores would have changed by a small amount too).

[RMB1]

They only played 12 rounds, so perhaps the boards 1-26 were made up at the table.
It looks like board 27 was just the first board to hand not being in play.

ACBL awards 65% and 55% for a sub-field of two results.
The other sub-field of 9 results have been neuberg-ed with a factor of 12/9=4/3.

If it can be determined which sub-field the first result belongs to, and if it is within the time limit for correcting manifest scoring errors, then the appropriate sub-field should be rescored with 3 or 10 results.

If NS -140 is a spade partial for EW this looks to be a good score for EW in larger sub-field.