[BudH]

With the new laws in effect in a 9 1/2 table rover movement, rover pair 10EW will be playing at Table 2 in Round 2. But Tables 1, 2, and 3 finish early and before the Director can stop it, 2NS and 1EW have started the auction on Board 7. Under the new laws, 2NS and 1EW finish the board, their result counts, even though 1EW was not supposed to ever play that board, and 10EW get an average plus adjusted score (assuming they are considered not at fault).

In ACBLscore, the commands F11-->EDMOV-->Change movement-->Edit Cell will allow you, using the "partial round adjustment" to change the Board 7 Table 2 Round 2 from 2NS vs. 10EW to 2NS vs. 1EW.

My question is what to do with the EW10 Average Plus for Board 7. How do I enter THAT into ACBLscore? And will Bridgemates also be able to interpret that information?

[blackshoe]

Without reading the law, I don't think you do anything with it. You changed the schedule of who's supposed to play what boards, and now EW10 is no longer scheduled to play that board. That's probably not the right ruling, but like I said, I haven't looked at the law.

A more fundamental question is how did tables 1, 2, and 3 manage to finish early? If this happened around here, the explanation for that would be that when the director passed out the boards, starting at table one and moving up, the pairs started playing as soon as the boards hit the table. After he's done passing out the boards, the director starts the clock. So when the round officially starts, the early tables are nearly a full board, and sometimes more, ahead of the clock. People then get up to move as soon as they're done, ignoring the clock and pushing the moving pair at the next table to "catch up" when they shouldn't have to do that. People also interrupt higher numbered tables to ask for boards while play is still going on and the round has not been called. It becomes a mess. It would be far better to tell people not to start playing until instructed to do so, so that everyone has the same amount of time to complete the rounds. And to penalize those who don't follow that instruction, until they learn to follow it.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2017-July-08, 13:05, said:

A more fundamental question is how did tables 1, 2, and 3 manage to finish early? If this happened around here, the explanation for that would be that when the director passed out the boards, starting at table one and moving up, the pairs started playing as soon as the boards hit the table. After he's done passing out the boards, the director starts the clock. So when the round officially starts, the early tables are nearly a full board, and sometimes more, ahead of the clock.

Finishing a board or more in the time it takes to hand out boards to 6-8 other tables? How slow is this hypothetical director? Is every table in a different room?

When we play a rover movement (pretty frequent in our club), we try to warn pairs that they're being bumped a round in advance, to make problems like this unlikely.

[blackshoe]

I said "if this happened around here". Our games usually run at least twelve tables, and often sixteen. Our biggest game runs thirty to forty tables in three to four sections. There, the director will usually have a little help. It still takes a while.

[BudH]

 blackshoe, on 2017-July-08, 13:05, said:

Without reading the law, I don't think you do anything with it. You changed the schedule of who's supposed to play what boards, and now EW10 is no longer scheduled to play that board. That's probably not the right ruling, but like I said, I haven't looked at the law.

A more fundamental question is how did tables 1, 2, and 3 manage to finish early? If this happened around here, the explanation for that would be that when the director passed out the boards, starting at table one and moving up, the pairs started playing as soon as the boards hit the table. After he's done passing out the boards, the director starts the clock. So when the round officially starts, the early tables are nearly a full board, and sometimes more, ahead of the clock. People then get up to move as soon as they're done, ignoring the clock and pushing the moving pair at the next table to "catch up" when they shouldn't have to do that. People also interrupt higher numbered tables to ask for boards while play is still going on and the round has not been called. It becomes a mess. It would be far better to tell people not to start playing until instructed to do so, so that everyone has the same amount of time to complete the rounds. And to penalize those who don't follow that instruction, until they learn to follow it.

This is (mostly) theoretical on how Pair 10-EW receive their Average Plus in ACBLscore. If I had to do it from what I know now, I'd need to total the raw 10-EW matchpoints on 23 boards and add 4.8 (60% of a top of 8) for Board 7 they didn't get to play. (Yes, I would do the math to check if their 23 board average was greater than 60%.) Then put that in as an "adjustment".

My hypothetical Tables 1 through 3 finishing early was so Board 7 would be conveniently available to play before most were ready for Round 2.

I update the movement in ACBLscore, start Bridgemate software, and upload the hand record to Bridgemate. That all takes about 45 seconds. Then I start handing out the boards. That takes less than one minute. Then the 21 minute clock is started.

Yes, I warn the pairs being bumped and warn before Rounds 3 and 6 the Pair 6 and 9 special movements required with 9 1/2 tables.

[blackshoe]

You're pretty quick.

I do not see how you can justify giving a pair any score for a board they were not scheduled to play. Also, after you edit the movement so that 10EW is not scheduled to play the board, there will be no place in ACBLScore to enter a score on that board for that pair. Certainly you can alter their total matchpoint score, but should you? I don't think so.

1EW was not scheduled to play this board, either during round 2 or later. So they likewise should, it seems to me, get no score on the board. So I would leave the movement alone, and let 2NS keep the table result and award 10EW Average plus. That seems more equitable than amending the movement so that you can let 1EW keep a score for a board they weren't ever supposed to play.

Maybe I'm missing something.

[BudH]

 blackshoe, on 2017-July-08, 21:04, said:

You're pretty quick.

I do not see how you can justify giving a pair any score for a board they were not scheduled to play. Also, after you edit the movement so that 10EW is not scheduled to play the board, there will be no place in ACBLScore to enter a score on that board for that pair. Certainly you can alter their total matchpoint score, but should you? I don't think so.

1EW was not scheduled to play this board, either during round 2 or later. So they likewise should, it seems to me, get no score on the board. So I would leave the movement alone, and let 2NS keep the table result and award 10EW Average plus. That seems more equitable than amending the movement so that you can let 1EW keep a score for a board they weren't ever supposed to play.

Maybe I'm missing something.

Law 15B - Wrong Board Discovered During Auction or Play Period
If, after the commencement of the auction period, the Director discovers that a contestant is playing a board not designated for him to play in the current round, then:
1. if one or more players at the table have previously played the board, with the correct opponents or otherwise, the board is cancelled for both his side and his opponents.
2. if none of the four players have previously played the board the Director shall require the auction and play to be completed. He allows the score to stand and may require both pairs to play the correct board against one another later.
3. the Director shall award an artificial adjusted score [see Law 12C2(a)] to any contestant deprived of the opportunity to earn a valid score.

I see nothing in the new law about whether a pair are designated to play the board during the session - or not. Law 15B2 tells the Director to have the auction and play completed and allows the score to stand. Via new Law 15B3, 10-EW need to be given their 4.8 out of 8 matchpoints (or more if their session is more than 60%).

The question is how to award that score on that board to 10-EW as well as the 2-NS vs. 1-EW score result from play in ACBLscore (and Bridgemate software).

[RMB1]

I think the way to give the rover their 60% is to add a line to the traveller where the rover pair play the "missing pair" and score it as 60/40, and exclude the missing pair from the ranking list.
Equivalently, replace the movement with a rover-with-appendix-table (where the highest EW are stationary at the last table, the bumped NS play at this table and share boards with the rover table). Then you have enough lines on the traveller to swap the rover and the NS that mistakenly played the board. Again you need to exclude the highest EW table from the ranking list.

[BudH]

I have sent an email to acblscore@acbl.org asking how to record both the score at the table and the Average Plus for the pair not able to play the board.

The whole problems that can happen with a rover (bumping) pair is one reason why I prefer to use a movement with a phantom pair instead, if possible.

For 9 1/2 tables, because I often make myself up an extra set of boards, I use a 9x3 10 table Web movement with Boards 1-27 in play at Tables 1-5 and 6-10 with an East-West phantom at Table 10. No more rover pair or Pair 6 and 9 during Rounds 3 and 6 issues!

[blackshoe]

What does "he allows the score to stand" mean? Certainly the score should stand for any pair who was scheduled, at some time in the movement, to play that board. However, the law seems not to take into account the possibility that one of the pairs was never scheduled to play the board. You're reading it as requiring such a pair to get something extra - a score they were never supposed to get. Maybe you're right. I'll be interested to see what answer you get from Horn Lake — though I suspect it won't address this question.

[barmar]

If a pair was never scheduled to play the board at all, then they also weren't scheduled to play it during the current round. So Law 15B still applies.

If it said "were schedule to play the board in another round", then there would be a problem. But the current wording doesn't leave this supposed hole.

[crazy4hoop]

I thought where the rover pair started was at the discretion of the director. Could you not, for example, start the roving pair at table 4 (bumping pair 3 EW in round 2 instead of pair 1 EW). I think ACBLscore allows you to start the roving pair wherever you want but could easily be wrong.

[BudH]

 crazy4hoop, on 2017-July-09, 16:03, said:

I thought where the rover pair started was at the discretion of the director. Could you not, for example, start the roving pair at table 4 (bumping pair 3 EW in round 2 instead of pair 1 EW). I think ACBLscore allows you to start the roving pair wherever you want but could easily be wrong.

Yes, I agree completely and decided not to mention the possibility of starting the rover at a different table. Perhaps I should have had this hypothetical situation occur in the middle of the session to avoid that solution.