[BLML] scoring question

Herman De Wael hermandw at skynet.be
Thu May 28 08:32:35 CEST 2015


The idea of a two-winner movement is flawed as it is, so why bother with 
two extra fields?
Herman.

Stefanie Rohan schreef:
> It seems to me that if it is a two-winner movement, ie no other boards are arrow-switched, then any result obtained is invalid. How can a two-winner event have four different fields?
>
>
>> On 27 May 2015, at 21:11, Sven Pran <svenpran at online.no> wrote:
>>
>> I don't see any problem?
>> If the board was not fouled in any way then EW apparently took NS hands and
>> vice versa, the auction started with the player now holding the hand marked
>> as "dealer" on the board and the board was played out under these conditions
>> then the result on the board stands as if EW were seated NS and NS were
>> seated EW and they receive the corresponding scores (EW the score allocated
>> to NS on the board and NS the score allocated to EW on the board).
>>
>> However if the board was fouled (see Law 87) and was played in that form on
>> one single table only then both affected pairs shall receive Ave+ score on
>> that board.
>>
>>> -----Opprinnelig melding-----
>>> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] På vegne av
>> Steve
>>> Willner
>>> Sendt: 27. mai 2015 16:10
>>> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List
>>> Emne: [BLML] scoring question
>>>
>>> This should be simple.  In a Mitchell movement, playing matchpoints, one
>> board
>>> is played rotated 90 degrees at one table only.  That is to say, EW take
>> the NS
>>> hands and vice versa.  Otherwise the board is played normally and a result
>>> achieved.  The players are in no way at fault; the Director instructed
>> them to do
>>> this for reasons that seemed good at the time.  For illustration, let's
>> say the
>>> normal EW, holding the NS cards, achieve a higher score than any other NS
>> pair.
>>> How should the board be scored?
>>>
>>> a) normal EW keep their top, normal NS their bottom?  At the end of the
>>> session, the EW total matchpoints will exceed the NS total matchpoints by
>> two
>>> tops.
>>>
>>> b) artificial scores, presumably avg+ to both?  (Board unplayable,
>> Director's
>>> error, or something along those lines.)
>>>
>>> c) something else?
>>>
>>> I think I know the answer, but can anyone cite an official regulation in
>> any
>>> jurisdiction?  ACBL would be ideal, but I'd be glad to see a regulation or
>> official
>>> guideline from anywhere.  I looked in the EBU White Book and didn't find
>>> anything, and I know of nothing in the ACBL.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Blml mailing list
>>> Blml at rtflb.org
>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Blml mailing list
>> Blml at rtflb.org
>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> Blml at rtflb.org
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>


More information about the Blml mailing list