[FrancesHinden]

This thread contains a discussion on law 86D.

To recap, this says:

Quote

In team play when the Director awards an adjusted score...and a result has been obtained between the same contestants at another table, the Director may assign an adjusted score in IMPs or total points (and should do so when
that result appears favourable to the non-offending side).

dburn tells us that

Quote

...this Law is generally invoked only in cases of apparent skulduggery, to prevent players from nullifying a bad result by fouling the board and rendering it unplayable at the other table.

Whether or not it should apply in the circumstances of the actual case is not clear; whether or not it can apply is also (at the moment) unclear to the WBF, from which it is possible to conclude that for the moment, a Director can apply it if he chooses.

But I'm not sure where dburn's authority on this comes from (the same place as where most of his pronouncements come from, I imagine).

So when should you apply this law and when shouldn't you?

See the next post for two examples....

[FrancesHinden]

So, in the Crockfords final (the English national teams championship, the last eight teams have an all-play-all round robin over a weekend) there was a problem with the board duplication. We played two boards at our table, which were unplayable at the other table because one of the hands had been swapped (e.g. the West cards in 18 belonged to 17 and vice-versa). This was not caught in time to allow substitute boards to be played (a third board was played with a substitute) so two results were obtained at one table, that could not be obtained at the other.

None of the players was at fault, so both sides should be treated as non-offending.

One the first board, we made 4H+2 for +480. This was very likely (say 70%) to be a flat board, although it had a chance of gaining one imp (say 25%) and a minor chance of gaining rather more if they had an accident and got to slam, which would obviously go off. I haven't looked at the results around the room, but I would guess on the cross-imps we gained maybe 0.5 imps.

On the second board we went off in 4S in -50. This was likely to be flat (say 60%, although our opponents would say more like 40%) but obviously had more downside than upside, with making game or making partial quite possible. Across the 7 tables that played the board we cross-imped to -4 imps.

The TD (RMB1) gave +3 imps to both sides on the first board.
He gave +3 imps to us on the second, and applied 86D to give +5 (I think, certainly rather more than +3) to the other team on the second.

So why apply 86D to one board rather than the other? Where is the boundary? There was certainly no hint of skullduggery.

Obviously what was done was legal, no complaints there.
I assume we could have appealed the number of imps if we had wanted to.
Could we have appealed whether 86D should have been applied or not?

[blackshoe]

You can certainly appeal on the basis that perhaps 86D should not have been applied, but the AC cannot override the TD on that - if the TD cannot be convinced to change his mind, the appeal would have to go to the NBO - your L&EC, iirc.

[mrdct]

FrancesHinden, on Jul 20 2010, 04:31 PM, said:

We played two boards at our table, which were unplayable at the other table because one of the hands had been swapped (e.g. the West cards in 18 belonged to 17 and vice-versa).  This was not caught in time to allow substitute boards to be played

If the cards for west from board 17 were swapped with the cards for west from board 18, surely somebody would've noticed something odd when dummy went down. Was this some sort of restricted event?

[RMB1]

FrancesHinden, on Jul 20 2010, 10:31 PM, said:

The TD (RMB1) gave +3 imps to both sides on the first board.
He gave +3 imps to us on the second, and applied 86D to give +5 (I think, certainly rather more than +3) to the other team on the second.

So why apply 86D to one board rather than the other?  Where is the boundary?  There was certainly no hint of skullduggery.

Time for me to emerge from the bushes on this topic. I don't think we know how to apply Law 86D. There was much material on this law at the EBL TD course in San Remo earlier this year, but this material was based on a WBF LC minute that was subsequently withdrawn.

(I thought I got Frances to play a replacement board for the first board, which was then flat.)

I tried to apply Law 86D to the second board. I was worried by the phrase "the non-offending side", what should I do if there are two?

I awarded +5IMP for Frances' opponents scoring -50 against 50% +50 and 50% -420 at the other table. I gave Frances' team +3IMP as an artificial adjustment. This is how we had applied Law 86D in the past, for example at Brighton Swiss Teans.

I have been told that this is the wrong approach. One approach is we should give an artificial adjusted score to both non-offending sides and the other approach is to give an assigned adjusted score to both non-offending sides (as jallerton suggests in the other thread). In the latter case, we produce a sympathetic weighting for the score at the other table (so the scores do not balance) but the net IMPs should be no more than 6IMPs: so the assigned score does not cost the rest of the field any more than awarding an artificial AVE+ to both sides.

Applied to Frances' second board, the opponents get +5IMP (scored against 50% of 4S=/4S-1, which is sympathetically weighted to the opponents) and Frances' team get 0IMP (scored against 100% -50, the best they could do on the board). The net IMPs is 5, so the weighting are not overly generous.

I do not know how to apply this when there are two (mutually fouled) boards where two results have been obtained, which is bluejak's case. I was consulted about that case and advised that we did not know what to do and suggested +3IMP to both sides was the only ruling we could give with any credibility.

When there are two results, they might each be favourable to the same non-offending side or to two different non-offending sides. Without explicit regulation, I do not know how to combine the two assigned adjusted scores.

[pran]

FrancesHinden, on Jul 20 2010, 10:21 PM, said:

This thread contains a discussion on law 86D.

To recap, this says:

Quote

In team play when the Director awards an adjusted score...and a result has been obtained between the same contestants at another table, the Director may assign an adjusted score in IMPs or total points (and should do so when
that result appears favourable to the non-offending side).

dburn tells us that

Quote

...this Law is generally invoked only in cases of apparent skulduggery, to prevent players from nullifying a bad result by fouling the board and rendering it unplayable at the other table.

Whether or not it should apply in the circumstances of the actual case is not clear; whether or not it can apply is also (at the moment) unclear to the WBF, from which it is possible to conclude that for the moment, a Director can apply it if he chooses.

But I'm not sure where dburn's authority on this comes from (the same place as where most of his pronouncements come from, I imagine).

So when should you apply this law and when shouldn't you?

See the next post for two examples....

The essence of Law 86D is that when an irregularity at one table has made it impossible (at that table) to obtain a relevant result (i.e. a result that can be legally compared with the result at the other table in the match) then an innocent side with a particularly good result at the table where no irregularity occurred shall not be limited to an artificial adjusted score of just +3 IMP if a better score had been likely absent the irregularity.

[RMB1]

mrdct, on Jul 20 2010, 10:50 PM, said:

If the cards for west from board 17 were swapped with the cards for west from board 18, surely somebody would've noticed something odd when dummy went down.  Was this some sort of restricted event?

This was noticed when dummy went down. We gave them board 18 to play while we investigate board 17 but, of course (in hindsight), the same thing happened.

I'm not sure what you are implying by your question. This was the final of open national team of four competition.

[jallerton]

mrdct said:

If the cards for west from board 17 were swapped with the cards for west from board 18, surely somebody would've noticed something odd when dummy went down. Was this some sort of restricted event?

It was indeed noticed that Law 1 had been violated when dummy went down on board 17. The TD was called and he said he would look into board 17 and advised the players to play board 18 in the meantime. That kept the players quiet, until that is dummy went down on board 18! No cards were played on either board at this table.

The results Frances mentions are from the other table in the same match, which had used different (but correctly duplicated) physical boards.

[mjj29]

RMB1, on Jul 20 2010, 05:26 PM, said:

I awarded +5IMP for Frances' opponents scoring -50 against 50% +50 and 50% -420 at the other table. I gave Frances' team +3IMP as an artificial adjustment. This is how we had applied Law 86D in the past, for example at Brighton Swiss Teans.

I have been told that this is the wrong approach.

The application I saw of it at last year's Brighton Swiss Teams (given by bluejak to our table) was a case where at the other table a loud "nice slam" was heard as the board dropped next to our team mate's table. They called the TD and said they couldn't play the board. This is not a physically fouled board - but there were two NOS. At our table, our oppo played in part score when at least the game is obvious and probably the slam. We got +11 IMPs from L86D and they got +3 IMPs (av+) for being a NOS, so the match finished with us winning 13-8 or something. This seems like a sensible application of L86D (did you mean, RMB, that this is wrong?) and would seem to reasonably translate to other occasions with two NOS.

[RMB1]

mjj29, on Jul 20 2010, 11:57 PM, said:

... This seems like a sensible application of L86D (did you mean, RMB, that this is wrong?) and would seem to reasonably translate to other occasions with two NOS.

There have been a number of such rulings at Brighton since the new laws came into effect (that is in August 2008 and August 2009). One example was going to be adapted for the EBU County Director's course, I don't know if it was used.

I do not know it is wrong. But I have been told it is wrong (by my ultimate authority).

[McBruce]

Most of the discussion of 86D so far has concerned duplication errors. What about this scenario?

N-S make a slam off two cashable aces after a defensive miscue on Board 4 of an 8-board Swiss team match played as most of them are here in the ACBL, without preduplicated boards. A caddy is called to move the four completed boards to the other table and only two come back. At the other table, the director is called three times with complaints about the slow play of North and South, and ultimately Board 4 (the last board in the set at the other table, having played 5-8 first) is removed by the TD for lack of time, as most of the match results have already been reported before they are finished Board 3.

Is there a Law 86D case here?

What if there had been no prior complaints about slow play until the board was taken away?

[mjj29]

McBruce, on Jul 21 2010, 05:50 PM, said:

Is there a Law 86D case here?

I think so, unless RMB is right that we have been misapplying L86D

McBruce, on Jul 21 2010, 05:50 PM, said:

What if there had been no prior complaints about slow play until the board was taken away?

That just changes whether you think that one side is non-offending (ie, you would give them av+) or whether they are partly at fault (and hence would give them av=) - which is a judgement for the TD to make at the table.

[McBruce]

Oh dear.

In an two-session ACBL Swiss teams at a sectional, we probably take away about 1-3 boards per event because there simply isn't time. The vast majority of cases involve both sides at fault because nobody has let us know, and the board is simply scored as a push, regardless of the result at the other table. Law 86D says (even when both sides are partly to blame for the length of the match) that we must investigate and see if the result at the other table is favourable to one side. Such investigations must take place when time is at a premium (the other players are all waiting for the next set of pairings, or worse, waiting for the final results) and will involve a fair bit of analysis and probable argument when the decision is made. Sounds like 'fun.'

1) Do we wait for a team with a good board, unplayed at the other table, to complain, or investigate all removed boards?

2) Is it best to look at the board and decide what a normal result might be, or ask the complaining side how they think they have a winning position?

3) If a side claims damage due to a canceled board at the other table and in fact they have no case, can the TDs issue a PP for an 86D appeal without merit?

[RMB1]

In England (EBU) we don't take away boards that have been played at one table in a match.

In Europe (EBL), there was a regulation that encourages taking away boards when tables run over time, even once a board has been started. The regulation requires an assigned adjusted score based on the auction/play so far, but my impression was that this was rarely done.

[campboy]

FWIW, if I'd had to deal with the case Matt related I'd have ruled as bluejak did and it would not have occurred to me that there might be another way to think about it (though of course now that it has been pointed out I can see that there is).

[bluejak]

McBruce, on Jul 22 2010, 08:55 AM, said:

Oh dear.

In an two-session ACBL Swiss teams at a sectional, we probably take away about 1-3 boards per event because there simply isn't time.  The vast majority of cases involve both sides at fault because nobody has let us know, and the board is simply scored as a push, regardless of the result at the other table.  Law 86D says (even when both sides are partly to blame for the length of the match) that we must investigate and see if the result at the other table is favourable to one side.  Such investigations must take place when time is at a premium (the other players are all waiting for the next set of pairings, or worse, waiting for the final results) and will involve a fair bit of analysis and probable argument when the decision is made.  Sounds like 'fun.' 

1) Do we wait for a team with a good board, unplayed at the other table, to complain, or investigate all removed boards?

2) Is it best to look at the board and decide what a normal result might be, or ask the complaining side how they think they have a winning position?

3) If a side claims damage due to a canceled board at the other table and in fact they have no case, can the TDs issue a PP for an 86D appeal without merit? 

My copy of the Laws does not include the words "that we must investigate" in Law 86D. We do not look at every board played to see if there was a revoke etc.

No, as with nearly every other Law in the book, you only investigate when a player brings it to your attention. But if someone does, you have to investigate. Don't you have spare time to go through the board during the next round? No-one is suggesting that you should hold the event up. Judgement rulings are never given right away, are they? The one I received in Wales was several hours later, as expected.

RMB1, on Jul 22 2010, 09:03 AM, said:

In England (EBU) we don't take away boards that have been played at one table in a match.

Well, err, yes. Actually, we are told never to take boards away in EBU events. But I am sure that sometimes boards are removed in such events, and certainly some TDs in England have been known to remove boards in other events.