# Wrong board played

The table should have played board set 28 to 30 but played 28,29,31. They realised when scoring the board. I think the sore should stand. As we were playing an incomplete movement EW did not play board 31 at any other table. The new EW arrive at the offending table but can’t play board 31 as NS have just played it. Should I score the board with the new EW that can’t play 60% 40% if the scoring program will allow two entries with the same NS? There was insufficient time to play the missed board at the end of the night, how should I score this as it was scheduled to be played. Help needed please on correct procedure.

• Law 15 says the first score should stand - and the matchpoints credited to the pairs who played it.

It is a limitation of scoring programs that not all the manipulations you want to do to "travellers" when pairs play the wrong boards are not possible.

AvB should play 30 but played 31 and did not play 30.
AvC could not play 31.

Ideally we want AvB on the traveller for 31, and 40/60 for AvC on board 31,

I think a practical solution, is to enter the score for AvB on 31 as AvC (as the movement expects) and enter the 40/60 as the score for AvB on board 30. On board 30, B score 60% which is not theirs, and they should score the EW match points (M) for "the" score on board 31. Similarly on board 31, C should not get the EW matchpoints (M) but should get 60%. This can be fixed by a balancing adjustment of +/- (M - 60%xTOP) for B and C, entered as an adjustment to their session score.

• I think we need more information to understand properly what happened. Was this on the first round? If so you might have continued with those boards as one set, though it would require some adjustments afterwards in the scoring program. How many tables did you have in play and how many boardsets?

• Playing the wrong board on a TD basis is covered under law 15. In effect the score stands

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.

In this case you are going to have to go in and manually update the bridgemate/ bridgetabs results if scored electronically. If you've told the NS to mark hand 30 as not played then you amend the data as follows

Hand 30 --> If the players have not entered the data (on the wrong board), you should mark it as not played on the bridgemate/ bridgetabs at the table.
If they have entered the data (on the wrong board), you will have to delete it on the server
Since NS and the EW have been deprived the chance of earning a valid score on board 30 (as they could not play it later) then you should enter it as AV-, AV- since both pairs were directly at fault.

Hand 31 --> The software should not allow this result to be entered, so you will have to do it manually on the server

The problem you have now is that the new EW have been deprived of the opportunity to earn a valid score - and so should be awarded AV+ under 3) BUT no NS pair have been so deprived (in a complete movement this does not matter since, as you say, there would be another NS who could not earn a valid score and you could x-reference them). I don't think the scoring software will allow a single player result on a board (I may be wrong).

It would seem that the most solomonic method would be to enter AV+, AV- and have the NS pair entered twice, as you suggest. This means that the offending NS pair have been penalised twice, so an additional procedural penalty against the EW pair might be equitable. (You have had to enter two AAS): the only other (fair) way would be to select a NS that had over 60% average and who had not played the board (or one below 40%) as opponents and score the board as AV+, AV+ or AV+, AV- as appropriate. Of course such a pair may not exist.

TBH when I saw the redrafting of law 15 I thought 'oh s**t' as I knew there would be scoring problems, as well as the chance that a pair would have to wait for 7 or 8 minutes while a pair at the wrong table played a board, the opposite of what went wrong here, of course.

Disclaimer: I am not high up in the EBU/ TD hierarchy so the opinions expressed above are my own. There may be additional information regarding application of Law 15 (there isn't on the minutes of the WBF in Lyon last year).

• 1st question for me, is how did that table get to have board 31 and not 30?

Scoring should not be too difficult - Delete the line for board 30 for their pairing.

For board 31, assuming that they are both scheduled to play this board, delete both lines with their pair numbers.

They score their actual scores against each other for the board they played. As they were not scheduled to play this board, just add them to the traveller (at least it works this way in Scorebridge).

Then, for the 2 pairs that will not get to play board 31, as this is not their fault, add a line for the N/S and E/W pairs to play board 30 against each other and score it as Ave+/Ave+

So assuming that the pairs at fault are pair 1 and 2

Board 30:
1 v 2 - delete this entry (unless they get time to play this later on)

Board 31:
1 v 7 - delete this entry
8 v 2 - delete this entry
1 v 2 - add this entry and give actual result
8 v 7 - add this entry and score and Ave+/Ave+

Only problem I can see is if only one of the offending pairs was ever scheduled to play board 31 (if neither were scheduled then just add in their line and no other amendments required for board 31). One possible solution (I have never tried this, so it may be way wrong) would be to manually calculate the MP equivalent for 60% on that missing board, then apply a negative MP penalty (entering in a positive penalty takes away MP, so a negative penalty might add them?)

• Hi All,
Thanks for your replies. It happened half way through the movement. Board 31 was placed on a chair near the table. North inadvertently picked this up instead of board 30 he had placed on the floor.

• Hi Gordon,
We had 11 tables playing 9 rounds of 3 boards as we like to play 27 boards in a session. There were 33 boards in play.

• edited May 2018

If you are using Bridgemates or other scoring devices. I do not think you are going to be able to fix it via those devices. You should just put something in which allows the event to continue and then fix it in the scoring program. As both pairs were at fault that they did not play board 30 they both get AV- on their line on that score sheet.

As has been said with the new law 15 the score which was obtained by the two pairs who played board 31 when they should not have must stand. If both the pairs at fault had been scheduled to play Board 31 you could make the changes Martin sets out above on the score sheet for Board 31. (Although I would actually do it by amending two lines rather than deleting two and creating two.) If as here only one of them is due to play it you use the line for that pair to record the result that was actually obtained by the pairs who played it when they should not have. I do not think in either EBUScore or Scorebridge you can add a line to a score sheet with just one pair or with a repeated pair. So as Robin suggests we have to make an adjustment for the pair who through no fault of their own were unable to play Board 31. They are of course entitled to AV+ on this board.

So the pair concerned will only have played 23 or 26 boards and are entitled to average+ on the board they didn't play. There is nowhere on the scoresheets in EBUscore where we can give them an average+ because every line is taken up with a score which we need to stand as is.

We therefore need to give this pair their average+ by means of an adjustment under the properties button in EBUscore. I think we need to calculate that adjustment this way:

Firstly if the pair have scored 60% or more we need do nothing as, in that case, an average+ should not change their overall percentage.

If they have scored less than 60% then say over their 23/26 boards they have got A matchpoints out of possible maximum of B. We need to know what adjustment, X, we should add to A so that their percentage is increased to the same that it would have been if they had played another board and scored 60%. Let us say that the top on the board they did not play was T matchpoints then we want them to end up with the percentage they would have got if they had scored 0.6T matchpoints on that board. i.e.

A+X ....... = ......... (A + 0.6T)
_____ .................... _________
B .......................... (B+T)

if we then do the algebra we get:

X ................=............T(0.6B - A)
................................ ___________
......................................T + B
(Have had to use ........... to get the fractions to line up properly and to use three lines for them as there is no underscore available))

We can then calculate X as A and B appear in the standard results report and we can easily see T from the score sheet entries.
You can than use the Properties section of EBUScore to add this as adjustment, X, to this pair so that they end up with their correct percentage. You can achieve the same result in Scorebridge by creating a negative penalty, -X, against this pair on any one score sheet on which they appear.

• @TerryEd said:
Hi Gordon,
We had 11 tables playing 9 rounds of 3 boards as we like to play 27 boards in a session. There were 33 boards in play.

Have you investigated playing a Bowman with those numbers? Then everyone would play the same 27 boards. Obviously there's some board-sharing but with three-board rounds that shouldn't be a problem.

• edited May 2018

Hi Gordon,
I have played a 11 table Bowman before, not easy with two shares and table 11 having to sharing around the room.

Thank you all for your replies. Solution then:

Score on Board 31 stands

AV- to both EW and NS on board 30 as they were unable to play it and to penalize them.

Adjust the score for the EW pair unable to get a result on board 31 by adding match points on another board as proposed by Paul and Martin creating a negative penalty. Tested this and it works.

• The Bowman is ideal for 10 and a half tables (if you have no NS at Table 11) but I agree that the sharing can be off-putting if you have 11 full tables. You might also consider the Extended Mitchell (also known as Blackpool) movement for 11 full tables. It is 13 rounds of 2 boards each with 26 boards in play with very limited sharing of boards (on the last two rounds only).

Barrie Partridge - Senior Kibitzer in Bridge Club Live - Pig Trader in IBLF

• Won't adding a score to another board still leave the pair with inaccuracies with their NGS result, since NGS also incorporates number of boards played? A given percentage over, say, 23 boards will be worth less to their NGS than the same percentage over 24 boards.

• edited May 2018

Yes - BUT it will a) only affect the difference between expected final %ge and actual final %ge and b) is scaled into 2000 boards, so the difference is not going to be that much. If overall they have a poor session then this actually works to their advantage. In fact with the natural variation of NGS grades between sessions, the error is going to be lost in the 'noise'.

• @gordonrainsford said:

@TerryEd said:
Hi Gordon,
We had 11 tables playing 9 rounds of 3 boards as we like to play 27 boards in a session. There were 33 boards in play.

Have you investigated playing a Bowman with those numbers? Then everyone would play the same 27 boards. Obviously there's some board-sharing but with three-board rounds that shouldn't be a problem.

If you have two board sets, a 9x3 Web Mitchell works very well. Tables 1 through 9 play as if playing a standard 9-table Mitchell with the first board set. Tables 10 and 11 use the second board set, with Table 11 playing them in reverse order starting with 25-27.

• edited May 2018

@budh9534 said:

@gordonrainsford said:

@TerryEd said:
Hi Gordon,
We had 11 tables playing 9 rounds of 3 boards as we like to play 27 boards in a session. There were 33 boards in play.

Have you investigated playing a Bowman with those numbers? Then everyone would play the same 27 boards. Obviously there's some board-sharing but with three-board rounds that shouldn't be a problem.

If you have two board sets, a 9x3 Web Mitchell works very well. Tables 1 through 9 play as if playing a standard 9-table Mitchell with the first board set. Tables 10 and 11 use the second board set, with Table 11 playing them in reverse order starting with 25-27.

Yes indeed - for this number of tables (or for 15 tables playing 13 rounds) a Web Mitchell is identical to a Bowman. Playing three-board rounds as in the 11 table version, you can even get by without a second board set.

• @Senior_Kibitzer said:
You might also consider the Extended Mitchell (also known as Blackpool) movement for 11 full tables. It is 13 rounds of 2 boards each with 26 boards in play with very limited sharing of boards (on the last two rounds only).

Or, unless you are desperate to have a 2-winner movement, a double-hesitation Mitchell. 13 2-board rounds with no sharing.& no revenge rounds. But at club level, i would probably prefer 9 3-board rounds to 13 2-board rounds.