[uday]

I'm trying to gain a sense of how these should work in a bbo tourney. If I understand them and the code isnt too scary I'll find a way to add them.


Are they assigned to the player or the pair? (consider that both players may be subbed)

What if it is assigned to a player in an indy and the player is subbed later?

Are there limits on the size of this penalty?

Does the PP explicitly need to be listed somewhere (say, on the leaderboard)?


Uday

[hrothgar]

Here are my suggestions, starting with the really important one: Cross post this to David Stevenson's Bridge Talk forum. David is a very experienced EBL TD with reasonable experience playing Online. I think that his feedback would be quite useful.

http://forums.bridgetalk.com/

I would argue that proceedural penalties should (typically) be assigned to the pair. During any given round of bridge players compete as pairs. Accordingly, the penalities should be assigned to the partnership as a whole. The only possible exception would be a zero tolerance type penalty during the course of an individual where one member of the partnership was an innocent bystander. (I'd be interested in seeing comments regarding how this is handled in the real world)

Awarding a proceedural penalty will prevent the score sheet from balancing.
I think that the existence of a proceedural penalty should be noted.
I don't see a need to show what table this was assigned to...

[DJNeill]

Hi Uday,

Agree with Richard - post this to David Stevenson's laws page. Not only does he know the most of anyone else online but he also goes out of his way to defer to the sponsoring organization when those rules might supercede WBF regs.

Thanks,
Dan

[pigpenz]

i would love it, there are people who continually fail to alert.
Play slow etc. Procedural penalties i always felt were outside the laws of bridge at the discretion of the TD not up to over rule by committee.

in an individual they would be either to the pair or individual depending on the problem, if the person gets substitued then it gets carried along.

[telecine]

Lusobrasil here (telecine was the old nickname).

PP on a pairs event are assigned to the pair. On an individual event they can be assigned to a player or a pair (so best in programming terms is to have the possibility to assign the penalties on an individual event to any of the four players, on a pairs event to any of the two pairs). No limit, maybe the software can by default suggest -10% of the top on matchpoint scored events, -3 imps on teams events. Note that "penalties" should also cover compensations - and this should mean no extra programming effort. It is possible that a TD may want to give on top of a result adjusted at a table, + something to some, - something to others.

And by the way, please please, an option for a TD to see the frequencies on a board during the tournament...

[telecine]

(and yes, PPs should preferably be listed on the final ranking)

[Echognome]

Any thoughts on 12C3 rulings? It is becoming much more recommended in the EBU to assign a different score for NS and for EW? I have no idea how much more complicated it is to program. It seems to be no problem for scoring on all of the scoring programs I've used.

[uday]

Right now the TD adjusts a bd by specifying

Boardnumber, playername (any of the 4), result
and the result is in the std BBO format ( 4HS= )

After we come up with a new format that allows for 2 scores to be specified, we still have to sort out what to do with myhands, the movie window for each player and anyplace else that expects 1 score. I guess it won't be too bad

[inquiry]

uday, on Apr 5 2006, 08:18 AM, said:

Right now the TD adjusts a bd by specifying

Boardnumber, playername (any of the 4), result
and the result is in the std BBO format ( 4HS=  )

After we come up with a new format that allows for 2 scores to be specified, we still have to sort out what to do with myhands, the movie window for each player and anyplace else that expects 1 score. I guess it won't be too bad

I suspect as far as most people are truely concerned, changes to myhands are low importance for tourney result. If a PP could just be applied and added/subtracted from the FINAL STANDING that would be good enough (of course final standing should show PP added or subtracted). I suspect this will also be yet another place for potential TD abuse (results appear normal, but some pairs magically are adjusted up or down multiple times).. time will tell.

[Echognome]

I can understand that it will take additional programming. My guess is simply that a pairs' score is their score and the opposite pairs score is their score. Fairly easy to do with MPs as you are only being ranked against other pairs your way. I imagine it is roughly similar in terms of IMP pairs, the IMPs just do not add up to zero. Perhaps to minimise the impact to the dialog box there could be a button for split score that would allow a NS and EW score to be entered. Ideally the score could be split and weighted like 50% of 3NT and 50% of 3NT-1 for NS and 4HX-2 for EW.

There is quite a bit of detail in how one calculates the scores in this case in the EBU White Book. They also give several examples. See:

http://www.ebu.co.uk...04whitebook.htm

And click on the online pdf file looking under Laws 12C2 and 12C3.

It is certainly the fairest way to score in a lot of cases.

[cherdano]

I would prefer if the tourney result list does not indicate procedural penalties, or does not indicate to which pair it was assigned. I imagine PP's will already generate enough bad feelings anyway (partly because certainly some directors will misuse them occasionally). Being labelled publicly in the result list as an offender will certainly not help mitigating such bad feelings.

Arend

[bid_em_up]

cherdano, on Apr 5 2006, 08:49 AM, said:

Being labelled publicly in the result list as an offender will certainly not help mitigating such bad feelings.

Arend

True, but it may well help to prevent future, umm, indiscretions....or to establish a pattern of repeat offenders. Without being able to see who the PP's are being assigned to, how can this ever be recognized?

jmoo.

[McBruce]

When BBO TDs get the ability to assign PP to contestants (either teams, pairs, or individuals, depending on the type of event: this is what the Laws specify), this will solve most of the problems good TDs face:

--A disciplinary penalty for TD abuse or misbehavior can be applied as a PP with exactly the same effect.
--A non-balancing score, if not implemented, can be applied approximately by adjusting to the score obtained by the non-offenders, then applying a post-game penalty to the offenders. The only difference would be that the scores on the board of other pairs sitting the same direction as the offenders will not change slightly, as they do when you give non-balancing scores: so it would be better to find a way to do this properly.


However...

This new ability will be a powerful utility for TDs who love to exasperate players with bizarre and improper 'rulings.' I think it is great that BBO allows anyone to direct a tournament, but perhaps we should use these to-be-programmed new features as a reward for those who will take the time to use them properly.


A TD should be licenced to use PPs and split-scores if he or she:

--has been an assistant TD in a PP/SS-enabled tournament and has shown a reasonable command of the tools
--promises to answer reasonable questions in this forum on decisions made (although we may have to set up some translating services)
--runs a tournament once every three months to help train another TD in the PP/SS functions
--does not play in his/her own tournaments (in fact, it should not be an option with PP/SS enabled)

A TD can be unlicensed (but not permanently) for:

--repeatedly not explaining rulings objected to reasonably on this forum
--not helping others become trained as PP/SS-enabled TDs by running an occasional tournament with a trainee
--complaining publicly about the process by which some TDs are allowed to use the PP/SS tools ("my friend should be allowed too, it's not fair!")


I look forward to seeing these new tools implemented in the best way we can.