Checking results

[Hans]

We are a small club of friendly, inexperienced people. Each session our director takes the travellers and scores it up without checking any of the scores. She says that regardless of differences between the contract and the score, the score should always be taken anyway.

This does not sound right to me. Could someone please tell me if there are any regulations regarding this in the ABF? She won't listen to us unless we can bring some proof to bear.

Thank you.
Hans

[Ed Reppert]

No specific regulations, I think. Law 79C1 says

An error in computing or tabulating the agreed-upon score, whether made by a player or scorer, may be corrected until the expiration of the period specified by the tournament organizer. Unless the tournament organizer specifies a later* time, this correction period expires 30 minutes after the official score has been made available for inspection.

There is this from Tony Howe's Course Notes for Directors:

The director should only change a score when it is obviously wrong.
1.   Obvious Vulnerability errors ( eg a vulnerable game scored as 420 should be changed to 620, but note that 1 off not vulnerable scored as 100 should not be changed)
2.   Impossible scores (eg 5 off doubled, not vulnerable, scored as 900)
In other cases, the director should accept the score as correct. The director has some discretion when a score appears to be obviously on the wrong side (ie a NS slam scored to EW) However the director should not change a score of his own initiative.

I always check to make sure the score matches the contract on the traveler or pickup slip. If there's a discrepancy, I check with the players involved. I'm in the US, and there's no specific regulations here either.

There have been times when I've been sorely tempted to issue a procedural penalty to one or both pairs when the score is obviously wrong, and it is clear that EW didn't check it as they're supposed to do. I haven't done it yet, though.

[Matthew McManus]

The ABF Tournament Regulations detail the procedures for Director's when confronted with an inconsistency on the travelling score sheet:

12.9.2 Where there is an obvious discrepancy on the official score sheet between the score entered and the contract, declarer or number of tricks made, the Director shall make every effort to contact the players involved to ascertain the correct details. Where this is not possible, the Director may only change the score:
(a) Where an impossible score is recorded
(b) Where there is an error according to vulnerability

In the latter case, it must be obvious vulnerability error. For instance, you would change a non-vulnerable game recorded as 620 to 420. However, you would not change one down non-vulnerable recorded as 100. It is possible that either the contract was doubled or the number of tricks entered was incorrect.

The reason for this regulation is that when the director does have the opportunity to check the scores with the players, in nearly all circumstances, it is the score which is correct. The players have been careless when entering the contract, declarer or number of tricks.

It would be a very tedious and time consuming process for the director to check all the travellers before taking them away to be scored. At any rate, in most cases, the players would no longer be around to check with and correct inconsistent scores.

[bluejak]

It is good there is a regulation, but the approach is similar around the world: with inconsistent scores, check where possible, take the score written down if not.

There are obvious cases where one would change a score.  In a long line of +420s for 4S making I would amend a +620 for 4S making and a -420 for 4S making!  But, for example, if 2S goes 2 off vulnerable, i would not change -100: sure, it might be a vulnerability error, but it might be the number of tricks.

[Hans]

Thank you all for the advices. One of the reasons I asked is because the scorers are usually very careful in filling out the details of the contracts. Where they fall down is, unfortunately in the scoring department. A handful of players are reasonable scorers (we try to seat them NS if possible) but most of them just cannot score. And in a Howell even the able scorers sit unfavourably at times.

Yes I know, we can place scorers on the tables, also ask EW to check the scores etc. What we cannot do is enforce the checking or the using of the scorers. A lot of the players take it only semi seriously as for them it is more a social function than a serious tournament and they are "not playing for sheep stations" and this makes the directors' life a nightmare but they do the best they can. And because the worst scorers are also the worst players, penalties are useless. What use is giving them an av- or even a procedural penalty for incorrect scoring if they come last?

[Ed Reppert]

What use is giving them an av- or even a procedural penalty for incorrect scoring if they come last?

Well, I wouldn't give them Av-, that's illegal. But a PP raises a flag — you did something wrong. Even those who come last are likely to react to that. Of course, you may not get the reaction you want.

[Hans]

Well, I wouldn't give them Av-, that's illegal. But a PP raises a flag — you did something wrong. Even those who come last are likely to react to that. Of course, you may not get the reaction you want.

Sorry, my mistake. I omitted to mention that the person who is the worst scorer in the room is always 1 board behind the field every round, slowing the game down to a crawl. This is where the av- came into it. In a 6T Mitchell he and his partner would accumulate 6 boards to be played at the end of the session, obviously impossible (it's worse when we have 8 tables!) because it is the club policy to get the players to play any unfinished boards at the conclusion of play. Many a director has made various suggestions to the club committee about dealing with this player, ranging from automatic zero on the boards unfinished, through barring him from the club, to hiring a hitman. The problem is, whilst everyone is annoyed by this, the entire club feels sorry for him as he is in his mid 80-s, lives alone since his wife left him years ago and the duplicate is his only social outing and they prefer to put up with him. But none of the above has anything to do with incorrect results, except one would imagine he has all the time in the world to learn how to score. He is a retired professor or something, quite well educated and hardly ever achieves higher than 35% in the duplicate (and that includes all the scoring errors in his favour).

It was the directors who wanted to donate towards the hitman. They have no hair left.

[Ed Reppert]

Not a professor of mathematics, I gather.

If it was just this one problem person, I'd take him aside and explain to him that he needs to learn how to score, and offer whatever help he needs to that end. As you seem to have several problem scorers, you might offer a short lesson or two before a session.

Explain to the one with six "late plays" that six is five too many, as there would never be enough time after the event to play them all even if he were to play them quickly, and in any case it inconveniences 6 other pairs. Allow him to play one — two if he can get it in and his second opponents don't mind waiting — while you finish up the rest of the scoring. Give A+/A- (A- to his pair) on the boards not played, explain to him (and his partner) that the law requires it.

[Chris]

Our club has recently purchased electronic scorers (Bridgemates) which we ran last week for the first time without travellers. Players are advised at the start of the session verbally, and also on the instruction sheet which is placed on the table, that North (usually) keys in the contract and result. and East/West checks the entry before clicking ACCEPT, verifying that the score is correct. Scores can be corrected during the round or at the end of the session if necessary, but what would you do if a player calls you the next day to say that a score on such-and-such a board was wrong (noticed it on the scores website). It hasn't happened (YET) but I think my reaction would be to say - "too bad, so sad" !

[Ed Reppert]

By default, the correction period end 30 minutes after the scores are posted (Law 79), so unless your club has established a longer period, I agree with your reaction.

[bluejak]

Looking deeper into the specific problem in the opening post, you seem to have a club which is not too result oriented and people are not worrying about score accuracy very much.  Simple: let the TD follow her policy, which is fair enough, and do not worry.  If anyone complains, tell them they should start checking more carefully.

As to the lonely old man, I hope people treat me this well when I am in my 80s and my wife and favourite partner have left me.  But there is one simple solution to him [not the slow play, the scoring]: tell everyone that you have a new rule at his table: East does the scoring. 

[Paul Sherman]

I hope people treat me this well when I am in my 80s and my wife and favourite partner have left me.

Ah, but YOU have been KNOWN to score higher than 35% 

[bluejak]

I have also been  known to get 23%. 

[Chris]

wife AND favourite partner?   Hope they are one and the same David.

[bluejak]

My wife is called Liz.  My favourite partner is called Liz [in case of accidents].  My wife refers to my favourite partner as my girlfriend - I would never dare to!

We have also just acquired two Siamese kittens called Nemo and Nico.

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2052733&id=1064931144&l=4289c773ad