[pescetom]

It is still quite common in this country for some clubs (and even some regional pairs competitions) to play with paper travellers containing the hand diagram and all scores (due to not having electronic score entry).
Our national regulations state that if in a local tournament someone accidentally opens the traveller of an unplayed board, TD must apply 16D2d and assign an adjusted score of 40%/60%.
I was wondering if this is common to other RAs and also what would be considered normal/appropriate in higher level tournaments, where TD is free to apply 16D2c instead if he sees fit. My first thought would be that if the Laws cover a range of Extraneous Information (from knowing a single card up to knowing all 52 and the scores) and foresee two different remedies, then having seen a traveller is about as egregious as it gets and should determine the more drastic remedy of an adjusted score. But I'm ready to hear differently.

[axman]

 pescetom, on 2023-May-02, 07:06, said:

My club finally migrated to electronic score entry, but it is still quite common here to play with paper travellers containing the hand diagram and all scores.
Our national regulations state that if in a local tournament someone accidentally opens the traveller of an unplayed board, TD must apply 16D2d and assign an adjusted score of 40%/60%.
I was wondering if this is common to other RAs and also what would be considered normal/appropriate in higher level tournaments, where TD is free to apply 16D2c instead if he sees fit. My first thought would be that if the Laws cover a range of Extraneous Information (from knowing a single card up to knowing all 52 and the scores) and foresee two different remedies, then having seen a traveller is about as egregious as it gets and should determine the more drastic remedy of an adjusted score. But I'm ready to hear differently.

Something to chew on.

Was making a set of boards and having shuffled 3 of the 5 I asked the opponent if #4 had been shuffled and was told yes. Feeling a bit uneasy a minute later I repeated my query with the same result. On #4 the board was concluded in a little over 2 minutes (as it was I who declared 6H overcoming some handling charges.

After the session we hurried off for lunch and to walk the pooch. Came back and checked the recap sheet to find everybody declared 4H making 5 except for my zero for failure to shuffle. The main curiosity was that this was the second event that #4 had been played (the 1st time was the previous evening which I did not attend… while everyone else had). The previous evening everyone declared 4H for 11 tricks. The memory of bridge players is remarkable.

[jillybean]

Interesting problem.
I think a PP is also appropriate for the person(s) who thought it was a good idea to include a traveller in the boards when you have electronic scoring.

[pescetom]

 jillybean, on 2023-May-02, 08:49, said:

Interesting problem.

It's two problems really: how does your RA handle this at various levels and how do you think it should be handled.
As a player I'm sure you have your own thoughts on how much it makes sense to play a board out when one player has seen the traveller, or how credible claims of "I only saw the board number" or similar are likely to be.
I guess there is also the related issue of "if this is an automatic adjustment, where do we draw the line and start playing it out".

 jillybean, on 2023-May-02, 08:49, said:

I think a PP is also appropriate for the person(s) who thought it was a good idea to include a traveller in the boards when you have electronic scoring.

Not sure if you misunderstood my OP here or are thinking about an earlier post I made. In my club we longer use paper travellers because we switched to electronic score entry (a phone app). We do allow the players to see a virtual traveller in the app once they have entered the score for that board. I don't like this from a TD point of view, but the club was not prepared to back me on turning it off and I don't feel entitled to change terms of competition popular and stable for decades without their agreement or some guidance from RA. But however people see this (mycroft for one would turn it off anyway), it is not the argument of discussion here. I'm interested in the legacy event of opening the wrong paper traveller and not just at club/MP level either.

[Gilithin]

 pescetom, on 2023-May-02, 07:06, said:

Our national regulations state that if in a local tournament someone accidentally opens the traveller of an unplayed board, TD must apply 16D2d and assign an adjusted score of 40%/60%.

This is illegal as it depends on the circumstances. If a previous pair has put the travellers back into the wrong boards, there is no reason to penalise a subsequent pair that opened the wrong traveller without fault. If this happened to me, I would refuse to enter any score thereafter and call the TD every hand to check the traveller for score entry, at least until some sort of sense prevailed.

[sanst]

I don’t think that there’s any regulation about this over here. Almost all, if not all, clubs use Bridgemates or another form of electronic scoring. At our club we still have a pack of unused travellers, just in case. AFAIK these have been used just once in over twenty years.
Actually, I find it rather stupid to use paper travellers if there’s electronic scoring. And having had diagrams available during play, is even beyond that. This can only cause problems, not only like the one you described, but also lengthy discussions about how the hand should have been played, which might even get overheard, differences between travelers and the scoring system and what not. My advice: get rid of these ASAP.
Furthermore I agree with Gilithin and would give the player(s) who are responsible a pretty heavy PP. Avg+/Avg- is certainly not right.

[pescetom]

 Gilithin, on 2023-May-02, 20:34, said:

This is illegal as it depends on the circumstances. If a previous pair has put the travellers back into the wrong boards, there is no reason to penalise a subsequent pair that opened the wrong traveller without fault. If this happened to me, I would refuse to enter any score thereafter and call the TD every hand to check the traveller for score entry, at least until some sort of sense prevailed.

I think it is obvious that the 40% applies to a player at fault in opening the traveller. If the wrong traveller was in the board (or in the traveller cover if used) then the fault is of whoever put it there and they should incur a moderate PP, while both sides at the current table should get 60% as per Law 12.

[pescetom]

 sanst, on 2023-May-03, 01:50, said:

I don’t think that there’s any regulation about this over here. Almost all, if not all, clubs use Bridgemates or another form of electronic scoring. At our club we still have a pack of unused travellers, just in case. AFAIK these have been used just once in over twenty years.
Actually, I find it rather stupid to use paper travellers if there’s electronic scoring. And having had diagrams available during play, is even beyond that. This can only cause problems, not only like the one you described, but also lengthy discussions about how the hand should have been played, which might even get overheard, differences between travelers and the scoring system and what not. My advice: get rid of these ASAP.
Furthermore I agree with Gilithin and would give the player(s) who are responsible a pretty heavy PP. Avg+/Avg- is certainly not right.

I rewrote the first sentence of OP to make it clearer that the question is related only to the legacy method of paper travellers when electronic scoring is not available. I don't think anyone would use the two methods together, unless something went wrong.
And I appreciate that most clubs (even mine, finally) use electronic scoring and so do not have this as an issue.

Thanks for the notice that it is not regulated. How would you proceed as TD if you had to run a tournament without electronic scoring and someone did open the traveller of next board to play?
Would that change if it was a high level team event?

[sanst]

 pescetom, on 2023-May-03, 04:41, said:

I rewrote the first sentence of OP to make it clearer that the question is related only to the legacy method of paper travellers when electronic scoring is not available..

Sorry, missed that. Shouldn’t react before I’ve finished my first cup of coffee.
As a TD I would, like always, try to figure out what has happened and who is responsible. That person(s) would get a PP. Inexperienced ones might get off with a warning, more experienced ones would be awarded at least a 25% score reduction in MPs or the equivalent, top level players a lot more, maybe 100%. But it’s dependent on the circumstances. If it’s an emergency because the electronic scoring systems fails, just tell everybody again that they should be careful to use the right traveller and give a warning to the culprits.
What the TD certainly should do, is to apply Law 16D. The hand to which the traveller belongs, might not be playable for the players at the table. I would probably treat it as ‘not played’ and use Neuberg to get the MPs for that hand. I find that more reasonable than Avg+ and the like, and AFAIK it’s legal under Law 78D.
It’s messy and a lot of work, anyway. What to do if the travellers have been changed a couple of rounds ago, nobody noticed that and used the wrong traveller?

[jillybean]

 pescetom, on 2023-May-02, 09:40, said:

It's two problems really: how does your RA handle this at various levels and how do you think it should be handled.
As a player I'm sure you have your own thoughts on how much it makes sense to play a board out when one player has seen the traveller, or how credible claims of "I only saw the board number" or similar are likely to be.
I guess there is also the related issue of "if this is an automatic adjustment, where do we draw the line and start playing it out".


Not sure if you misunderstood my OP here or are thinking about an earlier post I made. In my club we longer use paper travellers because we switched to electronic score entry (a phone app). We do allow the players to see a virtual traveller in the app they have entered the score for that board. I don't like this from a TD point of view, but the club was not prepared to back me on turning it off and I don't feel entitled to change terms of competition popular and stable for decades without their agreement or some guidance from RA. But however people see this (mycroft for one would turn it off anyway), it is not the argument of discussion here. I'm interested in the legacy event of opening the wrong paper traveller and not just at club/MP level either.

Yes, I misunderstood your OP, when you said 'open traveller' I assumed a paper copy. Here in North America (ACBL) we have not yet advanced to the level of technology allowing players to use an app on their phone. I wouldn't hold much hope that I will see it in my lifetime.

I agree, it's a bad idea to allow players to look at scores/travellers during the game.

[sanst]

 jillybean, on 2023-May-03, 08:22, said:

Here in North America (ACBL) we have not yet advanced to the level of technology allowing players to use an app on their phone. I wouldn't hold much hope that I will see it in my lifetime.

Actually, it’s available in North America. See Bridgemate app. What the ACBL thinks of it, I wouldn’t know. You’re probably better informed about the musings of that arcane institution.

[jillybean]

 sanst, on 2023-May-03, 08:32, said:

Actually, it’s available in North America. See Bridgemate app. What the ACBL thinks of it, I wouldn’t know. You’re probably better informed about the musings of that arcane institution.

yes, I should say 'made available' to the players. I'm no better informed than you
For a glimpse at where we stand technology wise, ACBL score is only available on a DOS PC

[pescetom]

 sanst, on 2023-May-03, 06:44, said:

Sorry, missed that. Shouldn’t react before I’ve finished my first cup of coffee.
As a TD I would, like always, try to figure out what has happened and who is responsible. That person(s) would get a PP. Inexperienced ones might get off with a warning, more experienced ones would be awarded at least a 25% score reduction in MPs or the equivalent, top level players a lot more, maybe 100%. But it’s dependent on the circumstances. If it’s an emergency because the electronic scoring systems fails, just tell everybody again that they should be careful to use the right traveller and give a warning to the culprits.
What the TD certainly should do, is to apply Law 16D. The hand to which the traveller belongs, might not be playable for the players at the table. I would probably treat it as ‘not played’ and use Neuberg to get the MPs for that hand. I find that more reasonable than Avg+ and the like, and AFAIK it’s legal under Law 78D.
It’s messy and a lot of work, anyway. What to do if the travellers have been changed a couple of rounds ago, nobody noticed that and used the wrong traveller?

Even our players would notice almost immediately that a traveller does not match, in previous years of paper travellers I don't remember any error persisting for multiple rounds... it would be relatively simple to manage in any case.

I think 25% or more is excessive as a penalty for a simple mistake, I would say 10% if at all. They are heading for a poor score anyway.

I have sympathy with your preference for 'not played', but as I read the law it is in violation of the antiquated 12C2a, and you cannot use 78D to get around that.

But the important thing is that you do not prefer to let them "play bridge" and monitor what happens, ready to adjust. I wonder if anyone here does.

[Gilithin]

 pescetom, on 2023-May-03, 04:29, said:

I think it is obvious that the 40% applies to a player at fault in opening the traveller. If the wrong traveller was in the board (or in the traveller cover if used) then the fault is of whoever put it there and they should incur a moderate PP, while both sides at the current table should get 60% as per Law 12.

This is what the Laws say but it is not what you report as your RA's regulations:

Quote

Our national regulations state that if in a local tournament someone accidentally opens the traveller of an unplayed board, TD must apply 16D2d and assign an adjusted score of 40%/60%.

There is no wiggle room provided here for accidentally opening a traveller due to someone else being at fault or for the TD to apply judgement. If the above is not the regulation, then you should probably correct it to tell us what it really is.

[mycroft]

• We handle it by not using travellers.
  
• Even when we do use travellers (I sometimes do for my crazy bridge game, because some of the results - aren't actual bridge scores), everyone knows to mark the *outside* of the traveller with the board number, so that Gilithin doesn't have to panic about it. (also, he should assume that directors are intelligent and can intelligently implement policy, or look up the actual regulation rather than the *very obvious* paraphrase himself).
  
• Remember that the PTB in the ACBL (note, that is not the directors, necessarily) looked at cell phones more as ways to (illegally) communicate between players (or second, and reasonably, as "irritating noise-making machines") rather than "how non-retired people (at least those without personal assistants) live their lives" until literally last year. Requiring them to be on and connected to the internet to score? That's just going to double cheating (at least!)
  
• From my memory, the biggest problems with travellers (besides the extra 10 minutes it adds to the session time) is the times that "So, I just heard the complete rundown of scores on board 15. Which we're playing next, I think." Compared to "we opened the wrong traveller" once a year, I know which one I need a fix for first.

[pescetom]

 mycroft, on 2023-May-03, 09:49, said:

• We handle it by not using travellers.
  
• Even when we do use travellers (I sometimes do for my crazy bridge game, because some of the results - aren't actual bridge scores), everyone knows to mark the *outside* of the traveller with the board number, so that Gilithin doesn't have to panic about it. (also, he should assume that directors are intelligent and can intelligently implement policy, or look up the actual regulation rather than the *very obvious* paraphrase himself).
  
• Remember that the PTB in the ACBL (note, that is not the directors, necessarily) looked at cell phones more as ways to (illegally) communicate between players (or second, and reasonably, as "irritating noise-making machines") rather than "how non-retired people (at least those without personal assistants) live their lives" until literally last year. Requiring them to be on and connected to the internet to score? That's just going to double cheating (at least!)
  
• From my memory, the biggest problems with travellers (besides the extra 10 minutes it adds to the session time) is the times that "So, I just heard the complete rundown of scores on board 15. Which we're playing next, I think." Compared to "we opened the wrong traveller" once a year, I know which one I need a fix for first.

I agree with most of that including your point 4, although as mentioned we have a virtual traveller on view in the scoring app, so that problem comes back in through the window (and yes I know, "so turn it off", but that would put me against the whole world and I have bigger fish to fry for now).

We should discuss the implications of internet connected phones sometime, but not this time.

Would you ever consider applying D2c here? And if not, at what point on the EI scale would you draw the line between the two alternatives?

[mycroft]

Well, it's a letter-of-the-law 16D1 situation ("by overhearing...results"). If called, and if the TD thinks it might matter (and frequently, well, "obviously, yes"), then 16D2a isn't going to help (except in the cases where "okay, let the people who don't know if the slam will make bid it", which seems - not really fair to me) and D2b doesn't work, so I'd try D2c, unless it was screamingly obvious that the EI could not but affect the result, and it isn't worth trying. I prefer people playing bridge, rather than sitting out (even for 60%), and I think the players do too.

I have been known to explain the EI to the opponents after the hand so they can assist me in determining if "the EI affected the result"; usually my judgement there is theirs as well (or they are "we got a bad score, let's try to convince the TD that it was the EI". My judgement on that's pretty good as well, but of course I allow the attempt; I have definitely been convinced otherwise more than once.)

Another thing that ACBLscor allows us to do (legally or not, I don't really know, nor care, I don't remember the last time I even wanted to use it) is to "protect the NOS to a score" (usually Average or A+). That might be an option here, too.

[blackshoe]

 sanst, on 2023-May-03, 06:44, said:

AFAIK it’s legal under Law 78D.

I don't see how "not played" can be legal. Seems to me the laws mandate an adjusted score.

[blackshoe]

 pescetom, on 2023-May-03, 08:58, said:

I think 25% or more is excessive as a penalty for a simple mistake, I would say 10% if at all. They are heading for a poor score anyway.

The score they'll likely get is irrelevant to the question how big the penalty should be. Size of penalty should be tied to the severity of the offense. I would agree that 10% seems adequate for this in most case, except that ISTR that the EBU found that their 10% "standard" penalty didn't do the job (of deterring people from committing irregularities), so they raised it to 25%.

[blackshoe]

 mycroft, on 2023-May-03, 11:55, said:

Another thing that ACBLscor allows us to do (legally or not, I don't really know, nor care, I don't remember the last time I even wanted to use it) is to "protect the NOS to a score" (usually Average or A+). That might be an option here, too.

It's been a while but as I recall that's a direct implementation of the last sentence of Law 12C2c: "Such contestants are awarded the percentage obtained (or the equivalent in IMPs) on the other boards of that session." Note that it doesn't apply to Average, only to Average+ or Average-. Again as I recall there was, possibly still is, an ACBL regulation that contrary to this law in effect says that a pair awarded Average- can't get less than 40%. Pretty sure *that* is in ACBLScore.