Re: Equity, some questions

Timothy N. Hill wrote:
> On 2016 Aug 3, at 10:05, Sven Pran <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> ... I don't know what rules you have for scoring "not played", but the laws require awarding an artificial adjusted score unless the board is (correctly) played at a later time or is not scheduled to be played at all. ...
>
> Sven, Law 82B explicitly allows the Director to “cancel the play of a board” (i.e., score it as “not played”) rather than award an adjusted score.
>
>      To rectify an error in procedure the Director may:
>      1.  award an adjusted score as permitted by these Laws.
>      2.  require, postpone or cancel the play of a board.
>      3.  exercise any other power given to him in these Laws.
>
> So I still think, as I originally wrote,
>> The fairest way to handle the situation in question (moving pairs X and Y play a board that X already played against W and Y is scheduled to play later against Z) is to score the board as not played by Y
> (see 82B2)
>> and average-plus for Z
> (see 15B and 12C2)
>> and give X and Y a procedural penalty
> (see 90B7)
>> of 10% of a top or 3 IMPs (the difference between average and average-minus).
>
>
>       Tim

This begs a more complete question:

When should we award Av+, Av-, or no score at all.
Given todays computer systems, there is no reason whatsoever to do one 
or the other.
Within one session, the result is that "no score" does not affect the 
pair's average, while Av+ and Av- influence it positively or negatively, 
but by different amounts for different pairs. A top pair scoring Av- 
will suffer more than an average one.

Perhaps we should define Av+ as average plus 10%?

Herman.
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml