[blml] Multiple Teams : Fouled Board

[Herman De Wael]

Wayne Burrows wrote:
> On 08/11/06, Herman De Wael <herman at hdw.be> wrote:
> 
>>Hello Steve,
>>
>>this is something that the CoC should address.
>>
>>I have often suggested that standard CoC should contain a paragraph
>>about what to do if on one of the tables of a match no score can be
>>obtained, or if the two scores obtained are not on comparable deals.
>>
>>It is my opinion that one should resolve this in the following manner:
>>
>>-for every board played, at both tables, a par score is determined,
>>and this score is deducted from the table score. The two differences
>>are then added and the sum translated into IMPs.
>>On every normal board, the exact value of the par score is
>>unimportant, since it will cancel out with the same par score at the
>>other table.
>>On a fouled board, the 2 par scores can be determined only by
>>difference - thus, if aboard is fouled by the vulnerability only,
>>scores of +650 and +420 can be compared and the difference be given as
>>1IMP.
> 
> 
> It is extremely simplistic to assume that +650 vul is 1 IMP better
> than +420 not vul.
> 

We all know that, and we also know that there are boards that are 
extremely simplistic. By giving the TD the option of scoring this 
board +1IMP, we bring the game to something the players can 
understand. What they cannot understand is that such a board is scrapped.
Of course there is no problem with scrapping a board of this nature. 
No-one loses or gains anything.
Maybe I should have given a different example.
Suppose the 2 and 3 of clubs are exchanged between the hands of 
declarer and dummy. Not the same board, we should rule. OK, so by my 
proposed CoC, we determine a par score for both versions of the board. 
Would it not be normal for the TD to rule that the par scores on both 
versions are equal, and that therefore the outcome of the board is the 
same as if it had been scored normally? Don't you think that both 
teams would agree with such a ruling (always of course after 
inverstigating that overtaking the 2 with the 3 is not a factor of a 
winning play?)

-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://www.hdw.be