Hello

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

Incorrectly completed travellers

edited April 2014 in Bridge Laws
We have some players who are careless when sitting North (and/or East!), and fail to put an X against a contract that has been doubled, though the score would be correct for a doubled contract.
I have read that it is normal (horrible cop-out word!) to accept that the score is right, and if appropriate, treat the contract as doubled.
In an effort to get players to be more precise when writing in travellers, I only award a 'doubled' score if there is an X, and have put a note to tjis effect on the club website. Is this permissible - although not an EBU club and in Spain, we strive to follow all WBF and EBU laws.

Comments

  • I have never read anything anywhere that suggests that a player should be penalised for this failure. Who would you penalise, North because he didn't record it correctly or E/W because they didn't check it was recorded correctly? That aside, in using an analogy in golf, it is the contract that is all important not the score i,e, if a golfer records the correct number of strokes (contract) but the wrong score (e.g. stableford points) it is the strokes that are used as the final agreed score. I can't see how it would be wrong for a Director to declare to the club that if there was an anomaly between the contract and the score he would always take the contract as being correct rather than the score.
  • From the EBU data pages - Scoring Errors, Corrections and Correction Periods:

    " ... if there is a discrepancy on the traveller between the numerical score and the number of tricks noted, it is customary for the numerical score to stand as long as that is not blatantly wrong, e.g. one off vulnerable cannot result in a score of -50 but must be corrected to -100."

    This indicates that the stated score is pre-eminent, not the stated result ...  e.g. if the traveller said 3S= for +110 and it was at all reasonable that the contract could have been in clubs or diamonds rather than spades then the 110 would stand and not be corrected to 140.


  • edited April 2014
    From the EBU data pages . . . can I know where I can find this page please?

    I can forsee all kinds of problems and arguments arsing from presuming the score to be correct and then finding a contract that matches the score. In my experience, players rarely write down the wrong contract but often write down the wrong score.
  • As Ned says, the score is pre-eminent. I have often been advised in the past not to bother filling in the contract result but to simply write 3NT (rather than e.g. 3NT -2), as the score will suffice.

    However I understand that some computer scoring systems now require the scorer to enter the contract and result, so I try to be helpful to the scorer and enter the result as well as the contract.
  • Answer to Rockbourne:  I just found it by googling.  There is presumably a way to drill down by going to the EBU front page.  Anyway, here's the link:

    http://www.ebu.co.uk/cmh-data/pages/Scoring Errors, Corrections and Correction Periods.pdf
  • Ned - thanks for the link. Reading through that, it sounds like permission is given to change a wrong contract or score but I don't read it as giving precedence to adjusting the contract to match the score rather i.e. that the score is presumed to be correct.
  • Its one reason why in a club it is a good idea to make the correction period(i.e. the period when scores can be corrected) the start of the duplicate the following week. This allows errors to be found if players bother to look.
    Players can often be careless with the contract not only omitting whether it is doubled but also getting the wrong denomination. It's one thing Bridgemates or similar significantly reduce.
Sign In or Register to comment.