I'm Sangho Choi from South Korea. Recently I directed a Swiss team game. 19table, 8 boards/round, 7 round. 55 minutes are assigned for playing 1 round. player level is intermediate. Before tournament, I anounced that unplayed boards can not be played after 51 minutes from round start. At table 3(NS team 3, EW team 17), players finished 7th board at 52 minutes. So I said that last board(board 12) will be scored as average and did that. and deal was West Deal, NS Vul. [hv=pc=n&s=sk8hq8764djt765c5&w=saj75hakj532dkcq3&n=s9643htda84cat986&e=sqt2h9dq932ckj742]399|300[/hv] but scoring correction periond, North(team 17) said that he got a very favorable result from board 12 at their table. Actually, he got very good result(4HX-2, +300). At other tables, most of EW made 3NT or down(undoubled). Here are travellers. BOARD 12 Section Table NS EW Contract Dec Lead NS+ NS- IMPs IMPs ================================================================= A 3 17 50/50 0 0 A 6 12 3NT-2 E D3 +100 0 0 A 9 15 3NT+1 E D6 -430 -10 10 A 2 8 3NT-2 E D6 +100 11 -11 A 5 18 3NT-1 E DJ +50 0 0 A 10 13 3NT-1 E D6 +50 10 -10 A 7 16 1H+1 W H10 -110 -4 4 A 1 19 2H+1 W H10 -140 0 0 A 4 14 3NT= E D6 -400 -10 10 A 17 3 4Hx-2 W DA +300 0 0 A 12 6 4S-2 W H9 +100 0 0 A 15 9 3NT-1 E D6 +50 10 -10 A 8 2 3NT= E H8 -400 -11 11 A 18 5 4H-1 W S7 +50 0 0 A 13 10 3NT= E D6 -400 -10 10 A 16 7 3NT-1 E DJ +50 4 -4 A 19 1 2S+1 W H10 -140 0 0 A 14 4 3NT-1 E DJ +50 10 -10 ================================================================= So I think it's proper time to apply law 86D. I guess that if board was played, result would be 4H-1 by west 30%, -20+300=250, IMP+6 4S-1 by west 30%, -20+300=250, IMP+6 3NT= by East 20%, +400+300=700, IMP+12 3NT-1 by East 20%, -20+300=250, IMP+6 So I assigned +7 IMP(0.3*6+0.3*6+0.2*12+0.2*6) for team 17. However, I'm not sure that this is correct approach. Here is law commentary from WBF. Law 86D When, in team play, a board cannot be played at the table for whatever reason, while it has already been played at the other table, it is possible to deviate from the routine artificial adjusted score. To do this we need an unusual result on the played board. The TD works with a range of normal results on a board, which do not ask for the application of this law. Given the fact that the innocent side will receive some IMPs anyway (average plus), a couple of not doubled overtricks are not considered to create an unusual result. When the innocent side received a very good score and the board is made unplayable at this table (by the other side), it is mandatory to give an assigned adjusted score with full weight to this result. Assume that the team that got a good score at one table caused the board to be cancelled at the other; if the TD gives an assigned adjusted score the weight of the good result needs to be small; 30% sounds reasonable. If the board has to be cancelled because of a mistake at the second table, and the innocent side received a very good result at the first table, it should get full weight. If the offenders received a very good score the weight can be less (50% looks reasonable). And if no side is responsible the weight could be somewhat higher (let us say 60%). I judged that both pair are responsible for slow play at table 3 and so both pairs are offender. I did't understand bold phrase at law 86D commentary. Can someone tell me right approach(with some calculated IMP)? also any comment will be fine. Another question : For canceld board due to slow play, if I judged that both are faulty, Can I assign average minus for both team?
