Time issues during clocked tourneys

[Gerardo]

Time runs out, and result can't be determined, so you have to assign an atificial score. The party which had no time issues get A+, as they were not at fault. Assume connection problems, and not deliberate slow play, that makes clear the fault.

[mink]

Hi Gerardo

 

As connection problems are beyond your control, it has to be AVE+. However, if I had frequent connection problems, I would not register for clocked tourneys, or maybe I would not register for tourneys at all. I cannot imagine that it is fun to be subbed often or miss half of the boards or delay the end of a clocked tourney endlessly.

 

Karl

[JRG]

The Poll cannot really be answered, because of the choices. There are two separate scores to consider: the "Offenders' score" and the "Non-Offenders' score". I think there are the following three cases (you may wish to split the first into two cases depending on whether the time delays appear to be caused by connection problems or not).

 

1. There is a clear time-offender and the opponents are "innocent".

2. It is not clear who the offender (or offending side) is.

3. It appears that both sides are partially to blame.

 

How do we score the first case is probably the crucial one, especially if the offending side were about to get a terrible result and the non-offending side a great result. Giving the offenders A- and the non-offenders A (or even A+) may not really be "fair".

 

This is the one I think the Poll should address. Should it be (offender/non-offender):

 

- A- / A

- A- / A+

- 0 / A+

 

of what?

 

Case 2 and 3 look like ones where everyone should get A-

[DrTodd13]

I'm still a little confused over why "not being at fault" should

result in ave+. Instinctually, I would expect:

 

ave- => the pair is at fault for time running out (other pair could be at fault too and also get ave-)

ave => a bridge result was not clear and could not be assigned, pair not at fault for time problem

ave+ => a good score was likely for the pair if not for time problems and the pair was not at fault for time problems. an exact result could not be assigned because result was still unclear

 

If one pair very slow and other pair fast, does fast pair deserve ave+ just because they played against a slow pair?

 

One thing to be careful of is assigning ave++ for time problems. If ave+ is 3 or 4 IMPs then there is an incentive to create time problems. Assigning ave= is no incentive to create a time problem (unless you think you're heading for a huge negative score but we already have this problem) since everything wants to do better than ave whereas some might be satisfied with ave+.

 

I think all these "what-if" scenarios like John posted indicate that equity is only restored on a case-by-case basis by careful attention by an adjudicator. Does anybody have any experience with time penalties in f2f tourneys? What are the regulations in place there?

[Rain]

I feel that connection problems ARE definitely the fault of the party with bad connection, and they should be held responsible for this affecting the board/play. If your connection is slow/unstable don't sign up for the tourney if you know this will affect play. There are plenty of other tournaments to play in.

 

 

Rain

[Gerardo]

Todd:

That's my interpretation of The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1997, Laws 12A2 [board can't be played], 12C1 [the A-/A/A+ definition, I put them in the poll almost verbatim, it says "directly at fault", "partially at fault", and "not at fault". Need not balance], and 88 [which stresses the 'not at fault OR CHOICE OF HIS OWN gets A+'] (emphasis mine)

 

I think you are offered a choice (request a sub), so I'm not inclined to give A+ to troubled pairs, and certainly not less than A+ to pairs facing troubled pairs, when their are not at fault

 

Not trying to throw the book at you (which you know well, as you show in another thread, just fundamenting my choice)