Ruling on unplayed board

[A2003]

ACBL speedball tournament:

All bids were made.

No opening lead made.

Time runs out.

what is the ruling on the score?

Can TD play the hand and assign score based on obvious lead and plays?

 

This is a general question.

Is there any established rules? where is it available?

Bid only and not played.

Unplayed hands like no bid and no plays.

Unfinished hands.

 

To whom it should favour?

offensive side or defensive side when the benefit of doubt comes on the result?

[jtfanclub]

I don't know for ACBL tournaments.

 

For Addicts games, I leave it as A- if the opening lead has not been faced, regardless of how obvious the play is. The reason for the - is because neither side called to report the slow play.

 

If I were the ACBL director, I would adjust to Average if the opening lead has not been faced.

[blackshoe]

As always, I try to answer these questions in accordance with the laws of the game. I ask that people not tell me "nobody cares what the laws actually say" or "we do things differently online". I frankly don't want to hear it, and if people asking don't want to know what the laws say, then ask a different question.

 

Having said that, absent regulations specifying some other method, the laws say that when a board is not completed (so that no result has been obtained) the TD is to award an artificial adjusted score. Each side will get Average plus, Average, or Average minus according to its culpability in the problem. Degree of culpability is a matter for the TD to judge.

 

Whether the opening lead has been faced or not is irrelevant. Whether a pair has reported slow play to the director may affect determination of culpability, but it should not result in an automatic average minus.

[jtfanclub]

Whether the opening lead has been faced or not is irrelevant.

Until the opening lead is faced, the auction is still going. For example, declarer could now say "My partner's alert was not correct" and the opponents could call the director to have the final pass changed to a different call, and the auction would continue.

 

I will note that time penalties for both sides in the event of unreported slow play is used in face to face games as well, even in world class events.

[blackshoe]

You are still in the auction period, maybe, but if time has run out, then the auction is not "still going on".

 

If no result can be obtained (because time has run out, and the software, presumably, will not now let you obtain a result) then Law 12C1 (artificial adjusted score) applies, and what might have happened if the bidding and play had continued is irrelevant.

 

Penalties, whether for slow play or anything else, have nothing to do with score adjustment.

[jtfanclub]

You are still in the auction period, maybe, but if time has run out, then the auction is not "still going on".

 

If no result can be obtained (because time has run out, and the software, presumably, will not now let you obtain a result) then Law 12C1 (artificial adjusted score) applies, and what might have happened if the bidding and play had continued is irrelevant.

 

Penalties, whether for slow play or anything else, have nothing to do with score adjustment.

Yes, 12C1. Both pairs are directly at fault, either for playing slowly or for not reporting slow play. Therefore, both get 40%. Still not sure why you're disagreeing with that.

 

Edit: If the score can be adjusted, rather than artificially assigned (such as if the remaining play of the board is obvious), then obviously that should be done. But that can't be done if we're still in the auction period.

[blackshoe]

Yes, 12C1. Both pairs are directly at fault, either for playing slowly or for not reporting slow play. Therefore, both get 40%. Still not sure why you're disagreeing with that.

 

Edit: If the score can be adjusted, rather than artificially assigned (such as if the remaining play of the board is obvious), then obviously that should be done. But that can't be done if we're still in the auction period.

"Both pairs are directly at fault" is an assumption. The TD should investigate whether this assumption is in fact correct. A player who does not play slowly, but who also does not call the cops every time his opponent plays slowly, is not, imo, at fault for the slowness of the play.

 

There are two kinds of adjusted score: artificial and assigned. The law on the former (12C1) starts with "when, owing to an irregularity, no result can be obtained..." So when that applies (as when there isn't time to finish the board) you award an artificial adjusted score. The law on the latter (12C2) says "When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a result actually obtained after an irregularity..." So when no result was actually obtained, this law does not apply, and you must use 12C1 - regardless how "obvious" you think the outcome would have been had it been played out.

[Finch]

I don't play in online tournaments, but I believe (from reading threads here) that the TD sometimes decides how the play would have gone and gives a result on the board (e.g. to 6NT making). That has no basis in Law.

 

That is, this is illegal:

 

Edit: If the score can be adjusted, rather than artificially assigned (such as if the remaining play of the board is obvious), then obviously that should be done. But that can't be done if we're still in the auction period.

 

I will note that time penalties for both sides in the event of unreported slow play is used in face to face games as well, even in world class events.

 

Time penalties are often included in the regulations for f2f play. But that is something different, it is extraordinarily rare for a board to be not played, or not completed, because of slow play - usually the boards are all played and then imp or VP penalties are given in addition. (The only time I have seen boards not played in f2f events is when one pair/team are late starting)

[Mbodell]

Time penalties are often included in the regulations for f2f play. But that is something different, it is extraordinarily rare for a board to be not played, or not completed, because of slow play - usually the boards are all played and then imp or VP penalties are given in addition. (The only time I have seen boards not played in f2f events is when one pair/team are late starting)

Swiss teams near me on weekend sectional/regionals often have canceled boards for slow play. When the clock hits zero the TD are usually patrolling the tables aggressively and physically removing boards from play if a table hasn't played them. It is some what understandable since with a swiss movement (nearly) everyone is waiting for the last result. It does suck when you had a good board though.

[mink]

blackshoe and jtfanclub: I agree with both of you that, wherever possible, the ftf laws should be valid for online play, too; and you are right that when applying them here you have to award an artificial assigned score.

 

However, prior to any TD action something has happened that should not happen according to ftf laws: The software has canceled the play of the board, and there is no way to resume it. When assigning an artificial score you completely disregard what has been going on during auction and play and only focus on whose fault it was that the board is not completed. In an ftf environment this only happens when a player suddenly encounters a health problem in the middle of a hand or when the director disqualifies a player - both very rare cases, so no sophisticated regulations for this are required in the laws.

 

In BBO clocked tourneys, however, unfinished boards are very common, so there has to be a better way to deal with that. If designing an online law, there would be 2 possible solutions:

 

1. A software solution that cancels the play of a board when the timelimit for a round is reached is declared to be illigal, an no master point must be awarded in such tourneys. I would prefer this rule.

 

2. If the software is allowed to cancel the play, the director must have the power to adjust the board to a likely score. If there are more than one likely scores, the one most favorable for the side that did not cause the delay should be chosen. Only if the way bidding and/or play may evolve cannot be predicted at all, so that significantly different scores are possible, an artificial score should be awarded.

 

Karl

[blackshoe]

As things stand today, I would say that if the software illegally (i.e., not within the laws) cancels a board, that is equivalent to TD error, and both pairs should get average plus.

 

I don't like this "likely score" business.

[mike777]

Pair events f2f have been around for over 70 years. There must be an established rule for bds during pair play that are 1) never started because of time limits, 2) started but never finished because of time limits?

 

I mean bridge is a timed event, yes? There must be some well established rules and procedures for such a thing happening. This may be rare in f2f pair games but it must be more than zero percent over 70 years. :rolleyes:

 

See Chapter X section 82.

 

http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/clubs...Decisions04.pdf

 

 

 

I found the above link where basically if the director cannot determine who is at fault both sides get an average. Perhaps this is the correctly applied law or procedure for online bridge also?

[jtfanclub]

I don't like this "likely score" business.

Unfortunately, there is a very strong tendency of players to delay if they think they're going to get a poor result.

 

For one example, N-S were at 5♥X in a tournament I was recently working. East started playing very slowly, as he didn't have a point in his hand and dummy had a monster. When his partner got on him he sped up a little. And when is partner showed up with the AK of hearts and a side A suddenly East was lightning quick.

 

By all means, tell me how I should handle that in a ftf tournament, where all the other Swiss teams are finished but one pair is taking over 20 minutes for the last board, hoping that I'll eventually give up and throw the board out.

[barmar]

Pair events f2f have been around for over 70 years. There must be an established rule for bds during pair play that are 1) never started because of time limits, 2) started but never finished because of time limits?

 

I mean bridge is a timed event, yes? There must be some well established rules and procedures for such a thing happening. This may be rare in f2f pair games but it must be more than zero percent over 70 years. :rolleyes:

 

See Chapter X section 82.

 

http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/clubs...Decisions04.pdf

 

 

 

I found the above link where basically if the director cannot determine who is at fault both sides get an average. Perhaps this is the correctly applied law or procedure for online bridge also?

While directors will sometimes tell pairs not to start a board due to a time limit being reached, I don't think I've ever heard of them cancelling a board in progress for this reason. The closest I can think of would be during a Swiss Team event, when the TD has announced "don't start any new boards", and he sees a table violate this commandment, he may tell them to cease, and treat it as an unplayed board.

 

This is something that I think is only done in online bridge.

 

As for adjusting these cancelled boards, sometimes the clock runs out with a trick or two to go, and it's totally obvious how they're going to be played. I have no problem with a TD making a judgement call like this (some players are just not good at claiming when they can).

[Mbodell]

I don't like this "likely score" business.

Unfortunately, there is a very strong tendency of players to delay if they think they're going to get a poor result.

Isn't this a natural result of the fact that boards that have been started are being canceled? If the usual procedure was for people who are late to be forced to complete the board they are playing and instead skip/miss later boards (possibly with a penalty for skipped boards) would that help eliminate this tendency? I mean it will always be necessary for the TD to deal with the odd board that will not finish due to disconnects or a player refusing to play any cards, but TD can properly give assigned scores then (not skip the board), but if you can never avoid the bad result then you have no incentive to play slow (in fact you have an incentive to play fast because you certainly don't want a penalty and do want the full number of boards to make up for a bad result).

[mike777]

I don't like this "likely score" business.

Unfortunately, there is a very strong tendency of players to delay if they think they're going to get a poor result.

Isn't this a natural result of the fact that boards that have been started are being canceled? If the usual procedure was for people who are late to be forced to complete the board they are playing and instead skip/miss later boards (possibly with a penalty for skipped boards) would that help eliminate this tendency? I mean it will always be necessary for the TD to deal with the odd board that will not finish due to disconnects or a player refusing to play any cards, but TD can properly give assigned scores then (not skip the board), but if you can never avoid the bad result then you have no incentive to play slow (in fact you have an incentive to play fast because you certainly don't want a penalty and do want the full number of boards to make up for a bad result).

As for deliberate slow play, if and this is a big if the director can determine one side is more at fault than the other, director can:

1) assign average plus and average minus

2) if possible make player notes and if this happens in a later tourney he can read the notes and assign additional penalties? Note many directors direct the same game each night so easier to keep track of player notes.

 

If nothing else this may be a good first if imperfect step.

[barmar]

When I used to play OKbridge tourneys, there was a theory that players were using slow play to their advantage. OKbridge's tourneys are like a cross between BBO's clocked and unclocked tourneys. After the round clock runs out, it waits for 75% of the tables to finish their current board, then moves all those players using a Swiss pairing. The late players are allowed to finish the board, and then they're paired up based on their speed history.

 

The theory was that some pairs were deliberately playing slowly after getting some good scores so that they wouldn't be matched up against other good pairs. I don't know if anyone ever did a real analysis, but I once looked at a few sessions where the same pair won, and it looked like they ran out the clock several times in the sessions and played against pairs that were near the bottom of the standings. Not proof, but a little suspicious.

 

In general, if the rules of a game have loopholes, it's likely that someone will try to exploit them.

[blackshoe]

By all means, tell me how I should handle that in a ftf tournament, where all the other Swiss teams are finished but one pair is taking over 20 minutes for the last board, hoping that I'll eventually give up and throw the board out.

First offense: explain why they cannot do this: it's illegal, and it's unfair to the other players.

 

Second offense: Procedural penalty. In IMPs. I know, I know. Just 'not done' in club games. Maybe if that weren't the case, there would be less cheating - and yes, deliberately playing slowly in the hopes that the TD will save you from your expected bad score is cheating.

 

Third offense: Disciplinary penalty. I'd recommend a 30 day suspension. If they never come back, it's no great loss.

 

Yeah, I'm a hardass. :P

[jtfanclub]

Third offense: Disciplinary penalty. I'd recommend a 30 day suspension. If they never come back, it's no great loss.

Doesn't help. Assume this is a District tournament, and the pair involved only shows up for District+ events, so they don't care about a 30 day suspension.

 

I'm trying to find an equivalent in ftf to me running a 'just for fun' tourney where I don't even lock out my enemies, not that they would care (I only run one every couple of weeks).

 

I have seen one case even marginally similar in a ftf game- a barometer pairs. I was the victim pair. Since it was a pair game, I think they ended up throwing out ALL the boards by the pair in question and giving their opponents Average+. They were unbelievably destructive, far more than simply delaying the game.

[blackshoe]

I believe, if it's a Regional or other District level tournament, the ACBL disciplinary procedure probably comes into play. I suspect that means a disciplinary hearing, and probably a harsher punishment (assuming the outcome is to award punishment) than a mere 30 day suspension.

 

The pair you describe in your last post, jt, should have been shot at sunrise. <_<

[jtfanclub]

The pair you describe in your last post, jt, should have been shot at sunrise. <_<

Really? What's wrong with screaming "A HEART partner? Why the hell wouldn't you lead a HEART?" in a simultaneous pairs game, so everybody is playing the same set of boards at the same time?

 

And then, after 5 minutes of the director simultaneously trying to calm the guy down and telling him how much trouble he was in, we get two more tricks, and he yells "You f@H^$H b$^($%! How hard is it to figure out to lead hearts! He bid hearts, he bid hearts, you have hearts, how could I have any f#$&% hearts!"

 

I can't imagine why the ACBL would want to punish this guy.

 

Actually, the president of the ACBL was at that tourney- I'd played against him that afternoon. I wonder what they ended up doing?

 

Sorry, way the heck off topic, sort of. I apologize. That's the only case I've ever witnessed where somebody was as destructive in a ftf game as people regularly are online.

[blackshoe]

And folks wonder why I don't play online. <_<

[onoway]

In a tourney yesterday one opp took over 5 minutes to bid (I thought he was frozen) the TD was called, then his pard took over a minute to bid, so we just barely got going when the clock ran out,...and WE got ave- . When I complained I was told I had notified the WRONG TD, that only one of the three could do anything about it. and I hadn't notified the right one. So we got penalized even though the TD I had notified was watching the nonaction for at least three minutes. The joys of free tourneys :)

 

Still, by and large most of the TDs do a decent job, even in the free tourneys.