Suggestion for slow play penalties

[Trinidad]

I have a suggestion that might work for penalizing offenses that both sides are responsible for (such as slow play) in knockout tournaments: Don't apply canceling penalties (for offenses that teams are jointly responsible for) to the match in play. Apply the part of the penalty that was cancelled to the next match.

 

Thus: Team A play B and Team C play D. If team A is deemed to be slow while B isn't, you apply the full penalty to A in the A vs B match. If both teams are equally slow, you give them a penalty each. Instead of letting these penalties cancel each other, you carry this penalty to the next match.

 

Of course, this system cannot be applied to the final, since there won't be a next match. But I think it will make the final faster too. There are two reasons for this.

1) The teams have been forced to play faster during the whole tournament. They are now used to this pace and will continue in the final.

2) The slow teams have a bigger chance of being knocked out. Call it evolution: Survival of the fastest.

 

To clarify the procedure I will give an example of how to apply the penalties. Suppose:

- team A gets a 3 IMP penalty for a mobile phone. (A is only responsible.)

- team B gets a 5 IMP zero tolerance penalty. (B is only responsible.)

- teams are playing too slow and each side gets a 3 IMP penalty.

- two screen mates (a player from A and a player from B ) are loudly discussing how you can make 6♠ on board 21. Other tables hear this. The players are equally guilty. Each team gets a 5 IMP penalty.

- Without penalties the score would have been A: 112 - B: 113 IMPs

 

Then team A gets subtracted 3 IMPs in this match for a total of 109. Team B loses 5 IMPs for a total of 108. Team A wins, B is knocked out. In the next match, team A starts with a score of -8 IMPs. (And if it is a double knockout format, team B might start his next match with -8 IMPs.)

 

Rik

[JanM]

This approach was suggested for the USBC (Open Team Trials). The committee that drafts the Conditions of Contest for the event discussed it at some length (a few years ago) and eventually decided not to adopt it because some people thought that it gave an unfair advantage to the team that played the "slow" team in the next match, compared to the rest of the field. At least that is my recollection of the main reason not to do this. Any thoughts about that?

 

By the way, Matthew Granovetter played much faster than he normally does in the Spingold final, after he was put on 30 days' probation for slow play, so maybe something like that actually does work.

[Trinidad]

This approach was suggested for the USBC (Open Team Trials). The committee that drafts the Conditions of Contest for the event discussed it at some length (a few years ago) and eventually decided not to adopt it because some people thought that it gave an unfair advantage to the team that played the "slow" team in the next match, compared to the rest of the field. At least that is my recollection of the main reason not to do this. Any thoughts about that?

I had thought about it, but since I already thought my post was getting very long...

 

I think it is a matter of how you approach the issue. One could say, like you do, that the next team gets an unfair advantage and are given a X IMP carry over "out of the blue".

 

One could also look at it from the other end and consider the ability to finish matches on time and avoid penalties a bridge skill. If we take two teams of otherwise equal bridge skill, then the faster team is a better team than the slow team. The slow team will rake up slow play penalties and at the finish line ranks lower than the fast team. This is how pairs games and round robin / swiss teams events are taking care of the problem.

 

In a knockout event, the teams are usually seeded according to strength. If this strength includes the ability to finish on time, then the faster team will be seeded higher than the slower team. Let's say that we seed the slow team 8 and the fast team 7. In the round of 8, the number 1 seed will play team 8 and the number 2 seed plays team 7.

 

Is it now unfair that the number 1 seed will get an advantage for meeting the weaker team (expressed in a penalty carry over from the previous match) whereas the number 2 seed meets the bridge skill wise equally strong number 7 team, but doesn't have the advantage of the penalty carry over? I don't think that is more unfair than seeding in the first place (which I happen to think is a good thing).

 

Of course, there will be a transition period where slowness is not reflected in the seeding. But after a few rounds of tournaments, this transition period will be over.

 

By the way, Matthew Granovetter played much faster than he normally does in the Spingold final, after he was put on 30 days' probation for slow play, so maybe something like that actually does work.

 

If the problem is fixed, it is fixed. Don't fix it if it ain't broke.

 

Rik