Unfinished match

[bluejak]

In our local league, 24 board matches are played on fixed dates at fixed venues. Tonight, a player had to go home urgently because of family illness. He had played 17 boards, 12 in the first half, and 5 in the second. The other table made sure they played those five boards. So, what should be done?

[aguahombre]

isn't there a substitution procedure for just such happenings? Let me guess. there was nobody, even within calling distance to use. The late Irv Kostal is on record as one of three players to win a National pairs event back in the sixties.

[Sadie3]

Need more information. Was the family illness something that was discovered during the match or was it known before the match began? Was there no one available to finish the last 7 boards? Do you not have something in place to cover the situation of a player having to leave suddenly? In a regular club game, (ACBL land) I would adjust unfinished boards with avg + for non offenders and avg - for those that had to leave suddenly if I were unable to find a replacement player to finish out the session. My first thought would be to find a replacement player.

[bluejak]

The TD who was there suggested a replacement player after phoning me but one could not be found.

 

We have no doubts it was a genuine emergency.

[Vampyr]

Isn't it normal to award 3 IMPs to the opponents for each board not played? Is there any reason to deviate from that?

[peachy]

Find a replacement/substitute. If that fails, assign whatever score the law or regulation tells to assign for boards not played (3 IMPs?). The reason why the boards were "not played" is not relevant, a far as I know. Unfortunate, of course, for the side whose player had the emergency.

[shyams]

Is this Laws based? It could be a Conditions of Contest based decision.

 

1. IMO, the idea of treating this like a complete match -- by cancelling or adjusting or scoring -3 IMPs for not played boards -- should be a last resort. There is no Duckworth-Lewis in bridge (cricket fans would know what I mean) so we cannot presume what would happen or what strategy would be adopted by the two sides for the second half of the match.

 

2. The IMP score of the match could matter in the overall competition (e.g. if there are multiple teams tied for 4th place using VP scale, then the team with higher net IMPs goes thru)

 

That's why I would prefer that Directors and Team captains look for alternative solutions. If this happened in an arranged match that can be played again e.g. deadline is still a few days away, it makes sense to replay the second part of the match - 12 boards. There could be a justification to discount the 5 boards of the second half because it is probable that the other table became aware of the departure of this player at first table mid-way. If they did, it could have affected their state of mind -- e.g. concern for team-mate, thoughts about "what now for this match", distraction

 

 

If the CoC specifies what is supposed to happen, then the Director obviously follows the rules set therein.

[Finch]

(Unhelpful first remark) This should be covered in the league conditions of contest. I play in two different local leagues - one of them specifies what happens in incomplete matches, the other doesn't.

 

Assuming the organisers of the league have to make a decision after the event, there seem to be four main possibilities.

 

I'm deliberately not asking what the score after 17 boards is because that might make me want to change my mind, and I don't think it should affect the decision.

 

1a. Ask the teams to reschedule and play the match again

1b. Ask them the reschedule and play half the match again, or just the remaining 5 boards.

 

This initially seems best, if it's possible... although it's a bit hard on the 'not at fault' team.

 

It's fairly normal in local matches that if a match is completely cancelled at the last minute due to unforseen circumstances it gets rescheduled.

 

2a/b. Score the match with the boards as played a 17-board match. Either use the 17-board VP scale or the 24-board VP scale (the league I play in with rules uses the latter).

 

3. Give the defaulting side -3 imps for each board they didn't play. The EBU White Book gives guidance for EBU events depending on whether they are 'all play all' or not 'all play all' events; losing 5 boards of a 24-board VP-match doesn't really qualify as either.

 

For a non-all-play-all event the WB recommends:

 

...When the TD judges that the withdrawal is for an acceptable reason the contestant is given A– for the boards after withdrawal up to a maximum of half the event. He is also fined an amount per board depending on the actual circumstances: the fine will range from 0% to 40%.

 

So, in effect, the TD, at his discretion, will give the withdrawing contestant a score of between 0% and A– on each board.

 

A similar approach is used at other forms of scoring.

 

This guidance reads as if it was originally intended for pairs or possibly multiple teams rather than head-to-head league matches, but it could apply equally well here. However, -15 imps seems a big penalty.

 

4. For 'all-play-all' events, the WB doesn't really cover losing 5/24 of a VP'd match, but it does say

 

"in any other method of scoring, the first three boards are scored as

Average Plus and the remainder at Average;"

 

I would go with this option 4: take the scores over the first 17 boards, penalise the team that withdrew 9 imps, and VP using the 24-board scale.

[bluejak]

(Unhelpful first remark)  This should be covered in the league conditions of contest.

Oh, thank-you, Frances, that never occurred to me. :D :lol: :)

 

I'm deliberately not asking what the score after 17 boards is because that might make me want to change my mind, and I don't think it should affect the decision.

I am pleased to say I have no idea what the score is after 17 boards.

 

1a. Ask the teams to reschedule and play the match again

I know what I would say if I was on the non-offending team. And can you blame them?

 

1b. Ask them the reschedule and play half the match again, or just the remaining 5 boards.

 

This initially seems best, if it's possible... although it's a bit hard on the 'not at fault' team.

7 boards, not 5. There again, I would be every upset to have to play the whole second half, especially if I had done well in the five boards.

 

Rescheduling a 7-board match is a bit unfortunate. Sure, there was a six-board mini-match to decide the Manchester league a few years ago [xxx]. But I cannot see players really accepting it.

 

It's fairly normal in local matches that if a match is completely cancelled at the last minute due to unforseen circumstances it gets rescheduled.

Certainly: that's different. The reason I was at home last night is because our opponents postponed at short notice. But there are about ten or so open dates to play it. But arranging to play 12 boards - or, even worse, seven - in an open date does not seem so good.

 

2a/b. Score the match with the boards as played a 17-board match.  Either use the 17-board VP scale or the 24-board VP scale (the league I play in with rules uses the latter).

We have an excellent non-standard scale. But only for 24 boards. Again, if I was the non-offending team I should feel deprived of a chance to improve

 

3. Give the defaulting side -3 imps for each board they didn't play. The EBU White Book gives guidance for EBU events depending on whether they are 'all play all' or not 'all play all' events; losing 5 boards of a 24-board VP-match doesn't really qualify as either.

 

For a non-all-play-all event the WB recommends:

 

...When the TD judges that the withdrawal is for an acceptable reason the contestant is given A– for the boards after withdrawal up to a maximum of half the event. He is also fined an amount per board depending on the actual circumstances: the fine will range from 0% to 40%.

 

So, in effect, the TD, at his discretion, will give the withdrawing contestant a score of between 0% and A– on each board.

 

A similar approach is used at other forms of scoring.

 

This guidance reads as if it was originally intended for pairs or possibly multiple teams rather than head-to-head league matches, but it could apply equally well here. However, -15 imps seems a big penalty.

This is the real problem. At first sight, this seems obviously the solution. But 15 imps is a very large amount, especially when you realise it is 21 imps!!!!! Five boards played, so seven unplayed! In Ton Kooijman's Commentary [i think it is there: I have read it somewhere anyway :rolleyes:] he says that Average Plus and Minus is only suitable for one or two boards, and regulations should be made to avoid too many Average Pluses or Minuses.

 

4. For 'all-play-all' events, the WB doesn't really cover losing 5/24 of a VP'd match, but it does say

 

"in any other method of scoring, the first three boards are scored as

Average Plus and the remainder at Average;"

 

I would go with this option 4: take the scores over the first 17 boards, penalise the team that withdrew 9 imps, and VP using the 24-board scale.

Seems fairer. But is it legal?

 

:ph34r:

 

Do you think we can give them an option to play the 7 boards, or to accept +9/-9?

 

:ph34r:

 

[xxx] In the Manchester league, you fill in a results slip and either post it to the Match Secretary or give it to one of five nominated clubs. A good team including Paul Hackett, John Armstrong, a couple of other top players and two sponsors played a weak team that were in danger of relegation. It was early in the season. They gave the results slip to the club. Several months later they realised the result was not included in the league's published scores. Apparently the club had lost the slip.

 

But they could not remember the result of the match. :( When asked, I said "Ask John Armstrong, everyone will trust what he says." Unfortunately John could not remember the result!

 

It was agreed that the result was either 17-3 to Hackett or 14-6 but they were not sure which. In the last match of the season, Hackett had to beat us 13-7 or more for it to matter, and if he beat us 16-4 he had won the league anyway. Naturally he beat us 14-6. Now what?

 

It was finally agreed between the two teams and the league to play a six-board playoff for 3 VPs, winner to get the 3 VPs. Naturally they tied it! After several phone calls they played another 6 boards and Hackett had won the Manchester league!

[Finch]

4. For 'all-play-all' events, the WB doesn't really cover losing 5/24 of a VP'd match, but it does say

 

"in any other method of scoring, the first three boards are scored as Average Plus and the remainder at Average;"

 

I would go with this option 4: take the scores over the first 17 boards, penalise the team that withdrew 9 imps, and VP using the 24-board scale.

Seems fairer. But is it legal?

 

:rolleyes:

 

Do you think we can give them an option to play the 7 boards, or to accept +9/-9?

 

:ph34r:

Why shouldn't it be legal? If the CoC do not define what to do, it is surely up to the tournament organiser to write regulations after-the-fact. This is I assume not so much you (as the TD being consulted on the day) but Merseyside & Cheshire CBA, or whoever it is runs the league. Or they may have delegated such decisions to you as TD.

 

As you are also a participant in the league and this may of course affect your team's position you might prefer the county committee to take the final decision. Or perhaps taking BBO's advice (as we don't know who any of the teams involved are) would count as sufficiently distinterested!

 

You could ask each team separately what they would choose from 'play 7 boards' or 'accept +9/-9' and if they both make the same choice let them get on with it, but I think you need to decide what the default is going to be. I don't like e.g. letting the NOS choose which option to take, seems a bit too baised in their favour. I don't know the teams involved, but is there a risk that e.g. they agree to play 7 boards, then can't fix a date, or can fix a date but not with all of their strongest team available to play and want to change their minds?

[bluejak]

I don't know the teams involved, but is there a risk that e.g. they agree to play 7 boards, then can't fix a date, or can fix a date but not with all of their strongest team available to play and want to change their minds?

I would have thought that was a risk.

[pran]

If I may cast my vote: (The situation is not unknown to me)

 

I: I shall never accept scheduling late play of some boards from a round after the results on the other boards in that round can be known to the players, so scheduling play of the last 7 boards at a later time is out of question. (I know I have seen a rule to that effect somewhere. To me it is obvious)

 

2: In the case of a real emergency like I understand this was I shall let the results obtained decide the match without imposing any "penalty" for the missing boards provided at least half of the match has been played. So this match is won with the number of IMPs scored on the boards that have been played. Conversion to VP should be done for the number of boards actually played and scored. If no IMP to VP table for the number of boards is available then use the closest available table.

 

Regards Sven

[mike777]

1) Enforce the conditions of play.

2) If the conditions do not cover this simple situation, then replay the match or just forget it. This was never a serious game in the first place.

[Mbodell]

I agree that you should, first of all, do what ever the CoC says.

 

If this isn't in the CoC then I think you should try to finish off the last 7 boards.

 

If you can't finish off the last 7 boards then I think you should give the team not at fault the VP score for the actual IMP differential that occurred, scaled to 24 boards (or the 17 board VP scale if there is one) and give the team at fault the IMP differential -21 IMPs for the missing 7 boards.

[bluejak]

I shall never accept scheduling late play of some boards from a round after the results on the other boards in that round can be known to the players, so scheduling play of the last 7 boards at a later time is out of question. (I know I have seen a rule to that effect somewhere. To me it is obvious)

There are no "rounds". It is a league with eighteen matches over a season. Matches are frequently postponed, and no effort is made for matches to all be played on the same date anyway.

 

If the conditions do not cover this simple situation, then replay the match or just forget it. This was never a serious game in the first place.

That is as nasty and selfish a comment as I have seen on this forum for a long time. If that is your attitude to rulings I strongly suggest you stop participating in this forum.

 

I agree that you should, first of all, do what ever the CoC says.

Obviously we would if it was covered.

[pran]

I shall never accept scheduling late play of some boards from a round after the results on the other boards in that round can be known to the players, so scheduling play of the last 7 boards at a later time is out of question. (I know I have seen a rule to that effect somewhere. To me it is obvious)

There are no "rounds". It is a league with eighteen matches over a season. Matches are frequently postponed, and no effort is made for matches to all be played on the same date anyway.

You continue to surprise me, all matches certainly have "rounds":

 

From 2007 Bridge laws Definitions:

Round — a part of a session played without progression of players.

 

(This definition includes the case when a single session consists of only one round!)

 

So while a tournament for teams consists of several matches each match usually consists of two rounds.

 

Having a match postponed is seldom any problem, and in KO matches no problem at all.

 

I don't even consider postponing the second round of a two-round match to be of any problem, in the Norwegian Masters league we even have some matches that are scheduled to be played with the first round in November and the second round in February!

 

But postponing part of a round so that the players (can) know their intermediate standing in that round at the time they shall play the remaining boards of it should IMHO be out of question in any event.

 

Why else should we be so careful about not letting players get any information on how they do in a round until the round is completed? (I don't know of any CoC that does not absolutely forbid communication of whatever kind between players in the open and the closed rooms during a round.)

 

Sven

[bluejak]

So, you do not mind every other player knowing the position part way through, except these two teams? That is ludicrous.

 

Anyway, there are no rounds in many leagues, and your attempt to invent the term is unhelpful at best.

 

http://www.mcba.org.uk/mbl/mbl.php

 

Please explain which teams are in which rounds.

[pran]

So, you do not mind every other player knowing the position part way through, except these two teams?  That is ludicrous.

 

Anyway, there are no rounds in many leagues, and your attempt to invent the term is unhelpful at best.

 

http://www.mcba.org.uk/mbl/mbl.php

 

Please explain which teams are in which rounds.

I couldn't believe my eyes when reading this :D And I believed that you were a guardian of the laws of duplicate bridge?

 

"There are no rounds"?????

 

Say, have you read the laws recently? "Round" is no invention of mine, it is defined in the laws and is a (more or less important) term used in laws 8, 15, 64, 69, 74, 76 and 79 (as I could establish with a quick scan). It is also an essential part of the definition of the term "Play period". I can't believe that you advocate ignoring the effect of "round" in these laws where and when applicable?

 

A typical match for teams of four consists of two rounds (however "short" matches are frequently played with only one round). I trust that I don't need to elaborate further on this fact?

 

To claim that there is no round in a match or an event is just nonsense.

 

Different matches may have coinciding rounds with the same boards played simultaneously in all matches. This is particularly important for league events to be fair by avoiding that some matches offer far less IMPs that other with which the IMP and VP scores are to be compared. For KO matches the IMP scores are of course irrelevant so they can be played individually with different boards without jeopardizing the fairness of the competition.

 

Your reference doesn't give any indication on the schedules as far as I can see so while assuming two-round matches I cannot tell if the total event (for a group of ten teams) consists of 18 rounds (9 two round sessions), 90 rounds (45 individual matches each with two rounds) or maybe even something entirely different. (The way you posed your question I must assume 90 rounds in total).

 

Sven

[bluejak]

You can assume what you like, but leagues are run in this way all over the place. While it may be true there are two rounds within a session that is still of no relevance to the fact that sessions are unconnected with each other, and we have no intention of changing a method that works in many many leagues just to suit your methods. I do not come over to Norway and tell you to run your events differently.

[Trinidad]

My solution would be somewhat like Frances':

 

17 boards are played and already have a score

3 boards get +3/-3 IMP

 

Score on a 20 board VP table.

 

2a/b. Score the match with the boards as played a 17-board match.  Either use the 17-board VP scale or the 24-board VP scale (the league I play in with rules uses the latter).

We have an excellent non-standard scale. But only for 24 boards. Again, if I was the non-offending team I should feel deprived of a chance to improve

So, you don't have a 20 board VP table. Then you make one. It is very easy to make an n board VP table from an other VP table: The upper IMP limit scales with the square root of the number of boards. It will take you 5 minutes to do this in a spreadsheet program and 10 minutes when using a calculator.

 

In your case that means that you can make a 20 board VP table by multiplying the upper IMP limits of your 24 board VP table by 0.912870929175276855761616304668 (feel free to leave out a few digits :)).

 

Of course, you can also just take the score obtained, divide by 0.91..... and use your 24 VP table.

 

If you would want to score over 17 boards, the factor to use is 0.8416254115301731627802821597558

 

Rik

[pran]

You can assume what you like, but leagues are run in this way all over the place.  While it may be true there are two rounds within a session that is still of no relevance to the fact that sessions are unconnected with each other, and we have no intention of changing a method that works in many many leagues just to suit your methods.  I do not come over to Norway and tell you to run your events differently.

What seriously worries me is that you seem to find it acceptable for players to resume play of the remaining boards after a round has been interrupted so that they have had the possibility to learn their standing at the time of the interruption from the boards already played in that round .

 

You could look at Law 76B3 which clearly shows the principle. (I don't think the lawmakers have imagined any other possibility for players to receive such information during a round other than from a spectator.)

 

Obviously contrary to you I find the concept of "round" very relevant in many situations, this is one of them, and I find your willingness to discard that principle from the laws rather disturbing.

 

I have neither had nor have any interest in influencing how you play your tournaments. You introduced some league concept of yours and asked for my comments.

 

And to just repeat my opinion on the original question: I think the only legal way to handle the situation when a match is interrupted during a round is to either cancel the round or let the result be determined from the boards already played. It should never be any question of completing a round by playing the remaining boards at a later time.

 

Sven

[bluejak]

The league has asked the two teams to replay or finish the match. They have said that they do not mind whether the teams replay the whole match, the second half, or just play the outstanding seven boards. They have said they need the agreement between the two teams as to when to play or replay and how many boards to be told to the league by halfway through the league season, though the actual playing need not be done until later.

 

If the teams cannot decide how many boards to play, then the league will then decide. If the teams cannot, or will not, agree when to play, then the league will make a decision as to how to score the match. Nine imps as described earlier, or 14 imps [2 imps a board] have been mentioned.

[Vampyr]

The league has asked the two teams to replay or finish the match. They have said that they do not mind whether the teams replay the whole match, the second half, or just play the outstanding seven boards. They have said they need the agreement between the two teams as to when to play or replay and how many boards to be told to the league by halfway through the league season, though the actual playing need not be done until later.

 

If the teams cannot decide how many boards to play, then the league will then decide. If the teams cannot, or will not, agree when to play, then the league will make a decision as to how to score the match. Nine imps as described earlier, or 14 imps [2 imps a board] have been mentioned.

I really don't understand this. Why should the NOS, who showed up ready to play the whole match on the night, be required to do anything additional?

 

I also do not understand the 2 IMPs/board when the usual penalty in the EBU is 3.

[pran]

The league has asked the two teams to replay or finish the match. They have said that they do not mind whether the teams replay the whole match, the second half, or just play the outstanding seven boards. They have said they need the agreement between the two teams as to when to play or replay and how many boards to be told to the league by halfway through the league season, though the actual playing need not be done until later.

 

If the teams cannot decide how many boards to play, then the league will then decide. If the teams cannot, or will not, agree when to play, then the league will make a decision as to how to score the match. Nine imps as described earlier, or 14 imps [2 imps a board] have been mentioned.

If the CoC empowers "the league" to make such decisions in this situation then that's it, case closed.

 

If not then I cannot understand how either side can legally be forced to accept any procedure that can reduce the intermediate result they have already achieved from the boards that were played.

 

And what rights does a team enjoy when present and ready to play a match according to schedule if their opponents for whatever reason do not show up or cannot play the complete match?

 

But it is your event, I don't really care.

 

Sven

[bluejak]

There are times when very unfortunate things happen to people. It is quite normal for other people, even bridge opponents, to give them leeway.

 

As for the question of 2 imps a board, you might re-read all of this thread. There is certainly a well-held view that 3 imps is a lot, especially when more than one or two boards are concerned.

 

In Ton Kooijman's Commentary [i think it is there: I have read it somewhere anyway ] he says that Average Plus and Minus is only suitable for one or two boards, and regulations should be made to avoid too many Average Pluses or Minuses.