Adjustment of a board that was not played

[mink]

The BBO tourney software has a feature for some time that assings A== if a board cannot be played as there is less than half the time_per_board left in the round. This is a questionable procedure, but the software cannot do better as thinking time is not yet measured and therefore it cannot be determined automatically who is responsible for the delay in the previous board.

 

But a tourney director can do better than the software - he can see what happened and ask the players. Here is what happened to me:

 

2 board/round. At the beginning of round 3, one opp was subbed, this took some time but not too much. When the first board of the round was finished, the sub went red immediately. I did not call the director as I think it is up to the missing player's partner to decide when he does not like to wait for his partner any longer and call director then. But time ran out and nothing happened, so I finally called the director. See what happened:

 

->MCSD: <some_player> red for quite a while, would like ave+

 

[The director promptly subbed the missing player, and immediately after that:]

 

TD: Automated message: Der Turnierleiter hat das Ergebnis von Board 6 auf A== gesetzt. (Tisch 21)

->TD: sorry, a= is not acceptable if opps are red

->TD: we are entitled to a a+

 

[no response]

 

[...]

 

[after the tourney]

 

->TD: hi - would like to talk with you about the a== in board 6 if you got time

TD (Lobby): sure go ahead

->TD: we could not play it because an opp was red

->TD: I believe we should get a+ in this case

->TD: so why a== ?

TD (Lobby): o bhidd is made, no card is played, only correct is averige

TD (Lobby): sry no bidd is made, no card played

->TD: the laws state that if a board could not be played, the innocent side should get a+

TD (Lobby): or a=

->TD: no, there is no or

TD (Lobby): there is no law about that

->TD: I shall look it up and give you the exact words

TD (Lobby): ty, i will be dligted

->TD: law 12A 2. Normal Play of the Board Is Impossible

->TD: The Director may award an artificial adjusted score if no rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the ...

->TD: board (see Law 88).

->TD: law 88: In a pair or individual event, when a non-offending contestant is required to take an artificial adjusted score ...

->TD: through no fault or choice of his own, such contestant shall be awarded a minimum of 60% of the matchpoints available to ...

->TD: him on that board, or the percentage of matchpoints he earned on boards actually played during the session if that ...

->TD: percentage was greater than 60%.

->TD: this is called a+ here

TD (Lobby): this is online bridge so averige stands

->TD: please tell me where it is stated that the laws of duplicate bridge do not apply online?

TD (Lobby): also partner od disconnected player is also inocent side is it not?

->TD: it is not clear what to award to the other pair

->TD: you may argue for a+ or a-

->TD: but we are innocent for sure

TD (Lobby): so i put a=

->TD: you could also award a+=

->TD: this would be + for NS and = for EW

TD (Lobby): so then it would be 520-60%?

TD (Lobby): 50-60% sorry

TD (Lobby): no ave is correct

->TD: it was an IMPs tourney, so it would have been 3 for us and 0 for them

TD (Lobby): sry about that

TD (Lobby): it is 0-0

->TD: y a== is 00

TD (Lobby): so it is correct result for that board

->TD: do you read the forums?

TD (Lobby): sry no, i read rules

->TD: do you know the BBO forums?

TD (Lobby): y i do, and i'm a well known director, sa may be u know

->TD: I shall post this case in the tourney director bbo forum, in case you like to know what others think about it

->TD: have a nice day

TD (Lobby): please do

 

Was I right to request a+ for our side? The director was really a well-known director.

 

Karl

[Gerardo]

I agree is up to the player to decide IF (and if so, when) get a sub. (if this results on boards not finished or even not played, player get A-, opps get A+).

Delay is NOT player's fault, but he is responsible for it, as he can choose an alternative (getting a sub). Also, it is well between his rights to DON'T get a sub, and get adjusted results.

 

However, the director needs to be informed ASAP when any player has severe tempo problems, connection based or otherwise, to know if that board requires an adjustment.

 

Calling director afterwards is not nearly as good. Without info, an assumption both were partially at fault doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

[McBruce]

Why apply L12 when the real problem here is that BBO clocked tournaments are set up in contravention of L8B?

 

B. End of Round

In general, a round ends when the Director gives the signal for the start of the following round; but if any table has not completed play by that time, the round continues for that table until there has been a progression of players.

 

Unclocked tournaments may have their own problems, but at least they allow for the possibility of catching up when you are behind.

 

In the incident mentioned, I see nothing in the Laws that forces a TD to award A+ unless it is crystal clear that the contestant is in no way at fault. I only run unclocked tourneys so I can't make a judgment there. I would prefer to see a 'not played' option for directors, where essentially you get your percentage score for the rest of the tournament: if you're having a 55% game, you get 55% on the board not played. This is what is commonly done in clubs when there is a late play and one of the pairs needs to leave. It's a bit much to award the pair that can stay late an A+.

 

Bravo to mink for asking politely for a change and for waiting to the end of the tournament to discuss further. Too often this doesn't happen, as we have seen...

[mink]

Gerardo, to clarify: I called director when there were 4 or 3 minutes on the clock. At this time, the player had been red for 4 or 5 minutes. The director knew that as he saw himself that the player was red. If he thought it matters he could have asked partner of the missing player how long he was red. So your assumption that I called after the board or nearly at the end of the board is not true - sorry that I failed to make this clear in the original posting.

 

I also think that it is not a good idea to require players to inform the director immediately when some player becomes red or stops to play. This would create too much information/calls for the director. When I direct a tourney I am often called to replace a non-responsive player who then returns before I have completed the subbing. This is annoying. So I would suggest that players only call the director when they feel they do not like to wait for the missing player any longer.

 

Do you still think I am partially at fault, and what was my fault?

 

 

to McBruce: As far as I know the only case where the laws say that "session average" should be adjusted to is for boards that are not played as a part of the movement, i.e. at a sitout table. Can you please give me a hint where in the laws that common practice in f2f clubs is regulated? In my f2f club I always assign a+- or very seldom a-- if there was no time to start the second board of the round.

 

Karl

[jw_nl]

During the last tourney I (co-)hosted I got a call with the same request as Karl did above for for assigning A+ for a skipped board.

I told him that A== was usual in 'my' tourney.

 

A+ is meaning AVG of the boards played by YOU (minimum 60%)

A- is meaning AVG of the boards played by YOU (maximum 40%)

and in my opinion

A= is meaning AVG of the boards played by YOU during the tourney.

 

Reading about the " 'not played' option for directors " (Bruce), I'm afraid that my assumption about A== might not be right.

So A== would NOT be the AVG of YOUR own results but, for instance, the AVG of results of OTHER players on that board.

 

I hope that this isn't right, because A== (AVG of YOUR other results) will not harm any player.

 

Assigning A+ for a skipped board would favour players with an own AVG of less than 60% and I don't prefer that.

However knowing that a player who had an AVG of 80% on the rest of his boards would get 50% for the skipped board, would be a reason to reconcider my opinion.

Jan Willem Beek

[Gerardo]

Karl:

Not at all, your request was fine. However I would give 2 or 3 mins before the call.

 

Jan:

Currently A+,A=,A- in BBO are fixed to 60%,50%,40%, regardless of your session average.

As I read the Laws, A+ is max(60, your avg), A- is min(40, your avg), but A= is fixed at 50%, which seems counterintuitive to me.

[McBruce]

mink to McBruce:

 

As far as I know the only case where the laws say that "session average" should be adjusted to is for boards that are not played as a part of the movement, i.e. at a sitout table. Can you please give me a hint where in the laws that common practice in f2f clubs is regulated? In my f2f club I always assign a+- or very seldom a-- if there was no time to start the second board of the round.

 

McBruce to mink:

 

I think that in late play situations it is perfectly reasonable to assign artificial adjusted scores if the board is not played later, under L12A2. L12C1 instructs us to assign AVG- to a pair which is 'directly at fault,' AVG+ to a pair with is 'in no way at fault,' and AVG= to a pair which is 'only partially at fault.' You'd have to balance which side was unable/unwilling to stay after 11pm with who was late during the round that the late play came from. But L12A2 does not DEMAND that an artificial adjusted score be given; it says "The Director MAY award an artificial...". Therefore I think it is also reasonable to simply decide that the board simply was not played and score it as such--especially when 1) the TD will seldom be able to determine conclusively who is at fault, 2) most places in the world have computers that can use the WBF formula* for adjusted scores and fouled boards without breaking a sweat. :)

 

BTW, L12C1 defines A= as 50% in pairs, regardless of what your score for the rest of the session is.

 

*This is the formula that usually (on a 12 top) takes 0.06 matchpoints off of your top (or adds them to your zero!) when someone gets an A+/A- at another table.

[mink]

Hi McBruce,

 

I think Law 12A is not applicable for the case of the last board of the round that cannot be played, because the previous boards took too long. Both 1. and 2. deal with cases that are not covered by other laws, they sound very unspecific. If und 2. the words "... if no rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board" are used this implies for me that the board has already been started and then something unforeseeable happens that prevents the board from being assigned a normal sorce. Example for this is if the result on the traveller is unreadable or ambiguous and the 2 pairs cannot recall what the result actually achieved, or they disagree on this matter. Here, the TD _may_ award an artificial assigned score, but he is also free to judge that a normal score is the right solution as he thinks one pair has a much better memory for bridge than the other and can be trusted therefore (maybe after they are able to exactly tell how the board was played).

 

In contrast, Law 12C1 is applicable very well: if the board is not played, then there can be no result for sure, and the director is required by this law to award an artificial adjusted score. I just remember that I even awarded ave+ for both pairs recently when the delay was caused by an director call, but I was busy somewhere else and could get to this table only after some delay. The same applies to my own table (playing director), if the delay was caused by being away from my table to serve director calls. You are right that our software is easily capable of handling a session average, but I think we have to handle it according to 12C1 - no other choice possible. If the pairs do not agree which side was responsible for the delay, you might assign ave- for both sides - maybe they were both responsible. Or you can look at the board and figure out which side had the tougher decisions to make - usually they needed more time for this. If one player was at the bar at the beginning of the round and made himself another coffee, they usually remember that.

 

Karl

[xx1943]

Hi all

 

This problem can only be solved if the software provides the TD with the information how much time every pair needed (just like a chess-clock).

 

Anything else will go to never ending discussions who is responsible for the dealay.

 

Btw. I call the TD at once if opp is red and his pd does not sub himself.

 

Al