Incorrectly seated pair in RR barometer event?

[pran]

I have become involved in a discussion on an irregular situation for which no law appears applicable and should appreciate views/opinions on how to handle:

 

Consider a Round Robin barometer tournament for pairs: Each contestant meets each other contestant in the event once (and once only). The same set of boards are played at all tables during the same round and is scored (and published) immediately at the end of each round so all contestants know exactly how they are placed continuously during the event.

 

Example: If we have 100 pairs the event will consist of 99 rounds, and if we play 3 boards per round all tables will play boards 1-3 in the first round, boards 4-6 in the second round and so on (for a total of 297 boards).

 

This event will obviously be broken up in sessions, and say that in the first round after a session break pairs W and X are scheduled to play each other at table A while pairs Y and Z are scheduled to play each other at table B.

 

Players are human so nobody should be surprised that in spite of all announcements pair W incorrectly finds their way to and sits down at table B where pair Y is already seated. (W has not yet met Y in the event so neither of them catches the error immediately). They start on their first board in that round and then pair Z arrives (a few seconds late) at the table where they find their seats occupied by pair W.

 

All the time pair X sits at table A waiting for their opponents (pair W) to show up, and now the Director is called to sort out things.

 

We have had a tradition for handling this situation under Law 15, considering the clause "If players play a board not designated for them to play in the current round" to be understood to also cover the situation where although the board was designated for them to play in the current round it was designated to be played against some other pair than the one they actually play against.

 

We have a feeling, and fear that this use of law 15 can best be described as abuse of the law.

 

So which law (if any) can be applicable to the situation described, and how should the director rule in order to minimize undesirable consequences?

 

Note that even if X has not yet played against Z we cannot just change the schedule by swapping W and Z in this round as that will severely upset later rounds in the schedule.

[axman]

I have become involved in a discussion on an irregular situation for which no law appears applicable and should appreciate views/opinions on how to handle:

 

Consider a Round Robin barometer tournament for pairs: Each contestant meets each other contestant in the event once (and once only). The same set of boards are played at all tables during the same round and is scored (and published) immediately at the end of each round so all contestants know exactly how they are placed continuously during the event.

 

Example: If we have 100 pairs the event will consist of 99 rounds, and if we play 3 boards per round all tables will play boards 1-3 in the first round, boards 4-6 in the second round and so on (for a total of 297 boards).

 

This event will obviously be broken up in sessions, and say that in the first round after a session break pairs W and X are scheduled to play each other at table A while pairs Y and Z are scheduled to play each other at table B.

 

Players are human so nobody should be surprised that in spite of all announcements pair W incorrectly finds their way to and sits down at table B where pair Y is already seated. (W has not yet met Y in the event so neither of them catches the error immediately). They start on their first board in that round and then pair Z arrives (a few seconds late) at the table where they find their seats occupied by pair W.

 

All the time pair X sits at table A waiting for their opponents (pair W) to show up, and now the Director is called to sort out things.

 

We have had a tradition for handling this situation under Law 15, considering the clause "If players play a board not designated for them to play in the current round" to be understood to also cover the situation where although the board was designated for them to play in the current round it was designated to be played against some other pair than the one they actually play against.

 

We have a feeling, and fear that this use of law 15 can best be described as abuse of the law.

 

So which law (if any) can be applicable to the situation described, and how should the director rule in order to minimize undesirable consequences?

 

Note that even if X has not yet played against Z we cannot just change the schedule by swapping W and Z in this round as that will severely upset later rounds in the schedule.

 

The errant pair has extraneous information due to play at the wrong table which is their fault.

 

L16C2a provides for adjusting the players’ position and play the board- there being a question as to the limitations regarding which table. I believe that it reasonable to afford that it does include moving the players to their assigned table. L16C2d provides for an adjusted score as in the case should the redo auction is not repeated. Therefore, return the errant pair to their table [1/2 to a full board PP for moving incorrectly and fouling at least one comparison] standing ready to intervene [should the auction not be repeated suggesting that the EI could not be overcome] to cancel play and adjust the score [AV-/AV+].

 

For the non errant pair they have extraneous information from seeing the errant pairs’ auction that I judge fouls the comparison irretrievably. L16C2d provides for an artificial score treating both sides as non offending.

[bluejak]

I have little doubt that if the WBFLC were to consider the precise situation they would agree the Law 15 approach is right but the wording of the Law makes it not possible. I feel you need a regulation that enables the Law 15 approach specifically for this situation.

[jvage]

I have little doubt that if the WBFLC were to consider the precise situation they would agree the Law 15 approach is right but the wording of the Law makes it not possible. I feel you need a regulation that enables the Law 15 approach specifically for this situation.

 

We actually just got a reply from Ton Koojiman (who is a member of the WBF Laws Committee):

"I read about this situation on blml where Sven described what had happened.

It is not covered by the laws, so the best way to deal with it is by describing a procedure in your supplemental conditions, I think.

There are two reasonable approaches imo. Follow L15 in case they are still in the auction or let the other pair play this board against the pair that is still waiting for opponents."

 

John

[gordontd]

We actually just got a reply from Ton Koojiman (who is a member of the WBF Laws Committee):

"I read about this situation on blml where Sven described what had happened.

It is not covered by the laws, so the best way to deal with it is by describing a procedure in your supplemental conditions, I think.

There are two reasonable approaches imo. Follow L15 in case they are still in the auction or let the other pair play this board against the pair that is still waiting for opponents."

 

John

 

This sounds reasonable, but what do we say to a pair who are scheduled to play against a weak pair, and find they get a poor board playing an extra board against a much stronger pair, through no fault of their own?

[jvage]

This sounds reasonable, but what do we say to a pair who are scheduled to play against a weak pair, and find they get a poor board playing an extra board against a much stronger pair, through no fault of their own?

 

I agree this is a point to consider. Another is that this problem will typically happen at the 2 latest tables to start the round. Playing one board against the "wrong" opponents and then moving 2 pairs to their correct table will take additional time (the latest of the 2 tables may delay the other), even more if for example one pair argues that it does not want to play additional boards against the pair in question. While the 2 initially late pairs are partly to blame for the delay a procedure that may significantly increase a small initial delay does not seem optimal.

 

Both are arguments for cancelling the board started with wrong opponents if law 15 cannot be applied (normally awarding 40/60).

 

John

[bluejak]

No doubt the best legal solution is to work out what 'should' happen, put it in a regulation, and then this idea of players wanting this or that or arguing this or that becomes irrelevant.

[pran]

No doubt the best legal solution is to work out what 'should' happen, put it in a regulation, and then this idea of players wanting this or that or arguing this or that becomes irrelevant.

Of course this is the best (and I would even say only) legal solution. The problem is that there are so many "buts" and "ifs" to consider (some of which have already been pointed out) that writing such a regulation is a huge task. People (lawyers) that have been involved in writing laws and regulations for any part of the society will appreciate this.