team delayed

[Tomi2]

how would you handle this:

 

RR match, 1st round, two times 16 boards, 2hours20min for each segment.

 

team A plays team B but team B comes much delayed, so they compleatly miss the first segment. The reason (if relevant) is, that they had a car accident.

the rusult in IMPS in 2nd segment is 49-20 for Team A

 

how many VP and Imps would you expect A and B to have after this match?

[JoAnneM]

Team B didn't have to forfeit the match? Even though it was unavoidable (not speaking of the car accident itself) Team A was there and ready to play, and shouldn't be expected to undergo the stress of changed conditions. You don't mention the size of the event or its importance, so that could be taken into consideration, I suppose.

[mrdct]

Depends entirely on the jurisdiction. In Australia the following regulation would apply to most events:

 

10.3.1 Late arrival for a teams match or a Butler pairs match:

0-5 min. warning for first offence, then 1 VP (3 IMP) for each subsequent offence

5-10 min. 1 VP (3 IMP)

10-15 min. 2 VPs (6 IMP)

15-20 min. 3 VPs (9 IMP)

20-30 min. 5 VPs (15 IMP)

 

Boards withdrawn due to time constraints resulting from late arrival are cancelled. The non-offending side shall be awarded 3 IMPs for each such board in teams matches of more than 10 boards, or 2 IMPs for each such board in Butler-scored matches or in teams matches of 10 boards or less.

So in this case, the offending team would start the 2nd stanza down 0-48 which would give an overall match score of 97-20 in imps to Team A which on the WBF VP scale is 25-3 in VPs but Team B would also suffer a 5 VP penalty so it would be 25 VPs for Team A and -2 VPs for Team B.

 

I think the car accident is irrelevant - they should drive more carefully and be thankful that they are still alive.

[aguahombre]

I think the car accident is irrelevant - they should drive more carefully and be thankful that they are still alive.

 

Good Australian perspective until that part. You guys know how to drive?

[barmar]

I agree that the reason for the lateness is irrelevant when assessing penalties. But the editorializing about driving ability is inappropriate (how do you know it was their fault?).

[aguahombre]

I agree that the reason for the lateness is irrelevant when assessing penalties. But the editorializing about driving ability is inappropriate (how do you know it was their fault?).

 

Barmar, you need to chill. was attempt at humor

[pran]

I agree that the reason for the lateness is irrelevant when assessing penalties. But the editorializing about driving ability is inappropriate (how do you know it was their fault?).

Ever heard about split score in such matches?

If the late team was late due to "force majeure" the applicable regulation should allow for waiving all "penalties" when calculating the results on the match. (The VP results for the two teams on the match will then typically add up to more than 30, but that should not cause any problems.)

[Jeremy69A]

The VP results for the two teams on the match will then typically add up to more than 30, but that should not cause any problems.)

 

It may cause a problem for other teams. If you are late the apply the regulations and stop worrying about the reason.

[Mbodell]

We had a team in GNT district qualifying that was late for the start by ~20 minutes (and I think it was a 3-way of 2 14 board matches, may have been heads up), and had a cell phone violation. I think they were hit with a penalty of -6 IMPs for being late PLUS 2 boards taken away that were scored at -3 each PLUS 12 IMPs for the cell phone. So it was like they were down 24 after the first 2 boards of the match for that segment. They did not win that match.

[Vampyr]

If there is nothing in the conditions of contest or the regulations to handle this, a "seat-of-the-pants" approach would be to divide the match (and the Victory Points) in half. Give the VPs for the first half to Team A, and score the second half as it actually happened, dividing up the VPs using a scale for 16 boards. This would keep the number of VPs the same as they should be, if that is a consideration.

[pran]

It may cause a problem for other teams. If you are late the apply the regulations and stop worrying about the reason.

Yes, that is of course an attitude, but I certainly do not like it.

 

Two examples from my own experience:

 

About a Month ago I had a case of a player showing symptoms of a possible heart attack during a competition. Not many players noticed because it happened outside the playing rooms, and we saw no reason to stop the whole event (35 tables), but another player was a qualified nurse and took care of the patient while we waited for the ambulance. Naturally her pair was unable to play for a couple of rounds and their opponents of course received A+ for the affected boards. Should we have given the nurse and her partner A- for these boards? (As I remember we honored her efforts by awarding A+ also to her pair)

 

Some years ago a team became very late to a series and in fact was unable to play a couple of rounds because of severe weather delays to air traffic. They had booked their transport with good allowance for contingency but the delays here exceeded anything they could have prepared for. Should we have applied the regulations as if they themselves were responsible for this irregularity?

 

Shall we not be allowed to use common sense and worry about reasons in such situations?

[Finch]

Most events have regulations about what to do when a team is late. I would apply them. In most English events, once you are over an hour late you forfeit the match.

[jallerton]

About a Month ago I had a case of a player showing symptoms of a possible heart attack during a competition. Not many players noticed because it happened outside the playing rooms, and we saw no reason to stop the whole event (35 tables), but another player was a qualified nurse and took care of the patient while we waited for the ambulance. Naturally her pair was unable to play for a couple of rounds and their opponents of course received A+ for the affected boards. Should we have given the nurse and her partner A- for these boards? (As I remember we honored her efforts by awarding A+ also to her pair)

 

I like your decision to award the nurse average plus, presumably on the basis that she was not at fault for the board being unplayable. In fact, the nurse is as much at fault for the board being unplayable as is a playing TD in the scenario in this thread and yet you advocate giving the playing TD "A" in that case.

[Finch]

Yes, that is of course an attitude, but I certainly do not like it.

 

Two examples from my own experience:

<snip>

Some years ago a team became very late to a series and in fact was unable to play a couple of rounds because of severe weather delays to air traffic. They had booked their transport with good allowance for contingency but the delays here exceeded anything they could have prepared for. Should we have applied the regulations as if they themselves were responsible for this irregularity?

 

 

Yes.

The other teams got there, didn't they? By allowing discretion in applying late arrival, late play etc penalties you are being unjust to all the other teams who knew the rules and obeyed them.

 

I would only apply some discretion if _everyone_ was delayed

[pran]

I like your decision to award the nurse average plus, presumably on the basis that she was not at fault for the board being unplayable. In fact, the nurse is as much at fault for the board being unplayable as is a playing TD in the scenario in this thread and yet you advocate giving the playing TD "A" in that case.

I am not happy about awarding myself A+ when I am involved.

[pran]

Yes.

The other teams got there, didn't they? By allowing discretion in applying late arrival, late play etc penalties you are being unjust to all the other teams who knew the rules and obeyed them.

 

I would only apply some discretion if _everyone_ was delayed

All flights from one particular area in Norway was grounded and all the teams from that area were affected. Teams from other areas were not.

 

Why should the number of affected teams matter?

[mycroft]

We were about 20 minutes late one day for a morning KO (so was about 10 tables worth of players - the main N/S road had a semi jackknife across it, shutting the whole northbound down in the middle of rush hour. The alternate route was - slow).

 

The TDs said "we'll play 12 boards this half; if we need to pull boards and apply penalties in the second half, we will."

They didn't; we didn't play unusually quickly either.

 

For situations like this, I don't mind saying "if you're willing to do this, we'll play as normal; if it's a problem, here's the rules." Basically Law 81C5(? NLBH) again.

[aguahombre]

So, when a board (boards) cannot be played for a reason not the fault of certain players --doesn't "NP" give those players the percent of the rest of their game? This would apply to the nurse and his/her opponents. Why average plus on no-fault situations in a pairs event?

[gordontd]

Why average plus on no-fault situations in a pairs event?

That's what L12 says is the minimum to give to a pair in no way at fault.

[blackshoe]

So, when a board (boards) cannot be played for a reason not the fault of certain players --doesn't "NP" give those players the percent of the rest of their game? This would apply to the nurse and his/her opponents. Why average plus on no-fault situations in a pairs event?

 

I got beat up severely by one of the TDs on staff at HQ (Keith Wells) when I suggested that NP gives players "the percent of the rest of their game". He said

When a director assigns a No Play, that board is completely thrown out for computation of that pairs score. ACBLscore (and the ACBL) awards masterpoints based upon percentage game, not total score achieved.It will factor results so the displayed total scores are all based upon the same average, but that is not what determines who "wins" an event. For the pair involved with a No Play, their total matchpoint score achieved on the boards that they actually played is compared to the total matchpoint score possible for that number of boards to determine their percentage game. That percentage is what is compared to the percentage of every other pair in the event.

 

As to why not NP in this case... most of the world recognizes that this is illegal. The board was scheduled to be played; it was not played. Law 12 requires that the TD award an artificial adjusted score. NP is not contemplated by that law. However, Mr. Wells also opined that

While a case could be made for assigning averages to both pairs in this instance, the No Play listing is certainly an acceptable alternative, neither blaming nor rewarding a pair who were not responsible for the failure to play a board. While not my preferred score to assign, it is a valid alternative in the minds of the ACBL Board of Directors, otherwise it would not be an option within the program.

While the instance he and I were discussing was not this one, the same principle would apply. I do not agree with Mr. Wells, and I'm not certain the ACBL BoD does either, but that's another can of worms. :)

[BunnyGo]

I got beat up severely by one of the TDs on staff at HQ (Keith Wells) when I suggested that NP gives players "the percent of the rest of their game".

 

I'm sorry, I'm probably just too distracted or hyped-up on caffeine to understand the difference, but what is the difference between:

 

A} Calculating the percentage based on the 23 boards (say) played, and

B} Calculating the percentage based on the 23 boards played, adding the same percentage for the 24th board and calculating the percentage over 24 boards (as I think you're suggesting).

 

I'm a few years out of grammar school, but I still remember that these produce the same result. What am I not understanding?

[aguahombre]

I got beat up severely by one of the TDs on staff at HQ (Keith Wells) when I suggested that NP gives players "the percent of the rest of their game". He said....

 

"When a director assigns a No Play, that board is completely thrown out for computation of that pairs score. ACBLscore (and the ACBL) awards masterpoints based upon percentage game, not total score achieved.It will factor results so the displayed total scores are all based upon the same average, but that is not what determines who "wins" an event. For the pair involved with a No Play, their total matchpoint score achieved on the boards that they actually played is compared to the total matchpoint score possible for that number of boards to determine their percentage game. That percentage is what is compared to the percentage of every other pair in the event."

 

Sounds like you two were making a distinction without a difference. L12 certainly appears to say NP's are just plain illegal. But NP would be an effective way not to have to calculate when the L12 caveat about avg+ for a pair with a 61+ game or avg- for a pair with 39- needs to be used.

[blackshoe]

It's not that simple, Aqua. Yes, maybe there are cases where the legal ruling and the NP ruling give the same final result. That doesn't make the NP ruling legal.

[bluejak]

We know that giving NP is illegal for a board scheduled for play because the Law book says so. Why not just not give an illegal score and not worry about the effect if we had?

 

As to the original case there is always a problem with ignoring the rules when something happens but there is also a problem with following the rules when you are sure something was not avoidable. I probably give Ave- but skip the VP penalty.

 

The playing TD case is not comparable because it is different when people are suggesting the TD gives himself a better score than the Law book says.

[pran]

As to the original case there is always a problem with ignoring the rules when something happens but there is also a problem with following the rules when you are sure something was not avoidable. I probably give Ave- but skip the VP penalty.

If you skip the VP penalty I assume this is because you consider the contestant not at fault but rather a victim of events completely outside that contestant's control ("force majeure"). Why then give Ave-?

 

Fortunately our Norwegian regulations include rules that allow the Director to waive penalties in cases of force majeure. But even without such express rules I would be very lenient to "victims of force majeure". However, as far as the artificial adjusted score is concerned Law 12C2a dictates that Ave- shall (only) be awarded to a contestant directly at fault.