team delayed

[mjj29]

I'm not 100% sure about the OP case, but in the case of the nurse assisting while waiting for an ambulance I would not for a moment think of awarding anything other than av+/av+ on those boards.

[bluejak]

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-?

No, I just generally follow the Laws. They require Average Minus in certain circumstances, but PPs are discretionary.

 

I'm not 100% sure about the OP case, but in the case of the nurse assisting while waiting for an ambulance I would not for a moment think of awarding anything other than av+/av+ on those boards.

As would we all, I trust.

[pran]

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.

 

 

No, I just generally follow the Laws. They require Average Minus in certain circumstances, but PPs are discretionary.

I don't understand?

The Laws require Average Minus in certain circumstances to a contestant directly at fault.

When you deal with contestants directly at fault do you then apply or waive prescribed PPs just at your own discretion?

[blackshoe]

What does "prescribed PPs" mean?

[pran]

What does "prescribed PPs" mean?

Sample from our regulations:

Delay - Penalty

0-4 min - Warning

5-9 min - 1 VP

10-14 min - 2 VP

15-19 min - 3 VP

20-24 min - 4 VP

25-29 min - 5 VP

 

Don't you have such regulations?

[blackshoe]

For tournaments run by the ACBL (including Districts and Units) yes, we do. Where such regulations are in force, I would apply them. But that doesn't change the fact that absent such specific guidance, Law 90 leaves to the discretion of the TD when and how to apply a PP.

[pran]

For tournaments run by the ACBL (including Districts and Units) yes, we do. Where such regulations are in force, I would apply them. But that doesn't change the fact that absent such specific guidance, Law 90 leaves to the discretion of the TD when and how to apply a PP.

And our regulations specifically allow the Director to waive penalties (wholly or in part) in case of force majeure. Do yours?

[Finch]

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?

 

The number of affected teams matters. If some teams got there on time as required, and others were late, and the teams that got there are going to be inconvenienced through no fault of their own. I don't know enough about the event, but if you don't simply apply the regulations as written then a completely innocent team is going to have to play later, or faster, or not play all the boards they are entitled to, or something else without the recompense they are due.

 

If absolutely everyone is delayed then everyone has been affected equally and you can do whatever you like.

[blackshoe]

And our regulations specifically allow the Director to waive penalties (wholly or in part) in case of force majeure. Do yours?

 

I don't believe so. What's your point? That Norway's regulations are better than the ACBL's? I'd be inclined to so stipulate even without knowing either RA's regs in detail. :P

[pran]

And our regulations specifically allow the Director to waive penalties (wholly or in part) in case of force majeure. Do yours?

 

 

I don't believe so. What's your point? That Norway's regulations are better than the ACBL's? I'd be inclined to so stipulate even without knowing either RA's regs in detail. :P

My point is that the team failing to show up in time because of force majeure cannot be blamed for not showing up in time. Therefore they should (as far as possible) be treated the same way as any other contestant in no way at fault for an irregularity. If this results in Ave+ being awarded to both contestants in a match then so be it. Neither side is in any way at fault.

 

Say that you have a multisession (series) competition over multiple weekends and one team arrives one hour late at one session because of a two hour train delay. Do you blame them for not planning to arrive at the event two hours instead of one hour before the scheduled start of the session? Do you find it fair to apply the prescribed penalty for being one hour late?

 

Generally we never penalize contestants for irregularities they (indirectly) cause because of events completely out of their control ("force majeure").

[Vampyr]

 

Generally we never penalize contestants for irregularities they (indirectly) cause because of events completely out of their control ("force majeure").

Maybe the problem is that you use words like "penalise" and "prescribed PPs". What we are talking about is score adjustments.

 

There are so many things that can happen to delay a team. What if the team had not had an accident but had got lost trying to find the venue? What if the babysitter for one of the contestants had had a car crash and other arrangements had to be made at the last minute? What if a member of the team witnessed a car crash and had to wait around to give a statement to the police? What if a team member was waiting for an important delivery,and the delivery van was involved in a car crash? Who has the job of deciding which delays result in a score adjustment and which do not? Does anybody try to get to an event late?

 

There are rules and regulations, and they should be applied equally to all. A contestant who arrives late, for whatever reason, should be subject to a score adjustment. This is fair, and it is seen to be fair, and I think that most players would accept it with good grace.

[pran]

Maybe the problem is that you use words like "penalise" and "prescribed PPs". What we are talking about is score adjustments.

 

There are so many things that can happen to delay a team. What if the team had not had an accident but had got lost trying to find the venue? What if the babysitter for one of the contestants had had a car crash and other arrangements had to be made at the last minute? What if a member of the team witnessed a car crash and had to wait around to give a statement to the police? What if a team member was waiting for an important delivery,and the delivery van was involved in a car crash? Who has the job of deciding which delays result in a score adjustment and which do not? Does anybody try to get to an event late?

 

There are rules and regulations, and they should be applied equally to all. A contestant who arrives late, for whatever reason, should be subject to a score adjustment. This is fair, and it is seen to be fair, and I think that most players would accept it with good grace.

 

Please go back and read about the nurse participating in one of my recent tournaments who assisted at a possible heart attack instead of playing a couple of rounds. I can only understand what you write that she should be taking the full impact of a contestant who fails to show up because of her own fault and receive Ave- together with whatever PP is appropriate (instead of the Ave+ I awarded both to her and to her opponents in the affected rounds). Sorry, I have nothing to say except that I disgust such attitude.

[Vampyr]

Please go back and read about the nurse participating in one of my recent tournaments who assisted at a possible heart attack instead of playing a couple of rounds.

I will not insult you by explaining the many ways in which this situation is different. Please stop using it as a substitute for discussing tardiness, which is what my post was about.

[pran]

I will not insult you by explaining the many ways in which this situation is different. Please stop using it as a substitute for discussing tardiness, which is what my post was about.

There is one single reason (not "many ways") why this situation is different: It is a case which can be (and should be) ruled "force majeure".

 

I assume you understand the meaning of this term so please do me the favour and recognise that I have all the time stressed "force majeure" (and nothing else) as the reason for waiving procedure penalties and in case for treating contestants as "in no way at fault" when awarding artificial adjusted scores. (This does of course not affect any artificial adjusted scores awarded to their opponents.)

 

Tardiness can also very well be due to force majeure. This is something the Director must have in mind and judge individually in each case.

[Vampyr]

There is one single reason (not "many ways") why this situation is different: It is a case which can be (and should be) ruled "force majeure".

 

OK, then...

 

1. The nurse was at the premises on time and ready to play.

2. She was carrying out her ministrations under the instructions (or at least with the blessing) of the tournament directors.

3. The nurse situation is not what this thread is about.

4. Please stop using it as a distraction.

 

 

I assume you understand the meaning of this term so please do me the favour and recognise that I have all the time stressed "force majeure" (and nothing else) as the reason for waiving procedure penalties and in case for treating contestants as "in no way at fault" when awarding artificial adjusted scores. (This does of course not affect any artificial adjusted scores awarded to their opponents.)

 

OK, well I gave you specific examples, and can give any number of further ones. Which ones "count" and which don't?

 

Tardiness can also very well be due to force majeure. This is something the Director must have in mind and judge individually in each case.

 

So if your nurse had been delayed at work because she had to care for a heart attack victim there, she would have been permitted to arrive late without her scores being affected?

 

Applying the regulations is easy and correct. It avoids ambiguity and subjectivity and the resentment they may cause.

 

But your suggestion in an earlier post that a team delayed through "force majeure" receive A+ for the boards they couldn't play is wonderful and should at least receive style points.

[Echognome]

Stefanie - I think you are being a bit unfair. Businesses have force majeure clauses in contracts all the time. Who determines whether that clause is applicable in a particular situation? If the parties cannot resolve it amongst themselves, they litigate.

 

TD's have to make judgment rulings all the time. I think it no less fair to have a TD make a judgment ruling with respect to whether something was an "act of God" or not. When I was a Lecturer and had to decide whether a student's late assignment was 'excusable' or 'inexcusable', I typically had to just make a judgment call. Of course a rule such that no late assignments were ever accepted would obviate any need to make such a judgment. However, I felt that it was "fairer" to allow for judgment than to simply deny all late assignments.

 

I think it's a perfectly reasonable debate to discuss whether force majeure clauses should be in the regulations. Some people will feel one way or another about it. But just because it can be difficult to make a determination should not imply that we should not try. There is nothing inherently unfair about having to make a judgment call. If there was, then there would need to be changes to many of the existing laws in bridge.

[pran]

OK, then...

 

1. The nurse was at the premises on time and ready to play.

2. She was carrying out her ministrations under the instructions (or at least with the blessing) of the tournament directors.

3. The nurse situation is not what this thread is about.

4. Please stop using it as a distraction.

 

 

 

OK, well I gave you specific examples, and can give any number of further ones. Which ones "count" and which don't?

 

 

 

So if your nurse had been delayed at work because she had to care for a heart attack victim there, she would have been permitted to arrive late without her scores being affected?

 

Applying the regulations is easy and correct. It avoids ambiguity and subjectivity and the resentment they may cause.

 

But your suggestion in an earlier post that a team delayed through "force majeure" receive A+ for the boards they couldn't play is wonderful and should at least receive style points.

So long as you absolutely refuse to consider force majeure as an element for the Director to consider I have little more to say.

 

I don't know if you have force majeure clauses included in your regulations where procedural penalties are specified. If not, I understand your position, but I consider such regulations extremely unfair to a contestant that has been the victim of force majeure.

 

Whether or not you have force majeure clauses included I just do not understand how you can treat a contestant "in any way at fault" when he has been such victim. Ave-, Ave or Ave+ is a matter of law, not of regulation and the deciding criteria is whether the contestant is directly, partly or in no way at fault.

[Vampyr]

So long as you absolutely refuse to consider force majeure as an element for the Director to consider I have little more to say.

 

 

Don't do it for my benefit. Why not decide on the various cases I mentioned for the benefit of those who agree with you? A line has to be drawn somewhere. And this is the problem, as far as I am concerned -- someone is going to be on the wrong side of the line.

[Vampyr]

Stefanie - I think you are being a bit unfair. Businesses have force majeure clauses in contracts all the time. Who determines whether that clause is applicable in a particular situation? If the parties cannot resolve it amongst themselves, they litigate.

 

... When I was a Lecturer and had to decide whether a student's late assignment was 'excusable' or 'inexcusable', I typically had to just make a judgment call. Of course a rule such that no late assignments were ever accepted would obviate any need to make such a judgment. However, I felt that it was "fairer" to allow for judgment than to simply deny all late assignments.

I understand what you are saying, but we are talking about a game. We are also talking about a situation where people who are completely unrelated are inconvenienced. Also the whole event might be buggered up. Suppose the OP event involved some sort of selection -- for representation of the county/region/country, or a regional/national final, etc.

 

Go ahead and be as merciful as you like to the delayed team -- say, give them average for all the boards they missed. But their opponents cannot be given less than A+. Particularly if the late team is a strong one, the entire field will have their chances of selection reduced. If the unoffending team is a strong one, the averages that the late team received may well affect others. I'm not saying that there are easy solutions to problems like this. I'm just illustrating the kind of impact that one late team can have, even when the late team is clearly at fault for their own tardiness.

 

I'm trying to be fair, really -- I don't think that it is unfair for the organisers of a game to be very rigid about fulfillment of the basic conditions of contest.

[bluejak]

I suppose the question to ask Matt to consider is this:

 

• Suppose you are marking the papers as in the example you gave, and you have deadlines. But suppose as well that in your class you give out 3 As, always three, to the three with top marks. Now when you allow someone to put in a paper late it might mean he gets an A and someone misses out. How kind are you now to someone with a late paper?
  

There will always come a time when a PP or the type of Average decides an event. A lady of Devon did not speak to me, merely growled when she saw me, for about four years after I gave her an Average Minus in a Ladies Pairs in a National Congress in London. Asking the other TDs, four would have given her Average, four Average Minus. If she gets Average she wins the event, but Average Minus cost her the event.

 

Four years later she hammered us in the Tollemache, an inter-County Team of Eight, mainly because she and her partner had a very big set against me and my partner. We were a much more fancied team than hers. After that she forgave me! :lol:

[Vampyr]

 

• Suppose you are marking the papers as in the example you gave, and you have deadlines. But suppose as well that in your class you give out 3 As, always three, to the three with top marks. Now when you allow someone to put in a paper late it might mean he gets an A and someone misses out. How kind are you now to someone with a late paper?
  

But isn't this much easier, David? Accept the late paper with the proviso that it is not eligible for an A.

[bluejak]

And then someone who had to save three lives by driving dying people to hospital does not get an A?

[Echognome]

I will only add that "fair" does not equal "easy to adjudicate".

[Finch]

My point is that the team failing to show up in time because of force majeure cannot be blamed for not showing up in time. Therefore they should (as far as possible) be treated the same way as any other contestant in no way at fault for an irregularity. If this results in Ave+ being awarded to both contestants in a match then so be it. Neither side is in any way at fault.

 

Say that you have a multisession (series) competition over multiple weekends and one team arrives one hour late at one session because of a two hour train delay. Do you blame them for not planning to arrive at the event two hours instead of one hour before the scheduled start of the session? Do you find it fair to apply the prescribed penalty for being one hour late?

 

Generally we never penalize contestants for irregularities they (indirectly) cause because of events completely out of their control ("force majeure").

 

Yes, I do. I don't think a 'two hour train delay' is much of an excuse. "Force majeure" is usually defined as an "unavoidable catastrophe". Maybe the Swiss would put a train delay in that category, but I doubt anyone else would.

 

The English Premier League takes place over three weekends (two Sat-Sun, one Fri-Sun) in 3 different locations. Some teams choose to travel to the venue on Saturday morning. My team prefers not to risk traffic/train problems and travels on Friday evening, incurring the cost of an additional night in a hotel as a consequence. If our opponents were late because of train or traffic delays and the TD said "oh no problem, you couldn't help it, forget the regulations that specify penalties for late arrival and I'll just give A+ to both teams for all the boards missed" then it's just saying that the regulations are there to be ignored. In which case we'll ignore all the others as well.

[Chris L]

Yes, I do. I don't think a 'two hour train delay' is much of an excuse. "Force majeure" is usually defined as an "unavoidable catastrophe". Maybe the Swiss would put a train delay in that category, but I doubt anyone else would.

 

The English Premier League takes place over three weekends (two Sat-Sun, one Fri-Sun) in 3 different locations. Some teams choose to travel to the venue on Saturday morning. My team prefers not to risk traffic/train problems and travels on Friday evening, incurring the cost of an additional night in a hotel as a consequence. If our opponents were late because of train or traffic delays and the TD said "oh no problem, you couldn't help it, forget the regulations that specify penalties for late arrival and I'll just give A+ to both teams for all the boards missed" then it's just saying that the regulations are there to be ignored. In which case we'll ignore all the others as well.

 

In EBU KO competitions, there are rules governing late arrival. If a team is more than 45 mins late, without notifying the oppo (or 90 mins having notified the oppo) they forfeit the match. Once a team is more than 30 mins late (notified or not), the match is reduced in length; by 2 boards for the first 30 mins and then by 2 more boards for each successive period of 15 mins, with the non offending side receiving 3 IMPs for each board withdrawn. There are no exceptions for "force majeure".

 

I have experienced these regulations in action twice. A few years ago my team was due to play Gordon TD's team in a Crockford's Plate match at the YC in London on a Saturday afternoon. We set off in good time to get to the venue but were delayed on the M11 by an horrendous traffic jam caused by a van which caught fire on the other carriageway. We had no means of escape. Had the authorities been more on the ball, they could have turned on the warning signs on the motorway at the point we joined it (the incident had occurred well over an hour earlier) and we could have reached the venue in plenty of time by another route. We rang Gordon on a mobile, initially just to say we were going to be late. When it became clear that we would be well over 90 minutes late, we rang to concede. Gordon very sportingly offered to re-arrange the match but we were already very close to the deadline for playing it and at least one of my team couldn't make any of the alternatives offered. The concession stood; we eventually escaped after about 5 hours.

 

A year or so later we had a NICKO match at our home venue. The opponents had to come 30 miles or so from Essex. They rang shortly before the match to say that their car had broken down. The AA had been called but they didn't know how long they would be. We told them to keep us posted and we would be in touch. We then had a team talk and decided (one of my team called it "thinking outside the box") that we would go to their house and play an 18 board match there with an 18 IMP start (by now it was clear that we would eventually become entitled to claim the match) which also saved them the problem of two of them being stranded with a broken down car at our venue. The oppo were duly grateful for this gesture on our part and showed their gratitude in the usual way by overcoming their 18 IMP handicap to beat us, even though we were, on paper, much the stronger team.