team delayed

[Trinidad]

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.

 

All these things are relative.

 

So, in the UK, you are more or less expected to book a hotel and stay the night before. Fine. In other places this idea may be quite different.

 

The Netherlands is a small country with a very high population density. The national competitions are played in Utrecht, right in the middle. This city is easy to reach by car or by train during the weekends (when the competitions are played). My guess would be that it takes most teams less than an hour to get there. Nobody would leave the day before to get to a tournament. In fact, if the tournament takes place on Saturday and Sunday, 95% of the players return home on Saturday evening to enjoy dinner at home. Only teams from the far North East spend the night in a hotel.

 

The Dutch bridge league (NBB) has rules for being late. The basic rule is that they assume that you will leave at such a point in time that you will be able to overcome problems that could be expected. Trains in The Netherlands are running every 15 minutes and are fairly prompt. If you miss a train because another was delayed that will cost you 15 minutes. Maybe you will get a flat tyre. That will cost you 15-30 minutes, depending on how handy you are. These are things that you should account for. As a result, normally everybody is showing up around 45 minutes before the start of play.

 

One day this winter, all teams that were not from Utrecht were late. There was a power outage near the railroad station in Utrecht and trains were stranded. Power outages like that are very rare in The Netherlands. The league's rules are simple: The TD has to apply the prescribed penalties. The teams may appeal to a higher authority. (Two of them did, they won and the higher authority advised the NBB the remove all the imposed penalties, which obviously happened.)

 

It's fine with me if that appeal wouldn't have had a chance in the UK. I merely want to illustrate that the way things are done in the UK is not universal. I am sure that the Norwegian Bridge League is not going to hold it against the players if planes are stuck in Larvik for a week and the players can't make it to Oslo.

 

There is one thing that surprises me in this UK philosophy though: It seems like you expect players to be able to plan sufficient time around a tournament, so that it is possible to play there. How is it than possible that the fact that one player was scheduled to fly to Hong Kong and the other was supposed to drive him to the airport was used as an argument why they couldn't attend an appeal?

 

If the English culture with respect to reserving time for the tournament really is that strict, I would not have mercy with players who cannot spend the extra half hour that an appeal might take. I would have appealed and if they didn't show up: tough luck, the form will say that they weren't present at the hearing.

 

Rik

[bluejak]

It is not that strict. If you read the posts carefully you will find that all that has been said is that a couple of tournaments have specific rules, not that the majority do.

 

There is no absolute requirement to attend appeals, and ACs will generally listen to appeals without the appellants when an adequate reason is given. Furthermore, players do not have to appeal if they do not want to, despite Paul's assertion in another thread that they do. It does not matter what the reason is, for example finding it impractical to attend.

 

At an EBU event I expect most players would expect to attend an appeal at the end of a tournament about one time in fifty or a hundred: I do not think it unreasonable to fail to allow for attending one.

[Finch]

All these things are relative.

 

So, in the UK, you are more or less expected to book a hotel and stay the night before. Fine. In other places this idea may be quite different.

 

The Netherlands is a small country with a very high population density. The national competitions are played in Utrecht, right in the middle. This city is easy to reach by car or by train during the weekends (when the competitions are played). My guess would be that it takes most teams less than an hour to get there. Nobody would leave the day before to get to a tournament. In fact, if the tournament takes place on Saturday and Sunday, 95% of the players return home on Saturday evening to enjoy dinner at home. Only teams from the far North East spend the night in a hotel.

 

The Dutch bridge league (NBB) has rules for being late. The basic rule is that they assume that you will leave at such a point in time that you will be able to overcome problems that could be expected. Trains in The Netherlands are running every 15 minutes and are fairly prompt. If you miss a train because another was delayed that will cost you 15 minutes. Maybe you will get a flat tyre. That will cost you 15-30 minutes, depending on how handy you are. These are things that you should account for. As a result, normally everybody is showing up around 45 minutes before the start of play.

 

One day this winter, all teams that were not from Utrecht were late. There was a power outage near the railroad station in Utrecht and trains were stranded. Power outages like that are very rare in The Netherlands. The league's rules are simple: The TD has to apply the prescribed penalties. The teams may appeal to a higher authority. (Two of them did, they won and the higher authority advised the NBB the remove all the imposed penalties, which obviously happened.)

 

It's fine with me if that appeal wouldn't have had a chance in the UK. I merely want to illustrate that the way things are done in the UK is not universal. I am sure that the Norwegian Bridge League is not going to hold it against the players if planes are stuck in Larvik for a week and the players can't make it to Oslo.

 

Many teams do travel on the day. They know if there is a delay they will be fined imps as a consequence, it's their decision.

 

I think you have missed my point. Sven gave as an example of 'force majeure' a two hour train dealy.

I am objecting to the following circumstances:

 

Team 1 are aware of the penalties for late arrival and allow plenty of time, perhaps incurring extra costs and certainly 'wasting' time as a consequence.

Team 2 allow less time, and are caught up by an unexpected delay such as an accident shutting the motorway. They are late.

 

The TD says 'oh that was force majeure, never mind, I'm not applying the late arrival penalties'.

 

Team 1 now have to play with a later start/later finish/fewer boards than they paid for, in spite of the fact that they made extra efforts to be on time. Is it a surprise that they are unhappy?

 

 

 

There is one thing that surprises me in this UK philosophy though: It seems like you expect players to be able to plan sufficient time around a tournament, so that it is possible to play there. How is it than possible that the fact that one player was scheduled to fly to Hong Kong and the other was supposed to drive him to the airport was used as an argument why they couldn't attend an appeal?

 

If the English culture with respect to reserving time for the tournament really is that strict, I would not have mercy with players who cannot spend the extra half hour that an appeal might take. I would have appealed and if they didn't show up: tough luck, the form will say that they weren't present at the hearing.

 

Rik

 

For this particular tournament the team involved sent a team of 5 pairs, so one pair was always sitting out. This particular pair were sitting out the last match. No-one suggested that their need to leave early meant that there could not be an appeal - as you say, it would just have been tough luck. However, it was pointed out in the BBO thread for information in that the various unanswered questions about their methods would not have been answered if there was an appeal.

[cherdano]

So to sum up the discussion: in NL, bigger train delays are a "force majeure", whereas in the UK, it's a regularly occurring contingency that teams have to take into account?

[bluejak]

No.

[Vampyr]

No.

David, I think cherdano was making a joke.

 

The question here is whether it is better to have two categories for tournament participants: "on time" and "not on time" or to add an additional category "not on time due to force majeure". It seems to Frances and to many others that the first option is more acceptable.

 

There may be exceptions when it is a matter of life and death. Transport delays do not fall into this category.

[bluejak]

For this particular tournament the team involved sent a team of 5 pairs, so one pair was always sitting out. This particular pair were sitting out the last match. No-one suggested that their need to leave early meant that there could not be an appeal - as you say, it would just have been tough luck. However, it was pointed out in the BBO thread for information in that the various unanswered questions about their methods would not have been answered if there was an appeal.

If a pair had to leave, and their methods were likely to be relevant in an appeal, perhaps they could have briefed their captain.

 

The method of appeals is a pain for a lot of people, and many people have not appealed over they ears because of the time and trouble involved. It is reasonable when going to a tournament that lasts from [say] 1200 to 1900 to expect to arrive at 1115 or so and get away at 1930. In exceptional circumstances, an appeal has been known to put an hour's delay into the departure time.

 

Whether the game should have appeals is a matter we could discuss under 'Changing Laws & Regulations', but for the remaining three forums here perhaps we should accept:

 

• appeals are part of the game
  
• reasons for not appealing or not attending appeals may involve practicality
  

[dburn]

The method of appeals is a pain for a lot of people, and many people have not appealed over they ears

Oh yes they have. And over the rest of they heads, as well.

[Trinidad]

So to sum up the discussion: in NL, bigger train delays are a "force majeure", whereas in the UK, it's a regularly occurring contingency that teams have to take into account?

It seems to be like that.

 

I am just wondering what would happen in the case of, let's say, a job interview in the two countries. Would your prospective employer be willing to schedule a new interview if you would be calling to say: "Sorry. I can't make it. I am stuck in a train that was scheduled to arrive one hour early, but it seems like it is going to be three hours late."?

 

In The Netherlands, such an occurance is rare, easy to verify and regarded as force majeure. "You have done everything that could reasonably be expected of you to be there on time." In the UK this seems to be different.

 

Rik

[bluejak]

We are not talking of someone doing everything he possibly can to avoid delays: see Frances' post about going the previous night. We are talking of doing a certain amount, and when that amount is not enough calling it force majeure. You then compare different train schedules with different frequencies and different distances and different reliabilities.

 

Suppose someone in the Netherlands decided that 90 minutes was enough because you never get train delays that much. Someone then falls in front of a train and eventually you arrive at the venue 45 minutes late for the first match.

 

Your opponents for that match have come from the same city but they allowed a couple of hours. So they were on time and waiting. Instead of giving them 6 Average Plus scores, you just shorten the match by 6 boards - let us say halving its length. Thus the team who allowed 2 hours lose 6 boards of play and get no redress. Do they get a partial refund? No, I expect not.

 

Sure, despite a lack of regulation, in most events in England the TD would make his mind up, and if he really believes that the delay was out of the contestants' hands he would be sympathetic. At such a time, other contestants would normally be sympathetic too. But just arriving late for a train delay does not sound to me like force majeure unless the people have really left adequate time for delays. It seems it is too easy in the Netherlands to get away with upsetting your opponents by claiming force majeure.

 

In general, I believe that the question that really matters is: Assuming your opponents are reasonable people, do they think you should be penalised? If they do, then I think they should.

[suprgrover]

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. :)

 

It gets worse. Here is a highlight from the Orlando Board of Directors meeting regarding slow play in NABC+ knockout events.

 

Players are expected to be aware, in a general sense, of time used and remaining in a segment in which they are playing regardless of whether a clock is in use or a time announcement has been made. An excuse of “no announcement” or “no clock immediately visible” will not be considered persuasive.

The TD may remove one or more boards from a segment. According to Laws 12 and 86 the TD may award either no score (when neither team is more at fault than the other), an assigned score (when a result already exists at one table which the TD wishes to preserve), or, an artificial score in IMPs. Every effort should be made to remove boards before they can be played at either table but not having done so does not preclude removing one or more later.

 

How Law 12 allows a TD to award "no score" seems impossible to me, and Law 86 seems to require some sort of score when the other table has obtained a result, but what do I know?

[blackshoe]

What I know is that the ACBL does whatever it damn well pleases, and to Hell with the laws. :angry:

[pran]

I am really astonished by the different attitudes that has been demonstrated in this thread.

 

Let me quote from the Norwegian regulation on late show up:

The TD decides whether the prescribed penalties for late show up are reduced or completely waived in case of force majeure. Incidents of force majeure must be reported to the TD as soon as possible . . . . .

 

As force majeure is accepted sudden illness, accidents as well as failure or accidents with otherwise reliable means of transportation. A condition is that the contestant would normally have arrived in ample time before the scheduled start of the event.

So in Norway the TD will try in each case whether a late contestant has allowed reasonable time for contingencies when force majeure is claimed.

 

I have full respect for an administration stating that the scheduled start times are binding on all contestants with no leeway (but I shall never appreciate it). Such administration should then enforce this rule even on a team that arrives late even if the reason is the loss of one of their members in an accident on their way to the event! (Yes, I am exaggerating - but either you allow force majeure or you do not).