Late play

[Hanoi5]

Say a pair arrives late to a table and they can't finish all the boards for the round. The Director says it could be played at the end of the tournament. When the tournament finishes a pair from the late play can't stay to play the hand. How do you score that board for that table? Are late plays an obligation?

[blackshoe]

If you agree to play in an event, you are, IMO, obligated to finish the event, baring circumstances beyond your control. If you want a "rules" answer, you are obligated to follow the instructions of the director (Law 81, and see also Law 90B8 and the Introduction to the laws). If the director says there will be a late play, then, well, you get the idea.

 

If a contestant scheduled for a late play cannot stay for it, due to previous commitments, I would deem that contestant partly at fault* (he could have allowed more time for the possibility). If the contestant (or one member of the pair or team) just says "I don't want to stay", I would deem the contestant directly at fault. At fault for what? For the fact that a scheduled board cannot be played. If the other contestant remains available, I would deem them in no way at fault. Note that this determination is different from the determination of who may have been at fault for the fact the board didn't get played when it was originally scheduled, and any PPs for the different problems are independent of each other. What I would not do is give anyone "not played".

 

* Some might argue that the determination should be "directly at fault" even in this case.

 

Regarding "not played", an example: today, we received a "not played" on a board we didn't get to. Why didn't we? Because the pair we were following took over half of our round to finish their last board from the previous round. We had a 34% game (yeah, it was a bad day all around), so we in effect got 34% on this board, instead of the 60% to which we were entitled. How come directors don't ever consider that aspect of these situations? :angry: :(

[mjj29]

If you agree to play in an event, you are, IMO, obligated to finish the event, baring circumstances beyond your control. If you want a "rules" answer, you are obligated to follow the instructions of the director (Law 81, and see also Law 90B8 and the Introduction to the laws). If the director says there will be a late play, then, well, you get the idea.

I would have thought that if you cannot play a board in the time allotted for that round then the default should always be to award averages as normal (note: never 'no play', always av+/av=/av- depending on who is at fault) and a late play is an option only if both pairs agree to it. If, through no fault of my own, I cannot play a board (the pair ahead of me were slow, my current opponents were slow on the previous round), I shouldn't be penalised if I cannot stay late in order to finish that board - I'm entitled to 60%. Granted players should try to complete late plays where possible, but they should not be required to, particularly when they were in no way at fault with the round being slow.

[blackshoe]

… a late play is an option only if both pairs agree to it. …

 

A view, certainly. I don't see anything in the law to support it.

[bluejak]

No, there isn't, only commonsense. Late plays are a bit like whether you cut for N/S and so on, a matter of what the norm is for a club. In most clubs I have played in no-one ever has a late play: at the end we go, simple.

 

If it is normal in a club to have late plays and insist on them then that is in effect part of the CoC for that club, so perhaps an Ave- is suitable for a pair that does not want to stay. But if late plays are unheard of and a TD decides to enforce one I would be very unhappy.

 

What should happen is that the club should lay down regulations for late plays, whether you have to stay for them what happens if you do not, and so on, and publish them. But it would be very rare for a club to do so.

[blackshoe]

Around here, clubs don't publish any regulations at all. In theory, this means ACBL regulations apply. In practice it means the TD/club owner does whatever she likes. We have a TD who says "no late plays" — but she occasionally allows them. She gives "not played" for boards not played. She wouldn't give a PP if the Supreme Court told her she had to — unless she felt like it (I haven't seen her give one; I have seen her bar a player from the club for thirty days, for giving her grief about a ruling after she told him twice to stop — and I'd have done the same).

[gordontd]

What should happen is that the club should lay down regulations for late plays, whether you have to stay for them what happens if you do not, and so on, and publish them. But it would be very rare for a club to do so.

My club has such regulations. Late-plays are at the discretion of the TD, with the agreement of all players. Only one late play is allowed per pair. They must decide at the time whether or not they want to play the board later - they can't wait to see at the end of play. If they agree to a late play and then later decide they don't want to play it, it's scored as 40/60 (unless both pairs decide not to play it, when it would be 50/50).

[jh51]

In the club game where I regularly play, the folks with the late plays are very often not competitive. Our director generally looks at the results and sees whether the result on the board is likely to change the standings. If it does not, he often rules it a no-play. But this is an evening game with a relatively low master point limit and a lot of us just want to get the results and go home.

[McBruce]

A few disjointed thoughts on this topic:

 

--late plays need not always take place at the end of the game. Often both pairs involved are finished early in a round. If the Director attaches a note to the board to ensure other pairs play it first, the board will be ready as well. Another option is to make a copy of the board, by hand if necessary.

 

--if a late play is necessary, it should not be deemed unnecessary just because both pairs are out of the running. The result may move every other pair that played the board up or down a matchpoint and may affect the final standings.

 

--late plays are rare if the TD does his job: walking the room periodically and reminding players when a round is half-over. A visible clock will help players (those who care) avoid going overtime. Also important is that a TD let players starting a round late that they need to avoid further delays. Most late plays are the cumulative result of an unwarned pair getting later and later until there is no other choice. Few are caused by a single delay.

 

--To get 60% on an unplayed board because the opponents did not/could not play the late play is charitable; I think an added requirement should be that the pair was not in any way at fault for the late play being necessary. A pair half a board behind me with the late play yet to come, beats me by a matchpoint because their opponents couldn't stay? Not fair if they contributed to the delay.

 

--Perhaps it would be a good idea to start a new thread to discuss a template for club CoCs, and options within.

[Vampyr]

I came to this thread looking for information following a conversation with a friend. I am surprised that so many directors illegally score "no play" for a board not played because it was out of time.

[barmar]

--late plays are rare if the TD does his job: walking the room periodically and reminding players when a round is half-over. A visible clock will help players (those who care) avoid going overtime. Also important is that a TD let players starting a round late that they need to avoid further delays. Most late plays are the cumulative result of an unwarned pair getting later and later until there is no other choice. Few are caused by a single delay.

In our club, most of the late plays are due to a few pairs that are habitually slow. One of them is one of the best pairs in the club -- they're slow because they're very thoughtful, going into the tank occasionally to figure out the best way to bid or play the hand, and I have to assume from the results that they're making good use of this time.

 

The others are relative novices, who tend to agonize over every decision. Our TD does regularly announce "There's X minutes left in the round, you should be on your Nth board." But it doesn't speed up players like this, they just keep going at their normal, snail's pace -- they simply don't know how to play any faster. It's no more effective than yelling at an out-of-shape person would be in getting them to run a 5-minute mile.

[pran]

In our club, most of the late plays are due to a few pairs that are habitually slow. One of them is one of the best pairs in the club -- they're slow because they're very thoughtful, going into the tank occasionally to figure out the best way to bid or play the hand, and I have to assume from the results that they're making good use of this time.

 

The others are relative novices, who tend to agonize over every decision. Our TD does regularly announce "There's X minutes left in the round, you should be on your Nth board." But it doesn't speed up players like this, they just keep going at their normal, snail's pace -- they simply don't know how to play any faster. It's no more effective than yelling at an out-of-shape person would be in getting them to run a 5-minute mile.

Would they mind being told that they are playing an unfair game?

 

How come? - They are "taking" for themselves more time than is allotted for the round so they give themselves an advantage over those pairs that obey the rules. The Director has the tool to compensate for this unjust advantage by imposing a (standard) late play penalty.

[blackshoe]

Not only do the novices — particularly the perpetual novices — not know how to play any faster, they won't learn either. There's a couple of tricks a player can use to at least not slow down the play, like making your opening lead before you write the contract down on your score card, but in spite of repeated attempts, I can't get these players to learn those tricks at all. They nod wisely, smile and and say "that's a great idea!" And then the next time they sit down to play, they promptly forget all about it.

[barmar]

That's basically my expectation as well. As much as I would like to suggest that trick, I don't do it because I think it would be viewed as impolite. And the 5-10 seconds per board it will save will not help with pairs that are habitually 2-3 minutes behind. The problem is that they take 10-20 seconds for most of their bids and plays.

 

One thing we can do when playing against them is try to avoid post mortems. But after they mess up (which is often), they're usually so eager for advice that it's hard to turn them down (even though you know it will go in one ear and out the other).

 

The perfect storm happens when a slow E/W arrives at a slow N/S table. Luckily we also have a couple of pairs who are habitually fast -- when they get to the table, it helps get them caught up.

[blackshoe]

That's basically my expectation as well. As much as I would like to suggest that trick, I don't do it because I think it would be viewed as impolite. And the 5-10 seconds per board it will save will not help with pairs that are habitually 2-3 minutes behind. The problem is that they take 10-20 seconds for most of their bids and plays.

 

Fair enough. I didn't mention that I don't give these suggestions at the table, unless I'm asked and there's time. We have a club here that gives a 20 minute "mini-lesson" before the game, and I used to (haven't done it in a while) give one on how to "speed up".

 

The other side of the "slow play" problem, at least around here, is the pairs who are much faster than the clock, which results in them hovering over their next table, or bugging them for boards, when even the "three minute warning" has yet to sound off. This would be easily remedied if TDs would announce "nobody moves until the move is called", and then enforce that, but they won't do the former, and if they did, they wouldn't do the latter.

[McBruce]

That's basically my expectation as well. As much as I would like to suggest that trick, I don't do it because I think it would be viewed as impolite. And the 5-10 seconds per board it will save will not help with pairs that are habitually 2-3 minutes behind. The problem is that they take 10-20 seconds for most of their bids and plays.

 

A pair who is habitually 2-3 minutes behind is in fact keeping up: in a 15-minute per round game they have taken 17-18 minutes for one round and 15 for the rest! Eventually they will have a 12 minute round and be caught up.

 

What a TD should try to avoid is a pair getting progressively further behind. Walking the room and making announcements about how much time is left is one way to help. One thing I have found that works very well is to catch them in the act of ignoring a recent warning. If you walk the room and see a table pulling cards out of the board with less than five minutes left, do not hover, but don't get too far away. If you catch them post-morteming, or arguing about something silly, or creating further delays, you can remind them that they have already been warned and cannot waste any further time. It helps to have hand records available, but even without them you can remind the players that all of the boards and scores will be available after the game for inspection.

 

Occasionally a player will ignore your request to get on with it and continue arguing points after being warned that they are behind. Here a TD must be firm and ready to hit offenders with PPs if necessary. This is where you discover the real troublemakers. Some players seem to have a personal rule never to be the first to arrive at a table: if N-S goes off for coffee or a smoke, they will not sit until they return. Get four of these together and your 15 minute round is half over before you can get them seated. Some players are quite offended at being told they are late and have the view that since it so seldom happens to them, they should be given some slack, since they will surely catch up next round. "Here is your chance to prove it," I usually say.

 

Another trick that almost always works, if you are able to use it, is the removal of a board from a table. They always ask what you are doing. "You may not have time to play this one; call me when you're ready for it." If they call with less than three minutes to go, no dice. The increase in speed will usually be remarkable. Another trick that lets players know you are serious is this one: "Would everyone please put their cards back in the slots? Thank you. Since I told you that you had only four minutes to play the board, I have walked the length of the room and two more minutes have passed, yet upon my return I find that not a single call has been made. You'll have to wait a few minutes for the round to be called, but that's preferable to your next opponents waiting eight or ten minutes."

[Vampyr]

There's a couple of tricks a player can use to at least not slow down the play, like making your opening lead before you write the contract down on your score card,

 

But the player who is using the Bridgemate may cause a further delay if they are required to enter the opening lead. A lot of players enter the contract etc immediately so that they don't have to remember afterwards just what card was led.

[aguahombre]

Experienced Norths who have thought about it find ways to use the Bridgemates or Bridpads on their own time ---not while they should be doing something else. Thus, they don't have everyone anxiously waiting for them to play with the toy so they can proceed.

 

It becomes second nature to the user of the equipment, and the others don't even notice the device's presence until time to approve the score.

 

Others make it a chore, or make a big deal about using it.

[Siegmund]

I am surprised that so many directors illegally score "no play" for a board not played because it was out of time.

 

Welcome to the ACBL. I have never given a "no play" for this reason, ever ... but when I first became a director, all I had was the Laws and the Bridge Laws Mailing List, and bluejak and other European directors pounded into my head very young that I must never give NPs for bad reasons, must never give A+/A- if a 'real' adjusted score can be had, etc etc. The local club directors who studied with me before their tests got that same approach passed on to them. But one of our members took a training course and directors test at IIRC the Gatlinburg regional -- and came back preaching that nobody should ever get a late play and NPs were the preferred solution. The conflict forced our unit board to take up the matter -- and we got a policy of one late play per pair, A- for any additional late plays for the same pair. But I have since been to a few "Q&A for club directors" sessions at tournaments, and the official advice from the ACBL to club directors really IS to give NPs and not late plays. It's going to become more common, not less, as fewer old-fashioned directors are around.

 

Are late plays optional? Absolutely not. They aren't a punishment or even much of a delay for you, they are a convenience to the other non-offending players in the room to let them leave early without waiting for you. If the delay was clearly caused by one pair, and the other pair doesn't want to stay, I am sympathetic enough to give A- without a PP. If the pair responsible for the delay doesn't want to stay, or someone just leaves without speaking to me first, A- and PPs just like you would get if you walked out of the middle of any other game.

I kind of gaped in shock, the first time I had two pairs come to me and tell me "we've decided to take an average instead of staying." Apparently some club directors actually do ask people if they want to stay to play the board, and habitually give either NP or A/A if both pairs agree not to stay.

[blackshoe]

But the player who is using the Bridgemate may cause a further delay if they are required to enter the opening lead. A lot of players enter the contract etc immediately so that they don't have to remember afterwards just what card was led.

 

What Bridgemate? :P

[blackshoe]

Welcome to the ACBL. I have never given a "no play" for this reason, ever ... but when I first became a director, all I had was the Laws and the Bridge Laws Mailing List, and bluejak and other European directors pounded into my head very young that I must never give NPs for bad reasons, must never give A+/A- if a 'real' adjusted score can be had, etc etc. The local club directors who studied with me before their tests got that same approach passed on to them. But one of our members took a training course and directors test at IIRC the Gatlinburg regional -- and came back preaching that nobody should ever get a late play and NPs were the preferred solution. The conflict forced our unit board to take up the matter -- and we got a policy of one late play per pair, A- for any additional late plays for the same pair. But I have since been to a few "Q&A for club directors" sessions at tournaments, and the official advice from the ACBL to club directors really IS to give NPs and not late plays. It's going to become more common, not less, as fewer old-fashioned directors are around.

 

One of the directors here called Butch Campbell a while back to ask him about using "not played" for a late board. He said "that's what it's for". I don't know who started this BS at HQ, but he ought to be shot.

 

Are late plays optional? Absolutely not. They aren't a punishment or even much of a delay for you, they are a convenience to the other non-offending players in the room to let them leave early without waiting for you. If the delay was clearly caused by one pair, and the other pair doesn't want to stay, I am sympathetic enough to give A- without a PP. If the pair responsible for the delay doesn't want to stay, or someone just leaves without speaking to me first, A- and PPs just like you would get if you walked out of the middle of any other game.

I kind of gaped in shock, the first time I had two pairs come to me and tell me "we've decided to take an average instead of staying." Apparently some club directors actually do ask people if they want to stay to play the board, and habitually give either NP or A/A if both pairs agree not to stay.

 

Those directors need re-education. And those players would be shocked if they said that to me, because both pairs would be getting A-.

[aguahombre]

And those players would be shocked if they said that to me, because both pairs would be getting A-.

I assume you said that to make a point about your feelings on the idea itself, and would probably educate the players about their lack of authority to decide what they get on a board ---then make your ruling (as a club director, in this case) based on fault, special problems of the pairs involved, etc.

[Siegmund]

Yes, but some of us think if both pairs refuse to play the board late, both pairs are directly at fault for it not getting played, and have limited themselves to A- at most, absent some very odd extenuating circumstances.

[pran]

Many astonishing statements on this thread.

 

I feel like first of all adding a fact, not on ACBL regulations (which I don't know) but on Bridgemate which I believe is used also (at least somewhere) in ACBL clubs?

 

"NP" is implemented on Bridgemate for one single reason: To inform the scoring program that a board has not been played as scheduled and that the intention is to play that board at a later time (with normal scoring).

 

Such late plays are (almost) unheard of in Norway (in fact I believe in all of Scandinavia) where the standard is barometer with each round scored immediately as the round is finished. So if a table is late our standard is to impose PP as appropriate to one or both sides. And if a board is not played then (at least my) standard is to award A- to both sides unless it is clear that one side alone is responsible for the delay.

[blackshoe]

1. The ACBL covers a huge area, both geographically and in population. While I don't doubt that a few of the more progressive clubs have Bridgemates, I saw my first one at a Sectional last month. AFAIK, no club around here has them.

2. Barometer is unheard of around here. I don't know about the rest of the continent.

3. North America is not going to adopt Scandinavian hardware, movements, or methods any time soon. ;)