Late Penalties

[aguahombre]

The Bridgemate will have reported the result long before the players have had the chance to score up.

The OP is in a different world.

[Bbradley62]

No, just on a different continent.

[Xiaolongnu]

Views in response to the OP: With all due respect, I think it is totally illogical and against common sense to not notify the players that they are being warned, penalized, etc, for slow play. It would serve as an excellent reminder that they "better wake up their idea" instead of continuing to blunder on. Whether or not rules of all sorts enforce it, unless the Director has stated clearly somewhere in space and time that the players will not be warned, otherwise the spirit of the law demands it, I think.

 

Views about noise, etc: I totally understand your pain. Seems like they asked for it. More so if they are demonstrably suggested to have been the ones unwilling to listen to the briefing in the first place. Zero sympathy for them. When in doubt, still zero sympathy.

 

Side issue about appeals of penalty:

 

"Disciplinary penalties may be appealed by any player at the table or by the captain of

one of the teams present. Only in extreme circumstances would it be expected that a

penalty be changed when the opposition appeal.

An Appeals Committee cannot overturn the TD in the matter of issuing a disciplinary

penalty, but can recommend that the TD changes it.

The clause in Law 91A that refers to the TD’s decision being final and thus not

appealable only applies to when the TD suspends a player for all or part of the current

session."

 

White Book, Law 91. I have a question, so are DP's appealable or not? What about late penalties, which are somewhere between DP's and PP's?

 

Edit: Assume of course there are no overwriting conditions, assume the TO follows the White Book and assume the CoC does not have any otherwise stated treatment for appeal of penalty.

[Elianna]

 

Views about noise, etc: I totally understand your pain. Seems like they asked for it. More so if they are demonstrably suggested to have been the ones unwilling to listen to the briefing in the first place. Zero sympathy for them. When in doubt, still zero sympathy.

 

 

When it is a very big room, and the directors have small voices, and other people in between you and the directors are talking, it can be very hard to even know the directors are making an announcement, much less hear that announcement. I do think that the directors should have tried to quiet the room a bit before making an announcement. Or get a microphone.

 

But I wasn't there.

[bluejak]

This came up in a local tournament today. Suppose that a team finishes several rounds of a swiss teams event late. Each time they finish late, they are assessed a penalty (actually a "warning" the first time, 2 VPs the second time, 4 VPs the third time). The teams so penalized were never informed that such a penalty was being assessed, and were quite surprised to find that their final scores were not what they had expected.

 

The directors did claim that a general announcement about this policy had been made early in the event, but the room was crowded and loud, there was no microphone, and most people didn't hear any such announcement. They admitted that no effort had been made to notify the specific teams being penalized.

 

Is there a problem with this?

Certainly. It sounds like very poor directing to me.

 

Nope. The "warning" was just that the first penalty was 0 VPs. There was no verbal warning.

That is not a warning: you cannot warn someone of something without them being warned.

 

It would be nice if the people who say "laws/regulations require it" would post and cite the relevant laws/regulation.

It is so difficult to really answer this sensibly. The effect of Laws 9 and 10 and 81 through 85 is so clearly that you do not give secret rulings, but I agree it does not say specifically that when you rule against a player you tell him. It is just Tournament Direction 101 day 1 stuff.

 

White Book, Law 91. I have a question, so are DP's appealable or not? What about late penalties, which are somewhere between DP's and PP's?

 

Edit: Assume of course there are no overwriting conditions, assume the TO follows the White Book and assume the CoC does not have any otherwise stated treatment for appeal of penalty.

DPs and PPs may be appealed. It is rare that an AC will over-rule a TD unless they decide it is a judgement matter, which is perfectly possible for a PP, much less likely for a DP. Late penalties are PPs, not DPs: discipline is not involved.

[McBruce]

Did someone on this thread actually say that comparing should not take more than one or two minutes? I have seen all of the following:

 

--five minutes or more, by the last team to finish, to quit arguing about board 1 and move on to comparing board 2

--winning teams deciding to tell everyone in the room about their brilliance except for the team that they beat

--the corresponding losers waiting patiently for an eternity for the team that beat them to present them with a result slip to initial

 

And if you ever succeed in getting all of the results in and post new assignments, there are always people who look at the second round scores in an eight-round Swiss for ten minutes, trying to work out where they stand in strat B or how all their friends are doing or how many VPs they need to catch up to the leaders. The fastest teams sometimes wait fifteen minutes for the next round to be completely posted (although we often get them posted earlier).

 

The amazing thing is that as soon as you try something (like distributing pickup slips and scoring the matches yourself in a computer program) to stop all this from happening, the worst offenders bleat like you wouldn't believe. It's as if arguing and post-morteming during the comparisons was an essential part of Swiss Teams that they pay their money for.

[barmar]

Did someone on this thread actually say that comparing should not take more than one or two minutes? I have seen all of the following:

Yeah, I know... It never takes US more than a minute, but I've often gone over to the other table to confirm and hovered for what seems like forever, waiting for them to finish. Luckily, this has rarely been coincident with us being the last table in the room to finish, so it doesn't hold up the movement.

 

So, it SHOULD take less than 2 minutes, but unfortunately it sometimes DOES take as long as 3. Rarely much more than this. In my experience, when the director has to announce "We need a result from X vs Y", it's almost always because they're still playing, not because they're taking really long to score up. Or once in a while, they didn't fill out the score slip correctly, so it was turned in but not recognized as being for that match.

[mycroft]

The amazing thing is that as soon as you try something (like distributing pickup slips and scoring the matches yourself in a computer program) to stop all this from happening, the worst offenders bleat like you wouldn't believe. It's as if arguing and post-morteming during the comparisons was an essential part of Swiss Teams that they pay their money for.

Oh, but it is. Try running a 7-table teams night with the full American Whist League movement ('Boards down 1, East-West down 2, no post-mortems after the new pair arrive (either side), you'll score at the end. change please') People complain that it isn't a team game unless you get the comparisons every round, and the fact that it would take 30 minutes longer to do 3x2 rounds means nothing. They'd probably rather have 2xhead-to-head and a 3-way for 4 rounds of 7, even though the "swissing" of that movement is dreadful.

 

Of course, they also complain about the noise (of others postmorteming *after* the comparison and scoring, waiting for your team because you wasted the first 5 minutes they were playing faffing about your "last round") and the fact that it's so slow.

[jh51]

Where are you writing from, jh? The ACBL also?

 

Yes, ACBL.

[jh51]

No new board with 10 minutes on the clock? At our local tournaments, that announcement usually comes when there's 3 or 4 minutes left -- if you play quickly, you can often get 2 boards done in 10 minutes.

 

However, our clocks are for the play period, they don't include the time for computing IMPs with teammates. This should rarely take more than a minute or two.

 

The 10 minutes thing was what the TD announced, and he stated that the time on the clock included comparison and delivery of the score.

 

And on the playing quickly thing, I was once in a compact KO where, with 3 boards to go, some of the people at our table thought they heard that there only 3 minutes left (it was actually 30). In this case, the time was just for the play perind. We had just finished bidding the 3rd board from the end, and I was able to quickly claim. We bid the next hand quickly and I was again declarer and was able to quickly claim. It took us only about 3 minutes to get to that last board with most of the 30 minutes remaining.

[jh51]

I would think that Law 81C2 is very specific:

 

I think handing out penalties for slow play, without notifying the players falls short of "advising the players of their rights and responsibilities under Law 90B2 and 80B2 e-f".

 

I don't think there is much of an argument that the TDs in question failed to advise the players of their reponsibilities regarding the pace of play.

 

Rik

 

The OP notes that the TD claims to have "made a gerneral announcement befroe the start of play. Why would the TD make up such a thing if it were not true. It has been my experience that the announcement contains words to the effect that there will be a warning on the first occurance, but after that penaalties will be assessed without further commont.

 

The OP notes that on the first instance there was a warning. I was not there when this occurred with the OP, but the wording of the warning is often, "You were late. You will be penalized on the next occurrance".

 

From the OPs words, the TDs did advise the players of their responsibities, and they apparently chose to ignore them.

 

I suspect that the OP was one of those assessed a penalty and was upset about it. I have overheard this discussion at a local tournament between a TD and one of those penalized. It seems most everyone else heard the director and followed instructions. Sour grapes is sour grapes.

[jh51]

Is it still customary for the winning captain to deliver the scores to the tournament desk for both teams? If so, does the losing team necessarily know when the winning captain is told "you're late, so this is your warning that future latenesses will be penalized"? Can a younger/more spry losing captain insist on turning in his own scorecard, so his team doesn't get penalized when the winning seniors can't get to the desk quickly or without chatting with everyone in the room on the way?

 

The winning captain reporting is customary in my jurisdiction as well. When I was this occur, it seemed it was only the winning team that was penalized, but I could be wrong.

[Bbradley62]

The winning captain reporting is customary in my jurisdiction as well. When I was this occur, it seemed it was only the winning team that was penalized, but I could be wrong.

That's even more strange!

[Mbodell]

Views in response to the OP: With all due respect, I think it is totally illogical and against common sense to not notify the players that they are being warned, penalized, etc, for slow play. It would serve as an excellent reminder that they "better wake up their idea" instead of continuing to blunder on. Whether or not rules of all sorts enforce it, unless the Director has stated clearly somewhere in space and time that the players will not be warned, otherwise the spirit of the law demands it, I think.

 

I agree it would be better if the directors notified the players verbally. In this case (the OP case) on the back wall behind where to turn in the results there was the usual chart of teams' table location and teams' scores and also a giant sign between them of "LATE TEAMS" with team numbers written down as teams reported results late (for both the A/X and B/C/D Swiss). The teams got x2 and x3 marked next to their team number for their subsequent lateness. Team scores were also adjusted on the scoreboard so a team could have noticed a 2 VP penalty as their score not adding up right. Of course, these written charts can be hard to see when everyone crowds around them and the team least likely to see them is the one that is latest and rushing to get to their next round match.

 

Another cause of confusion, which again was announced but announced during the start of the first round where it was hard to hear from the back of the room, was that the clocks on display were for the time given to complete the round and report the results, not the time to start the last board. I think that movement and clocking is best (why should we wait for someone who takes 15 minutes to play the last board, even if the last board was started on time?), but that is only sometimes used as the timing mechanism for swiss teams in this district. I heard the TD at least one other time (the same type of announcement time this time during the start of the 4th round reminding people of the clock and when round 5 would start [after the short-break]) during the event remind players through a general announcement (again very hard to hear in the room we were in) that the time on the clocks was the time to complete the round and that penalties could result for slow play.

 

And to jh51 I don't think the TD announced how the penalties would work. I certainly didn't hear it during the announcement, but asked the TD about the penalties one of the rounds when I finished with 25 minutes left on the clock and saw ~6 teams written up, one of which had the x2. I think only two teams in the A/X ended up with penalties but more than 1/4 of the teams were written up as being late once.

 

I think the round lengths were 55 minutes (maybe 56?) from the report of the last match or the final pairing, which ever was later (usually the last match as A/X usually got paired completely before the clock started) in either A/X or B/C/D to play a 7 board match and report results.

 

I agree with OP that it completely sucked that his team was penalized a second 4 VP without ever being verbally warned that they'd received the first 2 VP penalty (and ideally they'd be verbally warned on the first warning too), but I do think the ACBL doesn't in general penalize late play enough, and it is amongst the most painful in Swiss events. So I'm all for the clock running the way it did (as a time to report results) and for penalties to be handed out, and a policy of one free late round and then 2 VP and then 4 VP seems a fair amount (20 VP scale).

 

edited: changed directors should notify players verbally, rather than in writing.

Edited May 4, 2012 by Mbodell

[blackshoe]

DPs and PPs may be appealed. It is rare that an AC will over-rule a TD unless they decide it is a judgement matter, which is perfectly possible for a PP, much less likely for a DP. Late penalties are PPs, not DPs: discipline is not involved.

Any ruling may be appealed (Law 92A). However...

 

Law 91A: In performing his duty to maintain order and discipline, the director is empowered to assess disciplinary penalties in points or to suspend a contestant for the current session or any part thereof. The director’s decision under this clause is final and may not be overruled by an appeals committee (see Law 93B3).

Law 93B3: In adjudicating appeals the committee may exercise all powers assigned by these Laws to the director, except that the committee may not overrule the director on a point of law or regulations or on exercise of his Law 91 disciplinary powers. (The committee may recommend to the director that he change such a ruling.)

I hope no appeals committee will attempt to overrule the TD on a DP.

[Vampyr]

The OP notes that on the first instance there was a warning. I was not there when this occurred with the OP, but the wording of the warning is often, "You were late. You will be penalized on the next occurrance".

 

From the OPs words, the TDs did advise the players of their responsibities, and they apparently chose to ignore them.

 

Best to read more than the first post before replying. The OP was mistaken at first and makes this correction soon after:

 

There was no verbal warning.

[Trinidad]

The OP notes that the TD claims to have "made a gerneral announcement befroe the start of play. Why would the TD make up such a thing if it were not true. It has been my experience that the announcement contains words to the effect that there will be a warning on the first occurance, but after that penaalties will be assessed without further commont.

 

The OP notes that on the first instance there was a warning. I was not there when this occurred with the OP, but the wording of the warning is often, "You were late. You will be penalized on the next occurrance".

 

From the OPs words, the TDs did advise the players of their responsibities, and they apparently chose to ignore them.

 

I suspect that the OP was one of those assessed a penalty and was upset about it. I have overheard this discussion at a local tournament between a TD and one of those penalized. It seems most everyone else heard the director and followed instructions. Sour grapes is sour grapes.

I don't know what OP you are reading, but the one on my screen clearly says:

Each time they finish late, they are assessed a penalty (actually a "warning" the first time, 2 VPs the second time, 4 VPs the third time). The teams so penalized were never informed that such a penalty was being assessed, and were quite surprised to find that their final scores were not what they had expected.

and

They [The TDs] admitted that no effort had been made to notify the specific teams being penalized.

and in post #7 of this thread, this is clarified further:

I would expect they knew they got a warning. B-)

Nope. The "warning" was just that the first penalty was 0 VPs. There was no verbal warning.

That is what the OP writes and that is what I have responded to.

 

Maybe you know something that is not in the OP. That is fine. Your version may be the one and only correct one. Heck, maybe the original poster twisted the truth. Or maybe he was talking about a hypothetical case.* I don't care. When I am replying to a post, I reply to the situation as described in that post and not to the situation that somebody else will describe in a post 2.5 weeks later. I am not clairvoyant.

 

Rik

 

* I can only add that Adam's reputation makes it unlikely that he twisted the truth or was talking about a hypothetical case without mentioning that.

[vigfus]

In Iceland, at club level, penalties for late play is seldom given.

In Regional and national, the condition of contest is clear about time limits.

In IMP's, TD announces usually when 15 minutes are left of time, but not required to do so.

When I enter late table in teams, I tell the playeres that there is VP penalty for late play. That is all.

Players usually speed up after having such warning. They know I am watching the time limits.

[bluejak]

 

bluejak, on 2012-April-25, 00:47, said:

DPs and PPs may be appealed. It is rare that an AC will over-rule a TD unless they decide it is a judgement matter, which is perfectly possible for a PP, much less likely for a DP. Late penalties are PPs, not DPs: discipline is not involved.

 

Any ruling may be appealed (Law 92A). However...

 

Quote

Law 91A: In performing his duty to maintain order and discipline, the director is empowered to assess disciplinary penalties in points or to suspend a contestant for the current session or any part thereof. The director’s decision under this clause is final and may not be overruled by an appeals committee (see Law 93B3).

It is the EBU's view that the final sentence, which refers to a clause not sentence, only applies to suspending a contestant and not to DPs. This is logical, reasonable and follows the English.

 

Quote

Law 93B3: In adjudicating appeals the committee may exercise all powers assigned by these Laws to the director, except that the committee may not overrule the director on a point of law or regulations or on exercise of his Law 91 disciplinary powers. (The committee may recommend to the director that he change such a ruling.)

 

I hope no appeals committee will attempt to overrule the TD on a DP.

ACs are primarily to exercise judgement. So it is not impossible that an AC might sensibly think the issue of a DP should be varied based on their judgement of the situation. At such time they should tell the TD they think he should re-consider. It is the EBU's view that at such a time the TD should have a very strong reason before he fails to follow AC's view.

[blackshoe]

It is the EBU's view that the final sentence, which refers to a clause not sentence, only applies to suspending a contestant and not to DPs. This is logical, reasonable and follows the English.

Does it? I'm not so sure. I've always read "this clause" as referring to the entirety of Law 91A. Perhaps that's another case of American English vs. English English. It would be nice to get an official interpretation from the WBFLC — and one from the ACBLLC, just to see if they differ. IAC, so far as I know the ACBLLC has not offered an interpretation, and I'm not in the EBU, so... B-)

 

ACs are primarily to exercise judgement. So it is not impossible that an AC might sensibly think the issue of a DP should be varied based on their judgement of the situation. At such time they should tell the TD they think he should re-consider. It is the EBU's view that at such a time the TD should have a very strong reason before he fails to follow AC's view.

Surely — although "fails to follow" (as opposed to, say, "chooses not to follow") is a bit strong. Also, if I were the TD I'd want to hear the AC's reasoning.

[gordontd]

It is the EBU's view that the final sentence, which refers to a clause not sentence, only applies to suspending a contestant and not to DPs. This is logical, reasonable and follows the English.

I know it's their view, and so I follow it, but it's not how I would otherwise read it.

 

I think the clause referred to should be "the director is empowered to assess disciplinary penalties in points or to suspend a contestant for the current session or any part thereof".

[barmar]

I also think that it's normal to interpret "clause" as referring to the smallest labeled sections of the laws, not in the grammatical sense as referring to parts of sentences. I find that EBU view surprising.

 

Plus, if you're going to use the grammatical sense, and a sentence contains the phrase "this clause", shouldn't that refer to the clause containing the phrase, not a clause from another sentence? The latter meaning would be expressed with "that clause" or "the preceding clause". E.g. "This short sentence contains six words. The preceding sentence contains six words, but this clause has five words."

[mycroft]

Okay, another one for Grattan's list, I guess. I always read that as the entirety of L91A (especially when L93B3, to which L91A refers, states specifically that the AC "may not overrule ... exercise of [the TD's] Law 91 disciplinary powers" (my emphasis). There is no subclassing of Law 91 in L83B3.

 

Having said that, my belief is that the ACBL's philosophy is "while the TD should have a very strong reason before overriding the AC's suggestion to reconsider, the AC should have a very strong reason before requesting reconsideration". I've certainly never seen this in practise (which likely means that the TDs aren't assigning enough DPs, on the same idea that if you set all the contracts you double...)

[bluejak]

I also think that it's normal to interpret "clause" as referring to the smallest labeled sections of the laws, not in the grammatical sense as referring to parts of sentences. I find that EBU view surprising.

I find it incredible that clause should be understood as referring to something that is a sentence not a clause. Why should clause not refer to a clause? That seems much more normal to me.

[blackshoe]

That's because you're thinking like a grammarian rather than a lawyer. :D

 

From my online dictionary:

 

clause |klôz|

noun

1 a unit of grammatical organization next below the sentence in rank and in traditional grammar said to consist of a subject and predicate. See also main clause, subordinate clause.

2 a particular and separate article, stipulation, or proviso in a treaty, bill, or contract.