Late Penalties

[gordontd]

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.

Perhaps you would extract the clause you think is referred to, as I have done above? I do not see a clause in that sentence that gives the meaning ascribed to it in the White Book.

[Zelandakh]

On a strict interpretation, all of

 

1. the whole of 91A

2. "the director is empowered to assess disciplinary penalties in points", and

3. "the director is empowered to suspend a contestant for the current session or any part thereof"

 

might be referred to as a clause. For me it seems clear that the whole of 91A is meant as otherwise there is no obvious differentiation - the last object that appears to qualify for this is the Law numbering. Would you prefer the term "sub-law" or "law subsection" to "clause" here David? If so, perhaps this should be flagged as a possible change to the Law wording. I am pretty confident that while an English professor might interpret Law 91A in the way the EBU appears to have done, a lawyer would certainly take it to mean what everyone else understands it to be.

 

If an AC decision were to cause a DP to be withdrawn and this resulted in a change of winner at an important event, would the new runners-up have any right of appeal or challenge to the adjusted result?

[bluejak]

I am not justifying the actual wording of the Law. This forum is to help people to rule correctly: no doubt the wording could and should be better but we have to work with what we have. Frankly, there are too many posts, in my view, that suggest Laws or Regulations could be better worded. Absolutely true, but so?

 

In my view, while the meaning is ambiguous, it obviously does not refer to the whole sentence. Now it is all very well calling me a grammarian, even though I am obviously not, but it seems pointless: what do you want me to do, change my view because you have called me a name I do not think has any application to myself? As for your dictionary, I know what a clause is, and if you want to quote a confusing dictionary, feel free.

 

I really wonder at some of the posts. If a player is suspended for a session or part thereof, all this Law has done is stop him making a complete nuisance of himself: by the time any appeal would be heard it would be moot. Is it not completely obvious this cannot be appealed?

 

As for DPs, some of the comments remind me of references to the ACBL about ten years or so ago on RGB. There seemed an opinion that one of the things law-makers had to do was control the ACBL. Very strange. If you cannot trust people to act reasonably you have a problem whenever they have some authority anyway. This idea that we must not overturn TDs on a DP seems crazy: when he should be overturned, why not?

 

Let me make up a case. A player is told by some behind him to "F*** off". He goes to the nearest TD, who decides he must make an immediate stand. Brushing aside the player's protests, he fines him 2 VPs, double standard DP in the EBU.

 

Fortunately this is the EBU, and the player appeals. Not only does he explain to the AC that it was not him who spoke those words, but he brings along the player who did who readily admits it, though he said he was not speaking to the player who was upset, but to the player appealing, a close friend of his who is not upset by the language! The AC tell the TD he has fined the wrong person, and suggest he withdraws the DP: naturally the TD does.

 

Or would you really prefer a jurisdiction where the player unjustly penalised cannot appeal?

[blackshoe]

In my view, while the meaning is ambiguous, it obviously does not refer to the whole sentence.

It's not obvious to me.

 

<sigh>

 

All I was trying to do was to point out that there is more than one meaning to the word "clause", My opinion at the time was that the EBU has chosen the wrong one. That's still my opinion.

INow it is all very well calling me a grammarian, even though I am obviously not, but it seems pointless: what do you want me to do, change my view because you have called me a name I do not think has any application to myself? As for your dictionary, I know what a clause is, and if you want to quote a confusing dictionary, feel free.

I didn't call you a grammarian, I said you were thinking like one, rather than like a lawyer. The latter would certainly gravitate to the second meaning of "clause", which does exist in spite of your reluctance to admit it. And the definition of "clause" that I quoted is no more confusing than any other definition of a word with multiple meanings, and no less right for having not been from the OED (which, I would guess, probably has the same "confusing" definition).

 

Speaking of definitions, Black's Law Dictionary, a highly respected reference, at least in this county, defines "clause" thusly: "A single paragraph or subdivision of a legal document, such as a contract, deed, will, constitution, or statute. Sometimes a sentence or part of a sentence."

 

I really wonder at some of the posts. If a player is suspended for a session or part thereof, all this Law has done is stop him making a complete nuisance of himself: by the time any appeal would be heard it would be moot. Is it not completely obvious this cannot be appealed?

 

As for DPs, some of the comments remind me of references to the ACBL about ten years or so ago on RGB. There seemed an opinion that one of the things law-makers had to do was control the ACBL. Very strange. If you cannot trust people to act reasonably you have a problem whenever they have some authority anyway. This idea that we must not overturn TDs on a DP seems crazy: when he should be overturned, why not?

 

Let me make up a case. A player is told by some behind him to "F*** off". He goes to the nearest TD, who decides he must make an immediate stand. Brushing aside the player's protests, he fines him 2 VPs, double standard DP in the EBU.

 

Fortunately this is the EBU, and the player appeals. Not only does he explain to the AC that it was not him who spoke those words, but he brings along the player who did who readily admits it, though he said he was not speaking to the player who was upset, but to the player appealing, a close friend of his who is not upset by the language! The AC tell the TD he has fined the wrong person, and suggest he withdraws the DP: naturally the TD does.

 

Or would you really prefer a jurisdiction where the player unjustly penalised cannot appeal?

I won't speak for anyone else, but I certainly never said that a player cannot appeal a TD's ruling. The law is clear: any ruling made by the TD may be appealed (92A), but rulings made under 91A cannot be overturned by an AC (93B3). All the AC can do is recommend that the TD change his ruling (93B3 again), which, strangely, is exactly what you posit happens in your hypothetical case above. So what's the fuss about?

 

Note also that an appeal at the tournament level is a prerequisite for an appeal to the National Authority (see Law 93C), who certainly can overturn a TD ruling, whatever law it was made under.

 

BTW, if this guy wasn't upset by the language, what was he running to the TD about?

 

Zel asked: If an AC decision were to cause a DP to be withdrawn and this resulted in a change of winner at an important event, would the new runners-up have any right of appeal or challenge to the adjusted result?

This seems to me a legitimate question. My answer: Only, as I read the law, by appealing to the National Authority under 93C.

 

Of course I want to help people rule correctly, particular those on committees, who may well not be conversant with the laws. That you and I differ in our opinions how the law is to be applied here does not change that.

[barmar]

BTW, if this guy wasn't upset by the language, what was he running to the TD about?

The player who ran to the TD was not the one who was not upset.

 

A says "F off" to B. B takes no offense.

 

C hears this, and thinks it was B talking to him. He takes offense, complains to the TD, who penalizes B.

 

B appeals, the AC hears all the facts, and recommends that the penalty be reversed.

[blackshoe]

The player who ran to the TD was not the one who was not upset.

 

A says "F off" to B. B takes no offense.

 

C hears this, and thinks it was B talking to him. He takes offense, complains to the TD, who penalizes B.

 

B appeals, the AC hears all the facts, and recommends that the penalty be reversed.

Sure, but the way David wrote it up, it doesn't make sense. It certainly doesn't read (at least to me) the way you say it which, I grant, is almost certainly what David meant. Actually, looking at it again, it looks like in the first paragraph, it's C who is penalized, and later somebody (which has to be C) appeals, and that person tells the AC he wasn't offended. So first he was upset, and then he wasn't.

 

BTW, David didn't say which law the TD used, but if it was 74A2, which makes the most sense to me, that law says that one should avoid comments that might annoy another player. I don't think the fact that B was not offended lets A off the hook here. Suppose C was aware the comment wasn't addressed to him, yet is still annoyed by it. Also, even if B and C were both not offended, some other player might have been. So I think the fact the comment was made is an infraction of 74A2, willy-nilly.

[billw55]

I thought the point of late penalties was to try to get the event running on time. If you don't tell anyone they are penalized, then there is no reason at all to think they will speed up. On the contrary, they can be expected to think that if the director does not address them about their pace, then it must be ok.

 

Maybe the directors were hoping that the players will speed up at the next tournament?

[barmar]

Sure, but the way David wrote it up, it doesn't make sense. It certainly doesn't read (at least to me) the way you say it which, I grant, is almost certainly what David meant. Actually, looking at it again, it looks like in the first paragraph, it's C who is penalized, and later somebody (which has to be C) appeals, and that person tells the AC he wasn't offended. So first he was upset, and then he wasn't.

"A player is told by some behind him to "F*** off. This is C hearing the cursing - he thinks it was directed at him, and it was B who committed the offense, so he goes to the TD. The TD believes C and penalizes B. C is the one who is upset.

 

"the player appeals. Not only does he explain to the AC that it was not him who spoke those words, but he brings along the player who did who readily admits it, though he said he was not speaking to the player who was upset, but to the player appealing, a close friend of his who is not upset by the language". This is B appealing, he brings along A, who says that he was saying it to B. B says he was not upset at A.

 

I don't think the fact that B was not offended lets A off the hook here.

True. But A was never accused or penalized in the first place, so the AC can't penalize him. Can the TD retroactively penalize A when they realize the AC tells him he penalized the wrong person the first time?

[mycroft]

I still remember my story about the second half of the flight A pairs, and the pair who had a sub-40% in the first half, and so were perhaps a little worse for wear after dinner. I can't remember the statement made (to partner), but it was clearly: unprintable, much louder than perhaps was warranted, intended without offense despite the language, and taken that way.

 

After dead silence for about 5 seconds, the next line was audible to a table or so, and was "one nice thing about TDs is that they sometimes have selective hearing." My response was "well, if *anyone* had had a problem with it, I would have to apply a penalty. As it was, it was clearly not intended to offend, but you might want to keep your voice down in future." And They Did. I think the point got made better than any score penalty would have, frankly.

[blackshoe]

But A was never accused or penalized in the first place, so the AC can't penalize him. Can the TD retroactively penalize A when they realize the AC tells him he penalized the wrong person the first time?

I don't see why not, although it may depend on whether the correction period has expired.

 

I still remember my story about the second half of the flight A pairs, and the pair who had a sub-40% in the first half, and so were perhaps a little worse for wear after dinner. I can't remember the statement made (to partner), but it was clearly: unprintable, much louder than perhaps was warranted, intended without offense despite the language, and taken that way.

 

After dead silence for about 5 seconds, the next line was audible to a table or so, and was "one nice thing about TDs is that they sometimes have selective hearing." My response was "well, if *anyone* had had a problem with it, I would have to apply a penalty. As it was, it was clearly not intended to offend, but you might want to keep your voice down in future." And They Did. I think the point got made better than any score penalty would have, frankly.

I'd say so. :D BTW, did they do any better in the second half?

[mycroft]

No idea, but probably (but probably not a *good* score). I was busy trying to manage an 18-table Howell with pairs who haven't played a Howell in decades, two sets of boards (that skipped up to 5 tables when were passed) to avoid duplication, and pairs who demanded to start the next round early, and couldn't see why it might be a problem in a round or two (or why I would have a problem running an 18-table Howell). So I wasn't paying too much attention to scores.

 

The (much more experienced) other TD on the floor said "You handle section A, I'll look after the rest of the floor." I thought that was a little demeaning to my (2-years-an-ACBL-TD, so still pretty green) ability until about round 3; at which point I realized that his 4 sections were, in fact, only as much work as my 1.

[Mbodell]

I thought the point of late penalties was to try to get the event running on time. If you don't tell anyone they are penalized, then there is no reason at all to think they will speed up. On the contrary, they can be expected to think that if the director does not address them about their pace, then it must be ok.

 

Maybe the directors were hoping that the players will speed up at the next tournament?

 

I think a little bit of that might be appropriate (would you give a LP penalty for the last round? IIRC there were none in this event in A/X on the last round, but I think a last round LP penalty when the team is late is still potentially appropriate). But I think the much larger part of why the TD didn't notify the players is that the TD expected that the players had been notified either through hearing the announcements and/or seeing the visual notice of teams that were late (and/or got told as they turned in results). I don't think if you asked the TD should the penalties be "hidden" anyone (including the TD) would agree that this is what was desired or what the TD would have thought had been implemented at the event.

 

I guess the question is really should a TD giving a penalty be like an alert (where there is an absolute responsibility on the side giving the penalty/alert that the side receiving the penalty/alert heard and understood there was a penalty/alert), or be more like a reasonable effort? If you were the TD and had announced the time instructions and that slow play could result in penalties, had had a number of players complain about the slow play and ask about the implementation of penalties, have a clock which showed teams how much time they had left to finish a round, have a written display board of which teams were getting warnings and penalties, and adjusted the running scores in a Swiss tournament to reflect the penalties as they happened and then at the very end of the event one of the few penalized teams comes to you and says they had no idea they had been late or subject to penalties and they hadn't heard you make any announcements, instructions, warnings, or other information about penalties what would you do? Does ignorance of lateness and associated penalties through a failure to hear an announcement (very understandable due to the acoustics of the room) or to notice the other information indicating penalties absolve a team that is guilty of using an extra amount of time that is supposed to result in slow play penalties from actually receiving said slow play penalties?

 

While I have sympathies with OP's team, and 100% believe them that they hadn't heard the warnings and were completely surprised at the end of the day, and that their team may have been able to change their speed of play if they were aware of what was happening after the first late round (where the penalty was only a warning and not a VP penalty), I still think the TD has to leave the penalty applied given they did take too much time in 3 of the matches.

[billw55]

I think we mostly agree Art. The OP gave me the impression that there was an initial announcement of potential penalties before any play started, but that there was no communication of actual penalties until after the event was over. I think that *some* kind of communication of each infraction is essential to get the desired result. If captains are told when they turn in their slips - good enough. If posted results have a marker of some kind that indicates a penalty was applied - good enough. If nothing at all was done - not good enough.

 

I am imagining a scene here where the directors are baffled over the ongoing late play infractions. These are intelligent people, surely it would occur to one of them that maybe the offenders are unaware they are being penalized? There must be opportunities for further announcements. Swiss events often serve lunch on site; how about a short speech then, to the effect that late penalties have been applied, check your scores, etc. I really think that - if the OP has accurately described the situation - then the directors dropped the ball on this one. Of course, it could be that the OP was unaware of some further facts.

[bluejak]

I have played an awful lot of bridge. I have been warned by TDs either in general by announcement or in particular many times over the years for things like late play. I have been penalised very rarely. Why would I assume I had been penalised when I had been warned? I still find it incredible that anyone thinks it is acceptable for a TD to issue a penalty without letting the contestant know.