Ill Player Leaves Game

[suprgrover]

Say a player takes ill during the game and cannot continue. His partner takes him home, and there are no kibitzers, so there is now an empty pair in the movement.

 

It's clear enough to award Ave+ to the pairs scheduled to play our unfortunate pair in later rounds. I think they would get Ave- because the reason that we could not get a valid result was the ill player's fault (strictly speaking). Let's say they leave halfway through the session. If they had a good game going, they might still place in their section. Are there any criteria for determining how many boards you need to actually play to earn a high placement?

[gordontd]

Say a player takes ill during the game and cannot continue. His partner takes him home, and there are no kibitzers, so there is now an empty pair in the movement.

 

It's clear enough to award Ave+ to the pairs scheduled to play our unfortunate pair in later rounds. I think they would get Ave- because the reason that we could not get a valid result was the ill player's fault (strictly speaking). Let's say they leave halfway through the session. If they had a good game going, they might still place in their section. Are there any criteria for determining how many boards you need to actually play to earn a high placement?

It's a matter of regulation. For example we have regulations in the EBU that say (slightly simplified) that if they withdraw before half way through the event, all their results are cancelled; if after half way through, results against them stand and those who don't play against them get AV+. The pair themselves are usually deemed to have abandoned the competition, but may in cases of illness their scores may be allowed to stand.

[blackshoe]

Say a player takes ill during the game and cannot continue. His partner takes him home, and there are no kibitzers, so there is now an empty pair in the movement.

 

It's clear enough to award Ave+ to the pairs scheduled to play our unfortunate pair in later rounds. I think they would get Ave- because the reason that we could not get a valid result was the ill player's fault (strictly speaking). Let's say they leave halfway through the session. If they had a good game going, they might still place in their section. Are there any criteria for determining how many boards you need to actually play to earn a high placement?

From the ACBL General CoC for Pairs Events: Each player must play at least seventy percent of the boards, played by the partnership to be eligible for either session or overall masterpoint awards. A fill-in pair must play at least 87.5% of the available boards to qualify for overall awards.

I do not know if ACBLScore implements this regulation automatically.

 

The criteria may be different at teams.

[jeffford76]

It's clear enough to award Ave+ to the pairs scheduled to play our unfortunate pair in later rounds.

 

At the risk of starting the same old argument, the advice I have received in the ACBL is to award NP, not Ave+ for the boards remaining to be played.

[jeffford76]

I do not know if ACBLScore implements this regulation automatically.

 

It does not. You must mark the pair ineligible manually.

[bluejak]

At the risk of starting the same old argument, the advice I have received in the ACBL is to award NP, not Ave+ for the boards remaining to be played.

People ask for advice for the correct thing to do here, not what some person who has not read the Law book carefully considers correct.

[jeffford76]

People ask for advice for the correct thing to do here, not what some person who has not read the Law book carefully considers correct.

 

I'm not sure which person you're saying hasn't read the law book correctly. If you mean me, I certainly understand that "not played" is not mentioned there, and I would read the laws to say that average plus is correct.

 

If you mean the person who gave the advice, it is a reasonably high level tournament director and I think it's insulting to him to imply that he has not read the laws carefully.

 

Very occasionally the advice I get from the top doesn't strictly match the law, or only matches a reading of it I wouldn't consider correct. I still think if I want to direct ACBL games I'm supposed to follow the advice, not say that I know better.

[blackshoe]

The question is whether the advice you get from a fellow TD is considered "official".

 

I remember a case a while back — I suggested to a club TD here that "not played" was illegal, and she had to award an ArtAS. She demurred. I repeated my opinion. She called Butch Campbell at ACBL HQ and asked him if she could use "not played" in the particular case - a board lost to slow play, as I recall. He said "that's what it's for!" I understand Butch no longer works for the ACBL, but the point is that if club TDs call HQ for advice and get a wrong answer, we have a problem.

 

Your top level TD may well have read the laws carefully — and received bad advice from someone else. Generally, when you're given bad advice, the best thing to do is ignore it. I don't give "NP" when an ArtAS is appropriate. Period. Butch Campbell was wrong.

 

Note: the club TD in question has admitted to me, privately, that I'm "probably" right. She's still giving "NP" for boards cancelled due to slow play. :( :blink:

[jeffford76]

The question is whether the advice you get from a fellow TD is considered "official".

 

As you know, it is impossible for a club director to get official advice in the ACBL.

 

I remember a case a while back — I suggested to a club TD here that "not played" was illegal, and she had to award an ArtAS. She demurred. I repeated my opinion. She called Butch Campbell at ACBL HQ and asked him if she could use "not played" in the particular case - a board lost to slow play, as I recall. He said "that's what it's for!" I understand Butch no longer works for the ACBL, but the point is that if club TDs call HQ for advice and get a wrong answer, we have a problem.

 

Your top level TD may well have read the laws carefully — and received bad advice from someone else. Generally, when you're given bad advice, the best thing to do is ignore it. I don't give "NP" when an ArtAS is appropriate. Period. Butch Campbell was wrong.

 

And this is where I disagree. If that's what the head office is telling people to do, that is what you should do, even if you think it is the "wrong answer". It is obvious to me that in the ACBL the expectation is that NP be used, whether it is legal or not.

[blackshoe]

As you know, it is impossible for a club director to get official advice in the ACBL.

Heh. Too true. :( :( :angry:

 

And this is where I disagree. If that's what the head office is telling people to do, that is what you should do, even if you think it is the "wrong answer". It is obvious to me that in the ACBL the expectation is that NP be used, whether it is legal or not.

Even the ACBL is prohibited by the laws of the game from making regulations that are in conflict with those laws. This idea of using "NP" is illegal, and I'm not going to do it. I'll quit directing first.

[barmar]

Even the ACBL is prohibited by the laws of the game from making regulations that are in conflict with those laws.

That's never stopped them before. Eventually the lawmakers realize that there's little point in fighting it, and they change the laws to make the ACBL regulations legal.

 

And in this case, we're not talking about a regulation.

[blackshoe]

That's never stopped them before. Eventually the lawmakers realize that there's little point in fighting it, and they change the laws to make the ACBL regulations legal.

 

And in this case, we're not talking about a regulation.

The ACBL might formally put in place a regulation that says "use 'not played' to score boards not played for the following reasons: <list>" and include such things as "when there isn't time to play it". Such a regulation would conflict with the laws, which require an ArtAS in such a case. The ACBL have in fact not put such a regulation in place. "Use 'not played'" is advice, and nothing more. Either way, it's illegal, and I ain't doin' it.

[pigpenz]

I would think you could almost do it like a fouled board

the scores stand on those who played against them and avg or avg plus for those not playing this pair

[blackshoe]

It would have to be average plus, since those pairs were not at all at fault. There seems to be some reluctance to award "too many" (whatever that means) average pluses in a game, but I confess I don't understand why. The law says do it, so do it.

[jeffford76]

It would have to be average plus, since those pairs were not at all at fault. There seems to be some reluctance to award "too many" (whatever that means) average pluses in a game, but I confess I don't understand why. The law says do it, so do it.

 

You really don't understand why? In a 7-table Mitchell, who do you think is going to score better, a pair that plays 28 boards normally, or a pair that plays 24 boards normally and also gets 4 60% boards (which are factored up if their other boards were over 60%)? Many people don't think this is a fair comparison.

[blackshoe]

Maybe it's not, but the scenario in this thread is not going to give one pair four Average plusses, and I frankly can't think of one that will.

 

Is it fair if a pair that is supposed by law to get 4 average plusses doesn't get them because the TD doesn't think it's fair if they do? What of Law 81B2? Should we just ignore it?

[Bbradley62]

In a 7-table Mitchell, who do you think is going to score better, a pair that plays 28 boards normally, or a pair that plays 24 boards normally and also gets 4 60% boards (which are factored up if their other boards were over 60%)?

Maybe it's not, but the scenario in this thread is not going to give one pair four Average plusses, and I frankly can't think of one that will.

Did OP somehow preclude the possibility that we're talking about a 7-round movement with 4 boards per round?

[blackshoe]

Okay, fair enough. Still, my dictionary says that "fair" means "in accordance with the rules", so if the laws say to give 3 pairs 4 average plusses, then that's "fair", and ignoring the laws out of some misplaced sense of "it's not fair" is wrong.

 

I also think Law 81B2 specifically prohibits a TD from doing something other than awarding pairs who were scheduled to play the pair that leaves average plus on all the boards they missed.

 

If folks want to lobby the lawmakers to change the laws, have at it, but in the meantime the law is what it is.

[gnasher]

Still, my dictionary says that "fair" means "in accordance with the rules"

Mine doesn't, and it wouldn't occur to me to use the word in that sense. However, this seems to be a difference between American and English usage:

American OED: "in accordance with the rules or standards; legitimate"

English OED: "treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination"

 

 

[barmar]

English OED: "treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination"

It's strange that American dictionaries don't give that definition of fair, since I've heard many people use it that way. And my American dictionary's definition of "unfair" describes it as the opposite of this.

 

Perhaps it's because in American society, it's normal to make rules that provide equality, so "treating equal" and "following the rules" are conflated.

[jeffford76]

I queried another high level ACBL director and here are some excerpts from his response:

 

First of all, I think the use of NP is rampant and ill advised in most situations since it allows a director to abdicate his duty to judge responsibility for a board not being played according to Law 12. So I agree with you that directors should not use NP when slow play causes a board not be played. But that is not the case in your situation, and I agree with what you did in the case of an ill player. To say using NP in your case is illegal is a big stretch in my opinion. I think the way you justify what you did is by saying that this is not an irregularity per se, but instead it is a change to the movement. I feel comfortable saying that the sitout is now part of the movement so the director can use his power under 8A1 to award NP to the pair "sitting out" those boards.

[gnasher]

Perhaps it's because in American society, it's normal to make rules that provide equality, so "treating equal" and "following the rules" are conflated.

So you think that the English and American usages have diverged because our society makes inequitable rules and yours doesn't?

[Bbradley62]

Still, my dictionary says that "fair" means "in accordance with the rules", so if the laws say to give 3 pairs 4 average plusses, then that's "fair", and ignoring the laws out of some misplaced sense of "it's not fair" is wrong.

Mine doesn't, and it wouldn't occur to me to use the word in that sense. However, this seems to be a difference between American and English usage:

American OED: "in accordance with the rules or standards; legitimate"

English OED: "treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination"

It also wouldn't have occurred to me to use "in accordance with the rules" as a primary definition of "fair". Every American kid who says "it's not fair" knows perfectly well that this is generally understood to mean that he is being treated worse than someone else. And when President Obama said wealthier Americans should pay their "fair share" in taxes, he didn't mean they should pay the amount required under current tax law; he meant that the law should be changed so that they be required to pay a greater (more fair) share than they currently pay.

[mjj29]

And when President Obama said wealthier Americans should pay their "fair share" in taxes, he didn't mean they should they amount required under current tax law; he meant that the law should be changed so that they be required to pay a greater (more fair) share than they currently pay.

It's debatable whether that should be "required to pay a greater (less fair) share" to be cynical on one side of the argument or that in fact that's precisely what he meant and that lots of people are dodging taxes (on the other side).

[blackshoe]

I would buy the argument that when a pair leaves early, the TD has the power under Law 8A1 to amend the movement so that those pairs who will not have the opportunity to play the leaving pair get a sitout. I suppose "not played" is equivalent to this (and easier to do in ACBLScore).

 

I suppose the same principle could apply when a pair arrives late. :unsure: