Ill Player Leaves Game

[barmar]

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

More that they think they do. Not consciously, but rather we unconsciously associate equity with our rule-making. The country was founded out of a feeling of inequity: "No taxation without representation". And the 5th and 14th Amendments provide equal protection to all.

 

But as I said, I think the American dictionaries are just wrong. Just this morning I heard Governor Christie remarking that it's not fair how long it's taking Congress to approve disaster aid for Sandy victims, compared to Katrina. He was clearly using it in the equity sense, not rules sense.

[bluejak]

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.

It is the aim of this forum to advise people of what is right, not to avoid insulting unknown and unnamed individuals who give poor advice. Being a top level TD makes it more important to make sure the advice is right, and more culpable when it is not. Ok, a top TD has probably read the law book and ignored it or misunderstood it rather than not read it, but those are pretty feeble excuses.

 

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.

Many people may not, but when you are trying to play bridge to win and enjoy yourself you want to do as well as possible on a certain number of boards. It is not nice when four boards are taken away from you for a reason that is not your fault. You might have got a couple of 1400s: you might have bid a really clever grand slam: you might have executed the first double guard squeeze of your life. All this is taken away from you, and what do you get in return? Well, the law-makers have decided, perfectly correctly in my view, to give you a thing called an Average Plus as some sort of recompense for yor loss. And what happens? You do not get your Average Plus as required by Law because:

 

• The TD could not be bothered to work who was at fault, or
  
• The TD finds Not Played so much easier, or
  
• The TD does not understand the Law,or
  
• Someone at ACBL HQ has given the TD some advice, or
  
• Some people who have not lost a board at all moan "It's not fair."
  

 

I am amazed at anyone who think fair and according to the rules are synonyms! :(

[Trinidad]

Please excuse my ignorance, but I have a couple of questions:

 

- Where in the Law book does it say that you get Ave+ for a sit out?

- Where in the Law book does it say that you get Ave+ for a board that you were originally scheduled to play but did not play (because of unforeseen circumstances)?

 

Rik

[gordontd]

- Where in the Law book does it say that you get Ave+ for a sit out?

You don't for a scheduled sit-out.

 

- Where in the Law book does it say that you get Ave+ for a board that you were originally scheduled to play but did not play (because of unforeseen circumstances)?

L12C2a

[gnasher]

[Deleted, because it added nothing to what Gordon said.]

[Vampyr]

More that they think they do. Not consciously, but rather we unconsciously associate equity with our rule-making.

Which is why, for example, a large majority of states don't permit gay marriage. This desire for equity must be buried deep in the unconscious.

[Trinidad]

You don't for a scheduled sit-out.

 

 

L12C2a

It says:

When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained [and see C1(d)] the Director awards an artificial adjusted score according to responsibility for the irregularity: average minus (at most 40% of the available matchpoints in pairs) to a contestant directly at fault, average (50% in pairs) to a contestant only partly at fault, and average plus (at least 60% in pairs) to a contestant in no way at fault.

 

Is a player leaving ill an irregularity? I don't think so. It may make it necessary to "adjust the movement", but it is not an irregularity on the board.

 

The board is entirely playable and a result can be obtained (e.g. if we were willing to wait for the player to recover or if we would be able to find a replacement player).

 

So, Law 12C2a, as it is worded, does not apply. This is an area for regulations. And I have seen quite a few good regulations that deal specifically with what to do when a player has to leave. Usually they depend on at what point in the tournament the player is leaving. (Of course, the fact that I have seen those regulations is not proof in itself that they are legal.)

 

And suppose that Law 12C2a would apply, this would lead to absurd results:

 

1) A player picks up his cards on the first board of a 60 board tournament. When he sees the cards he gets a heart attack and is rushed to the hospital. We apply Law 12C2a, conclude that this player (who doesn't smoke or drink) is in no way at fault for his heart attack. At the end of the day, the results are posted and this pair wins with an average of 60.00% with the runners up having 58.97%.

 

2) You start a one winner Mitchell movement of 7 tables with a sit out for the moving pairs when they reach table 7. In the first round, the West player at table 1 picks up his cards for the first board, gets sick, and is rushed to the hospital. Now all players are playing the same number of boards. There are two "sit outs", but they are not created equal: One was scheduled and they get an NP and the other was accidental and they get an Ave+.

 

Let's just say that it is fortunate that Law 12C2a doesn't apply to cases where the boards are perfectly OK, but a player isn't.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

Is a player leaving ill an irregularity? I don't think so. It may make it necessary to "adjust the movement", but it is not an irregularity on the board.

 

The board is entirely playable and a result can be obtained (e.g. if we were willing to wait for the player to recover or if we would be able to find a replacement player).

 

So, Law 12C2a, as it is worded, does not apply. This is an area for regulations. And I have seen quite a few good regulations that deal specifically with what to do when a player has to leave. Usually they depend on at what point in the tournament the player is leaving. (Of course, the fact that I have seen those regulations is not proof in itself that they are legal.)

 

And suppose that Law 12C2a would apply, this would lead to absurd results:

 

1) A player picks up his cards on the first board of a 60 board tournament. When he sees the cards he gets a heart attack and is rushed to the hospital. We apply Law 12C2a, conclude that this player (who doesn't smoke or drink) is in no way at fault for his heart attack. At the end of the day, the results are posted and this pair wins with an average of 60.00% with the runners up having 58.97%.

 

2) You start a one winner Mitchell movement of 7 tables with a sit out for the moving pairs when they reach table 7. In the first round, the West player at table 1 picks up his cards for the first board, gets sick, and is rushed to the hospital. Now all players are playing the same number of boards. There are two "sit outs", but they are not created equal: One was scheduled and they get an NP and the other was accidental and they get an Ave+.

 

Let's just say that it is fortunate that Law 12C2a doesn't apply to cases where the boards are perfectly OK, but a player isn't.

 

Rik

A player leaving for whatever reason is an irregularity. He was supposed to be there to play the hand. He ain't there.

 

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. The player concerned is not going to be back before the session ends. There is no replacement available. So the board cannot be played. Your scenario is not real, and Law 12C2a certainly does apply.

 

In your hypothetical situation one, he's not there, he's directly at fault. Any director who rules otherwise is doing it wrong.

 

"They" don't get an NP. And how does a pair who played no boards get an average of 60% for the session? Are you giving them Avg+ on every board? Then you've made two mistakes.

 

In both cases the correct action by the TD is to adjust the movement, not to award adjusted scores.

[gordontd]

Is a player leaving ill an irregularity? I don't think so.

You have players regularly leaving in the middle of a hand due to illness?

 

The board is entirely playable and a result can be obtained

Not by the same players.

 

So, Law 12C2a, as it is worded, does not apply.

Good luck with getting support for that idea!

 

1) A player picks up his cards on the first board of a 60 board tournament. When he sees the cards he gets a heart attack and is rushed to the hospital. We apply Law 12C2a, conclude that this player (who doesn't smoke or drink) is in no way at fault for his heart attack.

Actually, I think he is directly at fault within the meaning of the Law (which I have commented before, in #70 of this thread, would be better served by using the word "responsible" rather than "at fault"). But the regulations you've already alluded to will almost certainly negate all of their scores and re-schedule things as though they had never been there.

 

2) You start a one winner Mitchell movement of 7 tables with a sit out for the moving pairs when they reach table 7. In the first round, the West player at table 1 picks up his cards for the first board, gets sick, and is rushed to the hospital. Now all players are playing the same number of boards. There are two "sit outs", but they are not created equal: One was scheduled and they get an NP and the other was accidental and they get an Ave+.

Once again, the movement will be re-scheduled to take account of the reduced number of contestants.

[jeffford76]

...

 

I understand you only reply to the posts you feel like, but it's hard to take seriously something that ignores the post stating the legal basis for the director changing the movement upon an illness, and instead just declaring it all illegal.

 

And I think it laughable the idea that the correct behavior for ACBL directors is determined by your reading of the lawbook, not by the advice given by ACBL HQ.

[blackshoe]

Call ACBL HQ. Is the guy or gal you're talking to a person in authority, or the janitor? How do you know?

[gnasher]

And I think it laughable the idea that the correct behavior for ACBL directors is determined by your reading of the lawbook, not by the advice given by ACBL HQ.

The ACBL's general conditions of contest say that "ACBL events are conducted in accordance with the current version of the 'Laws of Duplicate Bridge' as promulgated in the Western Hemisphere by the ACBL." Those Laws say that "The Tournament Organizer's powers and duties include ... to announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these Laws" and "The Director applies and is bound by these Laws and supplementary regulations."

 

The correct behaviour of directors in the ACBL is determined first by the ACBL's version of the Laws, and second by the ACBL's regulations. Advice from ACBL HQ doesn't consititute regulation, and even if it did it couldn't override the Laws.

 

If a law is ambiguous, it's reasonable to seek and apply an interpretation from the ACBL. But when the ACBL-published Laws say one thing and the ACBL's verbal advice says another, it's clearly correct for the director to follow the Laws.

[Trinidad]

You have players regularly leaving in the middle of a hand due to illness?

I've seen it happen. It was not fun.

And given the average age of bridge players, I think more TDs have.

 

And fairly recently a player came up to me in the middle of a hand: He had just gotten a text message about a death in the family. Play stopped right there at trick 6 or so. (Our club is very liberal with respect to cell phones.)

Not by the same players.

Sure it can. It may be impractical, or undesired, but there is nothing wrong with the board. It can be played as soon as the players arrive, if we would want to.

Good luck with getting support for that idea!

There is plenty of support, otherwise NBOs and tournament organizers wouldn't write regulations to take care of just this situation.

Actually, I think he is directly at fault within the meaning of the Law (which I have commented before, in #70 of this thread, would be better served by using the word "responsible" rather than "at fault"). But the regulations you've already alluded to will almost certainly negate all of their scores and re-schedule things as though they had never been there.

Are we applying the laws as they are or as you wish they were?

Once again, the movement will be re-scheduled to take account of the reduced number of contestants.

Ooohhh that is a big no no if Law 12C2a would apply. The play has started once the cards were taken out of the board. We need to assign a score on this board and that makes the rest of the movement very problematic. (Of course, your approach to adjust the movement is the only one that makes sense, but only if you recognize the fact that Law 12C2a doesn't apply.)

 

But if you think this would be clearer: What if this happens on the first board of the second round? You cannot adjust the movement anymore. Then still half of the pairs -1 get Ave+ for the boards they don't play whereas half of them get an NP.

 

And all this trouble comes from thinking that a Law that is meant for boards where no result can be obtained due to an irregularity should be applied to boards where a result can be obtained, but won't be because of a calamity unrelated to the board in question.

 

Rik

[gordontd]

I've seen it happen. It was not fun.

You miss the point. It doesn't happen regularly. It's an irregularity.

[barmar]

From the Definitions:

A deviation from correct procedure inclusive of, but not limited to, those which involve an infraction by a player.

Leaving due to an illness or other unavoidable and unexpected emergency is an irregularity (correct procedure is to play all scheduled boards, although I'm having trouble finding a law that spells this out explicitly), but would presumably not be considered an infraction.

[jeffford76]

If a law is ambiguous, it's reasonable to seek and apply an interpretation from the ACBL.

 

I thought that was the point of this thread. The ACBL interpretation is that 8A1 allows the director to change the movement midstream. Maybe you don't think it's ambiguous, but I think that I'll use the interpretation I'm given.

[Trinidad]

You miss the point. It doesn't happen regularly. It's an irregularity.

Yes, I missed that point. And yes, if somebody gets sick in the middle of a hand, that is an irregularity on that board. But not on the others that this person was originally scheduled to play, but never touched. Every time that board is played, it is played without irregularity. And when it is not played, it is not played, so there can't be an irregularity. And the heart attack 20 minutes ago on board 11 is not an irregularity for board 16 where the cards haven't even left the slots.

 

How a tournament organizer organizes his tournament is up to the organizer. How he deals with repairing the tournament when there is a calamity is also up to him. The Laws don't say anything about that. They deal with individual boards and go as far as telling how a board should be matchpointed, but that is where they stop. They don't deal with which board should be played by what player at what table at what point in time. They don't say what to do when some boards are scheduled to be played less than others. Then why would they say what to do when boards are played less than others for a reason that was not scheduled?

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

I thought that was the point of this thread. The ACBL interpretation is that 8A1 allows the director to change the movement midstream. Maybe you don't think it's ambiguous, but I think that I'll use the interpretation I'm given.

Of course, a TD is allowed to change the movement midstream. The Laws deal with individual boards. If a TD decides that board 12 is going to be played 10 times and board 13 is going to be played twice only, he is allowed to do that. And he is allowed to make that decision in the middle of a session.

 

Now if he wants people coming into his game, he'd better have a good reason. And trying to run the game as smoothly as possible after a calamity is a very good reason.

 

Rik

[gnasher]

I thought that was the point of this thread. The ACBL interpretation is that 8A1 allows the director to change the movement midstream. Maybe you don't think it's ambiguous, but I think that I'll use the interpretation I'm given.

I haven't expressed an opinion about whether any particular law is ambiguous, or about the purpose of this thread.

 

I was discussing what an ACBL director in an ACBL event should do when he receives advice which he thinks is contrary to the ACBL's published rules. That is, I was addressing the question "Given that the rules are unambiguous, what should I do with advice that conflicts with these rules?"

[jeffford76]

I was discussing what an ACBL director in an ACBL event should do when he receives advice which he thinks is contrary to the ACBL's published rules. That is, I was addressing the question "Given that the rules are unambiguous, what should I do with advice that conflicts with these rules?"

 

OK, but I don't think anyone was really arguing that. If you thought I was I didn't express myself well.

 

Unfortunately the ACBL doesn't actually make official interpretations of things like this. The best you can do is to look at custom and practice, and if you're lucky to ask the opinions of respected directors. I'm confident that rescheduling the movement to include sitouts (which is more easily entered into the scoring program with NP's) is what the official interpretation would be if we had one. Obviously others may disagree.

 

What I think is relevant to ACBL directors is the custom and practice and high-level director opinions within the ACBL. To me some of the comments in this thread, particularly those of bluejak, have rung of "It doesn't matter what the ACBL says, this is the one true way for directors".

[blackshoe]

The ACBL interpretation is that 8A1 allows the director to change the movement midstream. Maybe you don't think it's ambiguous, but I think that I'll use the interpretation I'm given.

All I've seen in this thread is that some "high level directors" have advised that people use NP in, as far as I can tell, any case where a board is not played. I don't call that an official ACBL interpretation. Such an interpretation would have to come, IMO, from the ACBLLC.

[Redbird44]

From the Definitions:

 

Leaving due to an illness or other unavoidable and unexpected emergency is an irregularity (correct procedure is to play all scheduled boards, although I'm having trouble finding a law that spells this out explicitly), but would presumably not be considered an infraction.

This is an old thread so I doubt that anyone is still following it but I have a suggestion directly realated to this thread so here goes:

 

Why not give A+ to the persons who were there and ready to play . . and give those who had to leave but were not at fault a NP? If the absent pair were deemed to be at fault: maybe they got mad and left, or played slowly throughout, or whatever: then give the opponents avg + and the pair deemed at fault avg - ( I wouldn't argue with A++ and A-- in this case since I think it would discourage people from bad behavior.)

[blackshoe]

If they were at fault because they got mad and left, then I would agree with Average minus. If they were at fault because one of them fell ill, well, I don't see that as "directly at fault", so I would say it's at worst "partly at fault" (the quoted words are the words of law 12C2{a}) so I'd give them average. I do not think they were "in no way at fault", so I can't see giving them average plus.

 

I don't know what A++ and A-- means.

[gordontd]

I can't help feeling it would be better if the laws said "responsible" rather than "at fault".

[blackshoe]

Good point, Gordon. I wonder if the Drafting Committee considered that. B-)