Ill Player Leaves Game

[pran]

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

Responsible for what, the irregularity I assume?

 

but can we not agree that this is synonymous to being at fault?

I (for one) cannot see any difference between being at fault and being responsible when the result is an irregularity.

[gordontd]

Responsible for what, the irregularity I assume?

 

but can we not agree that this is synonymous to being at fault?

I (for one) cannot see any difference between being at fault and being responsible when the result is an irregularity.

No, they aren't synonymous. It's possible to have responsibility for something this is not actually your fault. Certainly, players who are ill would find it easier to accept being told they are responsible for the board not being played than that they are at fault for not playing it.

[gordontd]

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

Prompted by my own post, I sent an email to the secretary of the WBFLC straight after I wrote it. In nine years we'll know whether or not it has had an effect!

[barmar]

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

This might assuage some poor feelings, but it shouldn't affect how the law is applied.

 

Unfortunately, the Laws use somewhat negative terms in relationship to irregularities, e.g. "offending player" even though the irregularity might not be considered "offensive". In general, irregularities and infractions are things you're not supposed to do, so it's natural to refer to them negatively.

 

A player who has become ill might just as well argue that they're not responsible. Definition:

being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it

The ill person might be the proximate cause, but not the primary cause (which would be the germ they caught, or the person they caught it from, or something else further down the line). At most it's possible they contributed to it by poor hygiene.

 

If they felt an illness coming on, but came to the game anyway, then you might be able to cast blame. But a few years ago I started vomiting a couple of rounds into the NAP, and had to leave -- I'm pretty sure I had no warning that this was coming.

[LH2650]

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.

Does Law 12C2d empower the ACBL (in my case) to allow clubs to award NPs here?

[blackshoe]

Probably, but afaik the ACBL has not done so (and it would have to be a regulation, not just a phone call to the "clubs" people in Horn Lake and a verbal "sure, go ahead".)

[Redbird44]

Probably, but afaik the ACBL has not done so (and it would have to be a regulation, not just a phone call to the "clubs" people in Horn Lake and a verbal "sure, go ahead".)

 

I am relatively new to bridge . . but why not rewrite the rule so that it's application is fair all? I suggest something like this:

 

If the reason for the absent pair is deemed by the director, to be at no fault to them, then this: Give the pair who couldn’t finish the session a no play. Look at the average for that pair. If it is less than 50% then give the pair still present the difference between the average and 100% ( 100% - 44% = 56% so present pair would get 56% on all 3 boards.) If the average of the departed team is 50% or greater, then assign a no play to the remaining team.

 

If the reason that the absent pair is deemed to be with fault to them, then find a way to lower their score without affecting all the other players in the same direction. (I am a relatively new player but I think you already are able to do this?) For the pair who is present I would still follow the above formula as they shouldn’t be favored or punished because of the absence of a pair who is not available.

 

 

I just wrote to the ACBL with this suggestion. I hope that they take it seriously.

[blackshoe]

AFAIK, in ACBLScore you can't give just one pair at a table "not played". You'd have to give it to both.

[ddrankin]

AFAIK, in ACBLScore you can't give just one pair at a table "not played". You'd have to give it to both.

 

If you enter "S" (for special) in the score field, ACBLScore will then allow a score entry for N/S, and a different score entry for E/W.

[barmar]

If you enter "S" (for special) in the score field, ACBLScore will then allow a score entry for N/S, and a different score entry for E/W.

I haven't tried it, but I'm not sure that "NP" can be given as one of the special scores. How can a board be not played by only one of the pairs?

[chrism]

I haven't tried it, but I'm not sure that "NP" can be given as one of the special scores. How can a board be not played by only one of the pairs?

I have tried it, and NP can indeed be given as one of the special scores.

 

A frequent use for the asymmetric "Special" scores in ACBLscore is when a table has played the wrong board. Rather than editing the entire movement, what happens is often as follows:

 

Pair A played board 99 against B, but should have played it against C, while D should have played it against B

 

In ACBLscore, special-score A versus C as "{A's table result} / Ave+" and special-score D versus B as "Ave+ / {B's table result}"

 

(If circumstances permit scheduling the board to be played between D and C in compensation, the Ave+ scores can be replaced by that table result)

 

I can imagine that some directors might prefer to consider the board as "not played" by D and C, though I cannot immediately think of circumstances that would legally justify doing so. ACBLscore provides the means to do that.

[blackshoe]

ACBLScore provides the means to do a lot of things. People are using it to do those things without regard to their legality. The most common response I've seen from directors who do this is "I don't care". :-(

[ddrankin]

I haven't tried it, but I'm not sure that "NP" can be given as one of the special scores. How can a board be not played by only one of the pairs?

 

It can. As to why or how it happens, well, I have never used No Play other than in a novice 3-table Howell, when I curtail the movement to 23 boards by not playing boards 24 and 25 in the last round. I was merely pointing out how it can be done.

[barmar]

It can. As to why or how it happens, well, I have never used No Play other than in a novice 3-table Howell, when I curtail the movement to 23 boards by not playing boards 24 and 25 in the last round. I was merely pointing out how it can be done.

Why would you give a split score in that case? You should give NP to both pairs that don't play the board. My question was about something like NP/Avg-Minus.

 

But I just thought of a possible case. In our club we usually schedule a late play if a table isn't able to start the last board of a round in time. But we won't allow a pair to have two late plays. If a pair is late twice, we'll let them play one of them. For the other board that they don't play, we could give NP to their opponents and Avg-Minus to the slow pair.

[blackshoe]

If you do that, then likely you're depriving the slow pair's opponents of their just due: average plus.

[ddrankin]

Why would you give a split score in that case? You should give NP to both pairs that don't play the board. My question was about something like NP/Avg-Minus.

 

But I just thought of a possible case. In our club we usually schedule a late play if a table isn't able to start the last board of a round in time. But we won't allow a pair to have two late plays. If a pair is late twice, we'll let them play one of them. For the other board that they don't play, we could give NP to their opponents and Avg-Minus to the slow pair.

 

I don't give slpit scores in that case. I was merely pointing out, in response to a question by Ed, that it can be done. The circumstance I mentioned is the only time I use "NP", so I have no idea why someone would want to give a split score, with one being "NP". I have no idea why some people enter "NP" in most cases where I have seen it used.

[blackshoe]

Because they're lazy.