Penalize or Suspend

[gordontd]

Law 91 refers to suspending or expelling a contestant. A contestant is "in a pair event, two players playing as partners throughout the event; in a team event, four or more players playing as team-mates". The examples we've seen so far involved the removal of a player, with the implication that a five-man team could have continued in the event, and in ArtK's example it sounds as though the remaining player could have continued with a substitute.

 

Is it actually legal to suspend or expel only one member of a contestant?

Law 92A says "A contestant or his captain may appeal for a review of any ruling made at his table by the Director", so unless you think this refers only to NPCs (in which case the use of "his" instead of "its" as the possessive pronoun for a team would be odd), then in at least one situation the Laws use the word "contestant" in a different way than it defines it. I doubt if that would surprise many members of this forum.

[lamford]

Why would you want to disqualify the Tournament Organiser?

:). But Mike wrote "alongside" not "along with", unambiguously.

[barmar]

It would be a zeugma if one of the things he threw could not be literally or figuratively thrown. This is an example of syllepsis. (You could have added "...and the match".)

Oxford American Dictionary:

zeugma

a figure of speech in which a word applies to two others in different senses (e.g., John and his license expired last week) or to two others of which it semantically suits only one (e.g., with weeping eyes and hearts).

 

syllepsis

a figure of speech in which a word is applied to two others in different senses (e.g., caught the train and a bad cold) or to two others of which it grammatically suits only one (e.g., neither they nor it is working).

So the first parts of the definitions is the same, but the second parts are different ("semantically" vs. "grammatically"). In the way chrism used the word, I think either applies.

[GreenMan]

It would be a zeugma if one of the things he threw could not be literally or figuratively thrown. This is an example of syllepsis. (You could have added "...and the match".)

 

I believe "a tantrum" is equivalent for this purpose to "the match" so the original word does apply.

[mycroft]

It's like a poor person saying "You can't sue me." Yes, legally you can sue anyone, but there may be no point in it -- you can't get blood from a stone. So you effectively can't sue them, and in the same way you can't effectively appeal in the above case.

Nevertheless they are entitled to appeal if they want to, and the TD is not empowered to deny them this right. There is, of course, as I already mentioned, the possibility of an AWM warning or penalty.

And, of course, the possibility of the AC immediately referring the matter to C&E - or reorganizing as a C&E itself.

 

One of the nice parts of suspension is that it may not automatically trigger a C&E hearing...if the suspension does its job and the behaviour stops. But it is, I would assume, recorded, in case of continuance. Pushing it, when you're wrong, might be very wrong.

[VixTD]

[Chambers Dictionary (10th edition)]

Syllepsis: n a figure in rhetoric by which a word does duty in a sentence in the same syntactical relation to two or more words, but has a different sense relation to each.

Zeugma: n a figure of speech by which an adjective or verb is applied to two nouns, though strictly appropriate to only one of them.

So "He upset his coffee cup and a passing waiter" would be an example of syllepsis, as both coffee cups and waiters can be upset, but not in the same sense.

 

"He smashed the coffee cup and the table cloth" would be a zeugma, because although coffee cups can be smashed, table cloths cannot.

 

This is how I've always understood these two terms, but it could be that they are used more loosely than I thought.

[VixTD]

But Mike wrote "alongside" not "along with", unambiguously.

I think the ambiguity is rendered by the word order rather than the choice of words. Had he written: "...you, alongside [or along with] the TO, have the further power..." the meaning would have been clear.

 

(Apologies to those who are trying to have a serious discussion about suspending players.)

[blackshoe]

I think the ambiguity is rendered by the word order rather than the choice of words. Had he written: "...you, alongside [or along with] the TO, have the further power..." the meaning would have been clear.

 

(Apologies to those who are trying to have a serious discussion about suspending players.)

What the law actually says is "subject to the approval of the TO". Works for me.

[Finch]

What does "suspend" mean in this law? For that matter what does "current session" mean? If "session" means, as it seems to, a period of time during which contestants are scheduled to play a particular set of boards (e.g., 27 in a pairs session), how do you suspend a contestant for part of a session?

 

Back to the original question, you might suspend pair A for the remaining boards of their round against pair B but allow them to continue for the rest of the session (most relevant with rounds longer than two boards).

[pran]

Back to the original question, you might suspend pair A for the remaining boards of their round against pair B but allow them to continue for the rest of the session (most relevant with rounds longer than two boards).

Excuse me, but this sounds ridiculous.

 

Either you give them a (substantial) PP, or if their action has been severe enough to justify a suspension you suspend them, and then for at least until the next major break between rounds.