Was Director Right

[eagles123]

This incident happened last night, 3 board rounds Matchpoints

 

On the first board I had a tricky 3NT to play and took a considerable amount of time about it. On the second board it was a complex auction and this time our opps took a bit of time. So we were a bit slow going in to the 3rd board

 

TD comes over and tells us to go faster so we bid and play the third board very quickly. However as we go to enter the score director just says "too slow" 50:50

 

it's kinda frustrating because it would've been 100% to us and would've made a big difference to the overall standings (albeit not at the top end) as we would've finished 10/34 rather than 18/34 lol

 

was the director right to give 50:50 or should we have been able to enter the table result given we did actually play out the board

 

Thanks

 

Eagles

[Vampyr]

The director's ruling was illegal. In fact it looks deliberately spiteful.

[NickRW]

Can't quote rule numbers at you, but directors cannot arbitrarily remove a board once started. The result should have been allowed to stand. The director *may* have had a case for a procedural penalty to both sides for slow play, but it sounds a tad vindictive from what you've said.

[mgoetze]

No, if the TD lets you start the third board then he can't legally assign an artificial score for being "too slow". He could have told you not to play the third board and assigned 40-40 (50-50 doesn't seem right either), but after he failed to do that the table result must stand.

[helene_t]

I don't understand the director's intention. If he wanted to penalise you he should have let you enter the table result but subtracted 10% or whatever from each side. So presumably he didn't realise that you did finish it and just wanted to void it. But he can't do that - a boardtthat is scheduled to be played has to be played. He could have instructed you not to start the board but once he failed to do so it is too late.

[VixTD]

If it was a club game with a playing TD the director may not have been aware that the table was a long way behind going into the last board of the set. He should have allowed them to finish the board but moved the rest of the field on time, while they were still playing, and asked them to try to catch up on the next round without putting their opponents under undue pressure. If they haven't started the last board of the next round at what the TD considers an appropriate time remove the board and score it 40%-60%.

 

I don't see the need to give out extra procedural penalties unless pairs are persistently slow.

[blackshoe]

People are correct that the director should not cancel a board once it's started, although I can't find a specific law that says or even implies so.

 

Once a board is started, and certainly when it's played to completion, the score achieved at the table is to be recorded (Law 79) unless there is cause to adjust the score (Law 12) which there isn't here. If one or both pairs are responsible for slow play, the TD could award a PP (Law 90B2) but that requires "unduly" slow play, and it doesn't seem that's what happened here.

 

If you're still within the correction period, you could appeal. As the appeal would be on a matter of law, the director will hear it and either change his ruling (he should) or not. If he refuses, there's not much you can do except vote with your feet.

[pran]

People are correct that the director should not cancel a board once it's started, although I can't find a specific law that says or even implies so.

 

Once a board is started, and certainly when it's played to completion, the score achieved at the table is to be recorded (Law 79) unless there is cause to adjust the score (Law 12) which there isn't here. If one or both pairs are responsible for slow play, the TD could award a PP (Law 90B2) but that requires "unduly" slow play, and it doesn't seem that's what happened here.

 

If you're still within the correction period, you could appeal. As the appeal would be on a matter of law, the director will hear it and either change his ruling (he should) or not. If he refuses, there's not much you can do except vote with your feet.

I am not aware of any Law that allows the Director to cancel a board in progress. This must imply that once started a board is to be completed (if at all possible).

 

Consequences of late play is a matter of regulation (including Conditions of Contest). CoC should include specifications for the consequences of Boards not finished in time.

[RMB1]

If you're still within the correction period, you could appeal. As the appeal would be on a matter of law, the director will hear it and either change his ruling (he should) or not. If he refuses, there's not much you can do except vote with your feet.

 

If the Director hears the appeal as a matter of law, that (appeal) decision can still be appealed to a committee - but given what has been said in other topics about ACBL club appeal processes, who knows what will happen.

 

The Director in charge shall hear and rule upon such part of the appeal as deals solely with the Law or regulations. His ruling may be appealed to the committee.

[blackshoe]

I am not aware of any Law that allows the Director to cancel a board in progress. This must imply that once started a board is to be completed (if at all possible).

Law 82B2: To rectify an error in procedure the Director may:

2. require, postpone or cancel the play of a board.

One might argue that there is no limitation here on the director's right to cancel the play of a board where an error in procedure has occurred, and unduly slow play is an error in procedure (see Law 90). I wouldn't argue this way, but my only counter-argument is "we just don't do that" - which is not based on anything in the laws AFAICS.

 

Consequences of late play is a matter of regulation (including Conditions of Contest). CoC should include specifications for the consequences of Boards not finished in time.

So long as the regulation does not conflict with the laws, yes. But if the CoC do not cover this, the TD has the authority to deal with it.

 

Question: if the TD "cancels the play" of a board, does that remove it from the schedule of boards to be played?

[blackshoe]

If the Director hears the appeal as a matter of law, that (appeal) decision can still be appealed to a committee - but given what has been said in other topics about ACBL club appeal processes, who knows what will happen.

True — although this incident seems to have happened in the UK. B-)

[RMB1]

True — although this incident seems to have happened in the UK. B-)

 

Apologies to any club appeal procedures I may have maligned, either in EBU or ACBL.

[mycroft]

I think it would be legal (but possibly not the best thing) to let this one go, and pull a board at both tables on the next round preemptively, assigning A+/A-; potentially allowing them to play it if they're done the other two boards with X on the clock.

 

But I do disagree with pulling boards once they are started (unless started after instruction not to start any more boards; I'm happy to say that that board "never started").

[blackshoe]

I think it would be legal (but possibly not the best thing) to let this one go, and pull a board at both tables on the next round preemptively, assigning A+/A-; potentially allowing them to play it if they're done the other two boards with X on the clock.

 

But I do disagree with pulling boards once they are started (unless started after instruction not to start any more boards; I'm happy to say that that board "never started").

I agree that would not be the best thing. I don't like the idea of pulling boards preemptively — it's a new round, they should have a chance to catch up. But I'd keep a close eye on them, and cancel the last board at either new table if they don't start it soon enough. Speaking of "soon enough", some clubs around here set the clock to "don't start any new boards" when there are 3 or 2 or even only 1 minute to go. That's nuts. Leave a reasonable time for a fast finish. Speedballs give five minutes a board, so I wouldn't go much, if anything, less than that. But you have to educate people - just because people are still playing when the warning goes off, that's no reason to ignore it and start your last board. Yet that's a common reaction — "people are still playing". Doesn't matter.

 

A board starts when any player takes his hand out of the board. If that happens before the warning, I'd let them play it. Note that this works better if there's five minutes for them to play it than 1 or 2 or 3. Another reason for earlier warnings.

 

If a table starts a board after the warning, I would interrupt that so long as the auction has not started (first call made). If the auction was started, and they were reasonably close to the warning, I'd let them finish it even if the starting was deliberately after the warning — but I'd issue a DP (not a PP) of probably twice the "standard" (so 50% at MPs in the ACBL) to both sides. I'd issue a "standard" DP to both sides even if I interrupt the board when the auction has not yet started. Again, more if it was deliberate. I once heard a player say, after the (verbal, this was before clocks) warning "let's play it, she (the TD) won't notice". That's just wrong. BTW, I was playing, not directing, when I heard that.

 

How long should a round be? Around here, directors seem to start with three hours total for the game, and then divide that by the number of boards to be played (usually 24, 26 or 27). That works out to 7.5, 7, or 6.7 minutes per board. But it doesn't allow for any additional time for other things, like moving, entering and verifying scores, and so on. I'd rather see it go like this: So much "start time" for getting things going (distributing boards and bridge pads, announcements, whatever), so much time per board (the ACBL "standard" is 7.5 minutes, but then directors almost always ignore any "admin" time and just assume the 7.5 per board will allow enough slack - they shouldn't IMO do that), so much "admin time", so much break time (we never have breaks, but they would be a good thing IMO). So for 27 boards, 6:40 per board, 3 hours total, 20 minutes per round plus "admin time" of say 2 minutes is 22 minutes per round times 9 rounds is 3 hours 18 mintues plus break time of 15 minutes is 3 hours 33 minutes. In fact, it turns out most sessions take at least that long anyway, even with some people moving long before the round is called.

 

If your players are generally slow — a beginner section for instance — you may need to allow more time per board, and hence more time overall.

 

IAC, the director needs to control the movement — including not allowing players to move until the round is called, getting them to move when the round is called, and getting North to move boards when the round is called (not earlier and not, for boards already played, later). But if I ever see it happen I'll probably have a heart attack. :P

[pran]

Law 82B2: To rectify an error in procedure the Director may:

2. require, postpone or cancel the play of a board.

One might argue that there is no limitation here on the director's right to cancel the play of a board where an error in procedure has occurred, and unduly slow play is an error in procedure (see Law 90). I wouldn't argue this way, but my only counter-argument is "we just don't do that" - which is not based on anything in the laws AFAICS.

 

The way Law 82B2 is worded it seems to apply for board(s) on which auction or play has not yet started.

 

There is some guidance in Law 8 which makes it clear that a round does not end as ordered for any table where the play on a board is still in progress at that time.

 

This tends to corroborate the view that the Director may not cancel a board once the auction period on that board has begun (unless it is impossible to complete the board in any normal way).

 

And there is no doubt that regulation(s) can specify (or should at least suggest) standard penalties for instance for late play.

[pran]

Question: if the TD "cancels the play" of a board, does that remove it from the schedule of boards to be played?

No, he must award an artificial adjusted score.

[blackshoe]

No, he must award an artificial adjusted score.

That's the way I've always understood it, but it's not really all that clear.

[Mbodell]

Can't quote rule numbers at you, but directors cannot arbitrarily remove a board once started.

 

Maybe not legally, but ACBL BBO speedballs do this all the time (and then usually assign a score for the board).

[blackshoe]

The rule in online bridge appears to be "the rules are whatever the director says they are". Even if he's wrong.

[GreenMan]

My impression of the BBO speedballs is that it's not the director who pulls the boards in progress, it's the computer, which has zero tolerance for playing past the end of a round. The director then assigns a score to unfinished boards. That's part of the CoC of those tournaments, surely.

[Mbodell]

My impression of the BBO speedballs is that it's not the director who pulls the boards in progress, it's the computer, which has zero tolerance for playing past the end of a round. The director then assigns a score to unfinished boards. That's part of the CoC of those tournaments, surely.

 

Sure, but is that a CoC for a bridge tournament or a "bridge" tournament? The computer does whatever you program it to do. If the computer didn't let you lead trump until they've been played on some other trick, we wouldn't shrug and say "it's the computer" and call the result bridge, would we, even if the CoC specified these rules?

[GreenMan]

Sure, but is that a CoC for a bridge tournament or a "bridge" tournament? The computer does whatever you program it to do. If the computer didn't let you lead trump until they've been played on some other trick, we wouldn't shrug and say "it's the computer" and call the result bridge, would we, even if the CoC specified these rules?

 

Seems to me that if you'd rather play bridge than "bridge," you're wasting your time on "Bridge" Base Online. If you don't want to play in the online tournaments because slow pairs can't delay the whole field, that's up to you, but it seems silly to me, even more than your goofy "can't lead trump" distraction.

[VixTD]

Speaking of "soon enough", some clubs around here set the clock to "don't start any new boards" when there are 3 or 2 or even only 1 minute to go. That's nuts. Leave a reasonable time for a fast finish. Speedballs give five minutes a board, so I wouldn't go much, if anything, less than that.

Why is that nuts? It seems sensible to me. It gives tables a good chance to play all the boards, without allowing them to take liberties. If the TD sets a time for the round and moves the players when that time is up, there will inevitably be the occasional table still playing out the last few cards who will move a minute or two late. That doesn't usually cause much inconvenience.

 

If you stop new boards at five minutes to go you'll have a lot of people hanging around doing nothing who could be playing (and often finishing on time) the last board of the set. Removing boards should be a last resort.

 

I stopped using the countdown timer at the club when the committee decreed that conditions of use should be that no new boards were to be started when there were three minutes of the round left. We had up to then been working quite happily with a limit of two minutes, but I thought that extra minute was too much.

 

One of the club directors campaigned for a limit of seven minutes, as that is the time allowed for playing the last board. I led a directing workshop last week at a club at the other end of the county where one of the directors does just that. I asked him how that was received by the players, and how many cancelled boards they have per session. The answers were that the players accepted it, and not many, perhaps one or two on average. I bet it makes a difference to the way they play, though, and not necessarily for the better.

[blackshoe]

Why is that nuts? It seems sensible to me. It gives tables a good chance to play all the boards, without allowing them to take liberties. If the TD sets a time for the round and moves the players when that time is up, there will inevitably be the occasional table still playing out the last few cards who will move a minute or two late. That doesn't usually cause much inconvenience.

 

If you stop new boards at five minutes to go you'll have a lot of people hanging around doing nothing who could be playing (and often finishing on time) the last board of the set. Removing boards should be a last resort.

 

I stopped using the countdown timer at the club when the committee decreed that conditions of use should be that no new boards were to be started when there were three minutes of the round left. We had up to then been working quite happily with a limit of two minutes, but I thought that extra minute was too much.

 

One of the club directors campaigned for a limit of seven minutes, as that is the time allowed for playing the last board. I led a directing workshop last week at a club at the other end of the county where one of the directors does just that. I asked him how that was received by the players, and how many cancelled boards they have per session. The answers were that the players accepted it, and not many, perhaps one or two on average. I bet it makes a difference to the way they play, though, and not necessarily for the better.

If players are slow, giving them one minute to finish a board isn't enough. They will run over. In fact, IME, give them three minutes and they will run over by five minutes. Since they're now most of a board late, and mostly incapable of catching up, they'll continue to be late the rest of the session.

 

Probably the only real solution is to put all the fast players in one section, and all the slow players in another. The fast section will finish an hour early; the slow section will finish three hours late. But you'll give the latter 15 or 20 minutes a board instead of 6 or 7, so they'll actually be "on time". ;)

[Vampyr]

If players are slow, giving them one minute to finish a board isn't enough. They will run over. In fact, IME, give them three minutes and they will run over by five minutes. Since they're now most of a board late, and mostly incapable of catching up, they'll continue to be late the rest of the session.

 

Why are they inherently slow? Why are they incapable of catching up?