2 q's: adjustments in individuals and subs

[epeeist]

These are two questions (actually based on something that has happened to opponents, and I wondered "could I complain if that happened to me...").

 

1. In an individual, normally you get a "bad" partner, fine, live with it. But what if partner apparently deliberately decides to be "weird" e.g. opens 7NT with 10 points or something, redoubles it when it comes around, would it be possible to award an adjusted score (if the TD thought appropriate) to his/her partner? Or does the same adjustment (if any) have to apply to both members of a "partnership"? I had something happen like this once (opponents bid and redoubled a totally ridiculous 7NT contract which distorted the results scored at IMPs, p and I both I called TD, they were both booted because pairs, but could certainly happen in an individual also).

 

2. I've sometimes felt that in fairness (and to avoid skewed results) sometimes limited table talk to a sub should be permitted. Once I specifically asked a TD in an ACBL tournament if I could tell the (opposing) sub something in the interests of fairness. I was told not, which I thought unfair, but of course I complied.

 

East (for the sake of example) before being subbed, had obviously deliberately established winners in a suit against our NT contract. Then connection problem, sub comes in, no reason to know that suit is good (even seeing last trick played doesn't always help), leads something else and we make our contract. Shouldn't either (1) the non-subbed p be able to ask the TD to tell the sub something (TD could then exercise discretion, decide whether or not to say anything), or (2) if the result on a table with a sub seems "out of whack" with the results at other tables, an adjusted result be assigned?

 

I'm sure that one of these days I'll have a sub come in to replace my partner, who won't know e.g. that I already led the AK in a suit and his/her Q is good, and will underlead it hoping to find me with the A or K... ;) or in bidding won't know that p and I had agreed to use Texas transfers or whatever, and I'll get a terrible result (well, not that I don't get them anyway... <_< ).

[mink]

But what if partner apparently deliberately decides to be "weird" e.g. opens 7NT with 10 points or something, redoubles it when it comes around, would it be possible to award an adjusted score (if the TD thought appropriate) to his/her partner? Or does the same adjustment (if any) have to apply to both members of a "partnership"?

Such a player should be replaced and reported to abuse. I would award ave+ to both pairs then, as the removed player does not benefit from that.

Once I specifically asked a TD in an ACBL tournament if I could tell the (opposing) sub something in the interests of fairness.

The director should use private chat and tell the sub either the tricks played that he cannot see or, if this would be too long, relevant facts about the board, e.g. that a suit in his hand or in the dummy is high or some opp already did not follow a suit.

 

Karl

[hotShot]

Karl has said everything that is to say about 1).

 

If you are declarer and one opp is subbed, claim as soon as possible. Often the player left after everything is clear already. The sub won't know the tricks played, but the cards left, this is about as helpful.

If your partner gets subbed and it is your impression that a sub can't get into the game, ask the TD for help.

[Willem]

I don't think a sub should be forced/allowed to play an unfinished board. When someone subs during the play of a hand, I think the board should be over. The director then can award a score if things are clear, and Ave+ to both pairs if it is not.

[BurnKryten]

I don't think a sub should be forced/allowed to play an unfinished board. When someone subs during the play of a hand, I think the board should be over. The director then can award a score if things are clear, and Ave+ to both pairs if it is not.

Why assign Ave+ to both pairs? That does not make sense to me - I would choose Ave=/Ave= if the board was unplayable (and no result could be achieved), through no fault of any player. Or, if you decide that the side with the player who dropped out is at fault for the unplayable board, Ave+/Ave- sounds fair to me. It seems to me that assigning adjusted scores that total greater than 100% is patently unfair to the rest of the field.

[Gerardo]

According to rules:

 

Average- if you are at fault.

Average if you are partially at fault.

Average+ if you are not at fault.

 

So, if there is no one at fault, it should be Ave+/Ave+.

IMO, who loses connection is responsible, so it would be A+/A- or A+/A=.

[pigpenz]

i think you have to review the bidding and play.....that has alot to do with it but when a lost connection occurs i would rule avg/avg.

 

If you were playing in a tournament and your partner died in the middle of a hand i hardly think they would give you a avg - for him not being able to finish the hand. :D

[JSilver]

Once in an ACBL tourney, a player opened 2♥, alerting it as Flannery. His partner then lost his connection. When the TD inserted a sub, the player wasted no time in telling the sub the meaning of his bid. I mentioned this to the director, who said "I saw that, but surely you don't object...?" So I didn't. :D It seems there is some lattitude, then, for at least explaining conventional agreements.