How should this be scored?

[Keith]

English, EBU affiliated club, playing duplicate.
Move called, we move to next table but previous second board just started,
so have to wait until board finished. After first board scored, "Four minute
warning, no more boards to be started" (club rule) so we do not play second
board. How should the unplayed board be scored?
BTW, this happend twice to us, first at the TD's table (who said "play on"
and we finished before the time was up).

[Barry Margolin]

In article <9c3561ae3e428...@news.zen.co.uk>,

Each pair gets average, average-minus or average-plus, depending on
whether they're partially, directly, or not at fault in causing the
lateness. See Law 12C2a.

http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/laws/internationalcode/Law12.asp#C
2

The only wrinkle is that the law says it applies when no result can be
obtained "owing to an irregularity". But nowhere in the Laws does it
say that late play is an irregularity. Although "brige is a timed event"
is a common refrain, it's not mentioned anywhere in the Laws. The
closest I can find is that Law 81C1 empowers the director "to ensure the
orderly progress of the game"; one could argue that letting the game run
arbitrarily long due to slow players would not be "orderly progress".

--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA

[Mark Brader]

Barry Margolin:

> The only wrinkle is that the law says it applies when no result can be
> obtained "owing to an irregularity". But nowhere in the Laws does it

> say that late play is an irregularity...

I raised that point here in a thread earlier this year. Expert consensus
was that it does indeed count as an irregularity, whether the Laws say
so explicitly or not.
--
Mark Brader | "What can be more palpably absurd than the prospect held out
Toronto | of locomotives travelling twice as fast as stagecoaches?"
m...@vex.net | -- The Quarterly Review (England), March 1825

[dake50]

***
You get a no play.
The slow players in front of you have now created this irregularity.
1/4 board penalty to them.

[Ed Reppert]

In article <_fqdnUeyHvzAoQDN...@vex.net>,

m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:

> Barry Margolin:
> > The only wrinkle is that the law says it applies when no result can be
> > obtained "owing to an irregularity". But nowhere in the Laws does it
> > say that late play is an irregularity...
>
> I raised that point here in a thread earlier this year. Expert consensus
> was that it does indeed count as an irregularity, whether the Laws say
> so explicitly or not.

An irregularity is "a deviation from correct procedure". It is correct
procedure to move (if you're a moving pair) when the round is called
(see Law 8). If you cannot do that because you haven't finished playing
a board, you have committed an irregularity.

[Mich Ravera]

"Keith" <no...@bigears.com> wrote in message
news:9c3561ae3e428...@news.zen.co.uk...

Did you actually MOVE to the next table or were you merely standing around
waiting while the previous table finished?

If you moved, but someone at another table was board-hoarding and you
couldn't play the board because, despite your best efforts, it never got to
your table before the 4-minute mark, then whoever was hoarding should get a
25%Top or 3 IMP procedural penalty (seems like it should be more for IMPs)
for failing to pass the boards properly and you and your opponents should
both get advantage (60%Top or +3IMPs)

If you didn't get to even sit down because your opponents were still playing
in the previous round, then you should get time advantage (60%Top, +3IMPs,
or equivalent) and your opponents should get time penalty (40%Top
or -3IMPs).

If this was a pairs movement (Howell or the like) or Team Game where both
pairs had to move and the table wasn't available for some reason, I would
have called the director's attention to the problem. If I had been called, I
would have seated both of you at some alternate table and allowed you to
commence play as soon as you were both ready and a board was available. But,
if that didin't happen and I determined the cause, I would have given both
you and your opponents advantage and assessed a quarter board procedural
penalty for trying to trick us by placing statues in place of the players to
both of the people who were occupying the table where you were supposed to
be playing.

[Adam Lea]

Problem is, how do you know which of the pairs at the next table was
responsible for the delay; N/S, E/W or both?

[Travis Crump]

To be honest, there seems to be a lot of holes in this description. Who
exactly is announcing the 4 minute warning if the TD is playing? Is the
warning just the clock beeping, or does the clock actually play a
recording, or is a person doing this? It seems that you are the only
ones actually following this club rule. Honestly, I don't think you can
have these kinds of strict time controls with a playing director. Since
it is the director's responsibility to enforce it and determine who is
at fault. Normally if it happens to the same pair twice than that pair
would be assumed to be at fault.

4 minutes is plently of time to play a board and it is absurd rule which
is what leads me to believe that you are the only one's following it.

[Douglas Newlands]

Doesn't the director actually look before calling the move.
He should see the slow play then and deal with it before the move.
If he takes the board away, he can investigate and penalise someone.
If he let's them finish but penalises one or both pairs, he should
restart the clock for the next round.
Penalising the pairs at the next table is nonsense.
Seems like director incompetence!

doug

[Barry Margolin]

In article
<blackshoe-FDBBF...@news.eternal-september.org>,

So finishing the previous round late is an irregularity. What
irregularity is involved when the pair is not allowed to start a
scheduled board because there's less than N minutes left in the current
round?

[Ed Reppert]

In article <barmar-8324EA....@news.eternal-september.org>,

Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> So finishing the previous round late is an irregularity. What
> irregularity is involved when the pair is not allowed to start a
> scheduled board because there's less than N minutes left in the current
> round?

Failure to follow the instructions of the TD.

[Adam Lea]

Difficult if the director is playing as well to monitor everyone else in
the room frequently enough to catch all instances of slow play and deal
with them before they become a problem. This is one reason why I no
longer play and direct, I don't believe I can do the job properly
otherwise.

[Barry Margolin]

In article
<blackshoe-EB762...@news.eternal-september.org>,

What instructions? Get caught up so you'll have time to play both
boards? If the TD instructs you to grow wings and fly, can you be
penalized for not following those instructions, too?

[sbt]

In article <barmar-7C061C....@news.eternal-september.org>,

Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> In article
> <blackshoe-EB762...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Ed Reppert <blac...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <barmar-8324EA....@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > So finishing the previous round late is an irregularity. What
> > > irregularity is involved when the pair is not allowed to start a
> > > scheduled board because there's less than N minutes left in the current
> > > round?
> >
> > Failure to follow the instructions of the TD.
>
> What instructions? Get caught up so you'll have time to play both
> boards? If the TD instructs you to grow wings and fly, can you be
> penalized for not following those instructions, too?

I'm also not sure of what instructions were involved in the instance in
question. I have participated in pair events where an announcement is
made at the start of the event that any board not started before one
(or sometimes two) minutes are left on the round clock may not be
started. Similarly, I have seen similar instances in Swiss Teams where
the figure was two or three minutes.

In those cases, it would appear to be a violation of the conditions of
contest.

Personally, I consider habitual slow play to be inconsiderate of fellow
contestants or even outright rudeness. Fifteen minutes for two boards
is, at least in my opinion, a lot of time and 45 minutes for seven
boards is also abundant. If you enter an event knowing those conditions
and regularly stray outside the bounds, then you are deserving of
penalty (half-board for the first infraction after the trigger has
passed, more for subsequent instances).

--
Dennis Cohen

[Barry Margolin]

In article <111120121048137037%dogb...@chaseabone.com.invalid>,

sbt <dogb...@chaseabone.com.invalid> wrote:

> In article <barmar-7C061C....@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <blackshoe-EB762...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > Ed Reppert <blac...@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <barmar-8324EA....@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > > Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > > So finishing the previous round late is an irregularity. What
> > > > irregularity is involved when the pair is not allowed to start a
> > > > scheduled board because there's less than N minutes left in the current
> > > > round?
> > >
> > > Failure to follow the instructions of the TD.
> >
> > What instructions? Get caught up so you'll have time to play both
> > boards? If the TD instructs you to grow wings and fly, can you be
> > penalized for not following those instructions, too?
>
> I'm also not sure of what instructions were involved in the instance in
> question. I have participated in pair events where an announcement is
> made at the start of the event that any board not started before one
> (or sometimes two) minutes are left on the round clock may not be
> started. Similarly, I have seen similar instances in Swiss Teams where
> the figure was two or three minutes.
>
> In those cases, it would appear to be a violation of the conditions of
> contest.

Starting the board after the N-minute warning would be a violation, but
that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the board that
was cancelled because it hadn't yet been started when declarer (or in
our club's case, the computer) announced "don't start any new boards".
What irregularity was involved that caused this board to be cancelled?

[Sid]

"Adam Lea" wrote in message
news:eP2dnfK3ksPN7wLN...@bt.com...

=========

Our buzzer goes off signifying "3 minutes left". So a playing TD is
somewhat absolved of negligence in monitoring slow play.

Sid

[bhmwe...@gmail.com]

Den fredagen den 9:e november 2012 kl. 16:12:21 UTC+1 skrev Keith:
> English, EBU affiliated club, playing duplicate.
>
> Move called, we move to next table but previous second board just started,
>
> so have to wait until board finished. After first board scored, "Four minute
>
> warning, no more boards to be started" (club rule) s

Haven't anyone ever finished a board in less than 4 minutes at the club?


Let's say this rule is enforced. And you find out that the board which you did not get to play, becuase it was 3 and a half minutes left when you should start it, was passed out at every table, so you would have finished in in less than a minute had you get to play it.

Looks like a silly rule, it would be better to state that you were allowed to start a new board, but if you failed to finish it in time it would be taken away and you would score 40/40.

[Barry Margolin]

In article <9745d177-5cc6-4b79...@googlegroups.com>,

bhmwe...@gmail.com wrote:

> Looks like a silly rule, it would be better to state that you were allowed to
> start a new board, but if you failed to finish it in time it would be taken
> away and you would score 40/40.

The Laws specifically prohibit this. They're silent about not starting
boards, which leaves the door open to cancel boards when the round is
close to ending.

[David Stevenson]

Keith wrote

Under the Laws boards that were designed to be played in the event but
are not played for any reason are scored as averages. It is up to the
TD to determine fault, and give Average Plus, Average or Average Minus
as required.

--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955
<webj...@googlemail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412
bluejak666 on Skype Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm

[David Stevenson]

dake50 wrote

No play is illegal: please follow the Laws.

============================================================

Adam Lea wrote
>On 09/11/12 23:37, dake50 wrote:

>Problem is, how do you know which of the pairs at the next table was
>responsible for the delay; N/S, E/W or both?

How does the TD know whether there was a hesitation when asked to rule
on one? How does the TD know what would have happened if a pair had not
been given MI?

Making judgements about things, for example who caused slow play, is a
judgement for the TD.

[David Stevenson]

wrote

>Let's say this rule is enforced. And you find out that the board which
>you did not get to play, becuase it was 3 and a half minutes left when
>you should start it, was passed out at every table, so you would have
>finished in in less than a minute had you get to play it.
>
>Looks like a silly rule, it would be better to state that you were
>allowed to start a new board, but if you failed to finish it in time it
>would be taken away and you would score 40/40.

Two things: first, that suggestion is illegal. Once a board is
started you do not "take it away".

Second, the OP asked for advice on how to score something: a
suggestion of an alternative does not really help!

[Ed Reppert]

In article <barmar-E16F25....@news.eternal-september.org>,

The TD (via the clock, perhaps) has determined that you have
insufficient time to play the board. He has the power (and duty) to
"ensure the orderly progress of the game" (Law 81C1). In exercising this
power and duty, he has the power to "require, postpone, or cancel the
play of a board" (Law 82B2). Granted the latter law is contingent on an
irregularity having occurred. What is an irregularity? It is "a
departure from correct procedure". It is correct procedure to follow the
instructions of the TD. "Don't start any new boards" is an instruction
of the TD (even if it comes from the clock). So the director has
instructed you not to play a board. Correct procedure is to follow that
instruction. Now, at the end of the session, the director may allow you
to play the board, in which case it is scored normally (note also that,
in law, in this case, the round for which this board was originally
scheduled does not end until you finish playing the board). If the TD
decides not to allow you to play the board, then you will not have
played a board which you were scheduled to play. That is an
irregularity. Law 8B2 applies. Law 12A2 instructs the director to award
an artificial adjusted score.

[Barry Margolin]

In article
<blackshoe-2B256...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Ed Reppert <blac...@mac.com> wrote:

> The TD (via the clock, perhaps) has determined that you have
> insufficient time to play the board. He has the power (and duty) to
> "ensure the orderly progress of the game" (Law 81C1). In exercising this
> power and duty, he has the power to "require, postpone, or cancel the
> play of a board" (Law 82B2). Granted the latter law is contingent on an
> irregularity having occurred. What is an irregularity? It is "a
> departure from correct procedure". It is correct procedure to follow the
> instructions of the TD. "Don't start any new boards" is an instruction
> of the TD (even if it comes from the clock). So the director has
> instructed you not to play a board. Correct procedure is to follow that
> instruction.

But if you don't play the board, you're following the director's
instructions, so there has been no irregularity. Therefore, 82B2 doesn't
apply, and he can't postpone play of the board.

It seems like a Catch-22: To postpone the board, there has to be an
irregularity. But there's no irregularity if you obey the instruction to
postpone the board. If you disobey the instructions there's an
irregularity, but 8B1 says that they get to finish the board.

> Now, at the end of the session, the director may allow you
> to play the board, in which case it is scored normally (note also that,
> in law, in this case, the round for which this board was originally
> scheduled does not end until you finish playing the board). If the TD
> decides not to allow you to play the board, then you will not have
> played a board which you were scheduled to play. That is an
> irregularity. Law 8B2 applies. Law 12A2 instructs the director to award
> an artificial adjusted score.

But since there was no irregularity in the first place, 82B2 never
applied, so the director can't postpone or cancel the board.

[axm...@hotmail.com]

Your reading of law appears to be dubious:

82B2 To rectify an error in procedure the Director may require,
postpone, or cancel the play of a board.

Which begs the question- when a pair is guilty of unduly slow play has
there been an error in procedure?

regards
axman

[Barry Margolin]

In article
<0e01cf99-8cd1-4fc6...@r7g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,

"axm...@hotmail.com" <axm...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Your reading of law appears to be dubious:
>
> 82B2 To rectify an error in procedure the Director may require,
> postpone, or cancel the play of a board.
>
> Which begs the question- when a pair is guilty of unduly slow play has
> there been an error in procedure?

As far as I can tell, no. Which Law says that a hand must be played in
a limited amount of time?

74B4 says that as a matter of courtesy you should refrain from
"prolonging play unnecessarily ... for the purpose of disconcerting an
opponent." But playing slowly just because you can't keep up could
hardly be considered to be for that purpose.

[David Stevenson]

Barry Margolin wrote

>In article
><blackshoe-2B256...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Ed Reppert <blac...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> The TD (via the clock, perhaps) has determined that you have
>> insufficient time to play the board. He has the power (and duty) to
>> "ensure the orderly progress of the game" (Law 81C1). In exercising this
>> power and duty, he has the power to "require, postpone, or cancel the
>> play of a board" (Law 82B2). Granted the latter law is contingent on an
>> irregularity having occurred. What is an irregularity? It is "a
>> departure from correct procedure". It is correct procedure to follow the
>> instructions of the TD. "Don't start any new boards" is an instruction
>> of the TD (even if it comes from the clock). So the director has
>> instructed you not to play a board. Correct procedure is to follow that
>> instruction.
>
>But if you don't play the board, you're following the director's
>instructions, so there has been no irregularity. Therefore, 82B2 doesn't
>apply, and he can't postpone play of the board.

If you ignore the arguments that show how this is based on the Laws
for a moment, what are you actually trying to prove? That a method
employed throughout the world and approved of by the authorities is
wrong because of a different reading of the Law book?

There is o point, really, in arguing that something generally accepted
should not be when the vast majority not only are prepared to follow it
but believe it is legal.

Sure, you can decide that Ed's approach is wrong. But not only is not
obviously wrong, it is also the generally accepted approach. What is
the point of trying to do otherwise? All you would do is cause trouble
in slow play cases - and they cause enough trouble anyway.

So why not accept the general approach of the authorities?

======================================================================
Barry Margolin wrote

>As far as I can tell, no. Which Law says that a hand must be played in
>a limited amount of time?

No Law does precisely. But it is intrinsic in the Conditions of
Contest for all duplicate events, whether specified or not, and those
Conditions of Contest have the force of Law.

[derek]

It's really not hard for a non-playing director to know who is slowing up the play. The only time I really had to enforce a slow-play penalty was when the slowest NS pair ran into an equally slow EW, but since I'd already warned NS, they didn't get any sympathy.

If you're playing, it's harder, but we know who's slow and we tend to look out for them.

[Ed Reppert]

In article <barmar-71B45B....@news.eternal-september.org>,

Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> To postpone the board, there has to be an
> irregularity.

Actually, no. The TD has the power and duty to ensure the orderly
progress of the game. In exercising that power, he doesn't need an
irregularity to postpone the play of the board, he just needs the
opinion that not postponing it will interfere with the orderly progress
of the game.See Law 81C1.

[Steve Willner]

On 2012-11-09 11:22 AM, Barry Margolin wrote:
> Each pair gets average, average-minus or average-plus, depending on
> whether they're partially, directly, or not at fault in causing the
> lateness. See Law 12C2a.

Exactly right despite comments to the contrary. Also consider a PP if
an at-fault pair isn't one of the ones taking an artificial score. The
usual ACBL PP is 1/4 of a top, but I'd give 1/10 of a top for partly at
fault and 1/5 for directly at fault. (I think these would be standard
in at least some other jurisdictions.)

As to the basis for artificial scores or PPs, rules about time allowed
are _not_ in the Laws. Time rules are part of the CoC for a specific
event or club or are in general regulations for an RA (such as the
ACBL). Violating the CoC or regulations is an irregularity just the
same as violating any of the Laws.

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@nhcc.net
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA