[pran]

blackshoe, on 2012-April-23, 17:44, said:

If two pairs are scheduled to play a board, but both pairs leave without reporting a result to the TD (or the scorer, I suppose) then I would rule that the board was not played (there is after all no evidence that it was), and award an ArtAs. Who's at fault? I have no evidence that one pair or the other was directly at fault (but would if say one pair came to me and said 'our opponents seem to have left and we still have a board to play') so I would deem both pairs partly at fault and award average to each. If within the correction period one pair (or more likely one player) came to me with a score, I would attempt to verify that score with the opponents before amending the final score.

Most of the club TDs around here would just stick in "not played", but we here all know that's illegal.

I use Bridgemates with all my events, and I then instruct the competitors that it is illegal to leave the table assuming end of round without having received message either "End of Round" or "End of Session" on the table rerminal. And as North is responsible for entering data on the terminal while East is responsible for confirming entries then both sides are at fault when results are missing. The automatic PP is 10% of a top to each side.

If no obtained result can be recorded then this implies A-/A-.

[bluejak]

jallerton, on 2012-April-23, 14:44, said:

This thread (before it got hijacked by a discussion on Bridgem***s) was inspired by a discussion in another thread in which some very good TDs, including yourself, stated that their practice is to award average (not the only current legal option of average plus) in a particular situation to contestants who have in no way been at fault for a board being unplayable.

Certainly not. I never award Average to a pair in no way at fault for a board being unplayable.

pran, on 2012-April-23, 17:37, said:

And how will the TD know that a score is not correct?

The situation was where a TD has put in [or allowed to be put in] a score of NP where this is to be corrected later. Only a completely incompetent TD thinks that NP is now the correct score.

pran, on 2012-April-24, 03:52, said:

I use Bridgemates with all my events, and I then instruct the competitors that it is illegal to leave the table assuming end of round without having received message either "End of Round" or "End of Session" on the table rerminal. And as North is responsible for entering data on the terminal while East is responsible for confirming entries then both sides are at fault when results are missing. The automatic PP is 10% of a top to each side.

If no obtained result can be recorded then this implies A-/A-.

You do not really treat bridge players as your customers, do you?

[pran]

bluejak, on 2012-April-24, 07:26, said:

pran, on 2012-April-24, 03:52, said:

I use Bridgemates with all my events, and I then instruct the competitors that it is illegal to leave the table assuming end of round without having received message either "End of Round" or "End of Session" on the table rerminal. And as North is responsible for entering data on the terminal while East is responsible for confirming entries then both sides are at fault when results are missing. The automatic PP is 10% of a top to each side.

If no obtained result can be recorded then this implies A-/A-.

You do not really treat bridge players as your customers, do you?

Sure I do.

And I get very positive feedbacks that players really appreciate my way once they understand why they cannot be indifferent about procedures and order without consequences. One result is that I have extremely few disturbances to my events because of players neglecting their duties with for instance the use of Bridgemates.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2012-April-24, 03:41, said:

I certainly hope that if he has entered a score then either it is an artificial adjusted score (temporarily) awarded by him, or it is a score that was reported to him (possibly by the players using Bridgemate).

How shall TD know that this (or in fact any recorded) score is incorrect without being told, preferably by the players involved?

The answer is: He cannot, and therefore neither can he be responsible for correcting this wrong score until he is told the correct score.

I think you really need to read questions more carefully, because it seems that you seldom answer them. The situation in question wsa one where you, the director, have entered an artificial score for a board that will be played later. This becomes your responsibility, not the players'.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2012-April-24, 09:45, said:

I think you really need to read questions more carefully, because it seems that you seldom answer them. The situation in question wsa one where you, the director, have entered an artificial score for a board that will be played later. This becomes your responsibility, not the players'.

And I have (I believe) clearly stated that if this situation occurs I shall (temporarily) register the artificial adjusted score that will apply in case they fail to play the board. They will also be instructed that this score will be replaced by the "real" resulting score on the board if they manage to carry out a late play on the board without disturbing the regular schedule for the event and then report the "real" result to me.

This is a perfectly legal instruction by the Director to the players on what they must do in order not to have the temporary artificial score on the board become the final score, and the responsibility to obey this instruction of course lies with the players' (Law 90B8).

[jallerton]

bluejak, on 2012-April-24, 07:26, said:

Certainly not. I never award Average to a pair in no way at fault for a board being unplayable.

OK, good. I must have misunderstood your reply on another thread:

mr1303, on 2012-April-04, 03:45, said:

Last night at the local club, we had a playing director who was very busy.

As a result of a few director calls, his table ran out of time. He assigned his table Average + for both sides.

Is that right?

bluejak, on 2012-April-05, 06:01, said:

This has been discussed here and elsewhere a number of times. No consensus is ever reached. I would award myself Ave not Ave Plus but I have some sympathy with people who award themselves Ave Plus.

In the circumstances described, it is hard to see how the TD could be "a contestant only partly at fault", the circumstance required to award "Average" under the current Laws. In their capacity as contestants, it seems to me that the TD and his partner have done nothing wrong.

[barmar]

By trying to do two things at once (play and direct), the playing TD is partly at fault. Perhaps it was unavoidable, but we can still point the blame there.

If a player had to go to the restroom, and due to unanticipated biological issues (I'm trying to be delicate here) he took an excessive amount of time and delayed the game, would you also say that he'd done nothing wrong in his capacity as a contestant?

[blackshoe]

Barry, how do you define "partly at fault"?

[gnasher]

It seems to me that averages aren't only given when someone is "partly at fault": they're also given in cases where nobody is at fault, such as with a playing director, illness, or lightning strike. I think this is because it feels wrong to give someone an average-plus when we have nobody to blame. I'm not saying this is logical or legal, but that appears to be what happens.

The problem with this law is that it tries to use a single artificial score to both restore equity and penalise an infraction, and ends up doing neither satisfactorily. I would change the law to:

"When, because of an irregularity, a result cannot be obtained, the Director awards an artificial adjusted score consisting of the percentage (or the equivalent in IMPs) obtained by the contestant on the other boards of that session. If a contestant is wholly or partly at fault, the Director also awards a procedural penalty."

(As well as changing the meaning, I've also improved the English.)

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-April-28, 02:16

[gordontd]

gnasher, on 2012-April-28, 02:06, said:

It seems to me that averages aren't only given when someone is "partly at fault": they're also given in cases where nobody is at fault, such as with a playing director, illness, or lightning strike. I think this is because it feels wrong to give someone an average-plus when we have nobody to blame. I'm not saying this is logical or legal, but that appears to be what happens.

I think we tend to use "at fault" in this law as meaning something close to "responsible", because there are times when things happen that are not really the player's fault, but are certainly not any other player's fault, and for which the player is only person who can be held responsible. So, if I became ill and missed a board while having to get some fresh air to try to recover, I would expect to get Ave- for it. It's not really my "fault" that I'm ill, but it's my responsibility to be at the table at the correct time, and unless another player or director's action prevents me from doing so, then it's my "fault" in the context of the law.

I don't think it would really be workable otherwise: we'd have more people arriving late because of traffic/transport, people arguing that it's not their fault that they can't play faster, and possibly even arguing that it's not their fault that they're addicted to nicotine and need to go out for a cigarette!

[aguahombre]

gordontd, on 2012-April-28, 05:13, said:

I think we tend to use "at fault" in this law as meaning something close to "responsible", because there are times when things happen that are not really the player's fault, but are certainly not any other player's fault, and for which the player is only person who can be held responsible. So, if I became ill and missed a board while having to get some fresh air to try to recover, I would expect to get Ave- for it. It's not really my "fault" that I'm ill, but it's my responsibility to be at the table at the correct time, and unless another player or director's action prevents me from doing so, then it's my "fault" in the context of the law.

I don't think it would really be workable otherwise: we'd have more people arriving late because of traffic/transport, people arguing that it's not their fault that they can't play faster, and possibly even arguing that it's not their fault that they're addicted to nicotine and need to go out for a cigarette!

Nicely expressed; that's how it should be. In practice, a club director will use his vast discretion when the clientelle are older and more empathetic about infirmities. At higher levels, we expect more objectivity than compassion.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2012-April-27, 10:35, said:

By trying to do two things at once (play and direct), the playing TD is partly at fault. Perhaps it was unavoidable, but we can still point the blame there.

I don't think it is fair to say that someone is even partly at fault when they are volunteering their services to the club. Of course it is different if a paid director is playing to accommodate a lone player and/or half table. I think a distinction can reasonably be made here.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2012-April-28, 11:56, said:

I don't think it is fair to say that someone is even partly at fault when they are volunteering their services to the club. Of course it is different if a paid director is playing to accommodate a lone player and/or half table. I think a distinction can reasonably be made here.

I don't see why it should make any difference whether he's being paid or not. Besides, don't volunteer directors in the EBU usually get their card fees comped? Isn't that "payment"? Also, in both cases the TD's purpose is (at least in part) to ensure that the players have an enjoyable evening of bridge.

[barmar]

A table is running late. To determine fault, you have to find out whether any players played particularly slow, or did something else that caused a delay. These players would be considered at fault.

In this case, the action that caused the delay was a player leaving the table to perform his duties as a director. This could be considered "directly at fault", but I reduce it to "partly at fault" because part of the fault is the club rules that required him to play while directing.

[mjj29]

barmar, on 2012-April-28, 22:34, said:

A table is running late. To determine fault, you have to find out whether any players played particularly slow, or did something else that caused a delay. These players would be considered at fault.

In this case, the action that caused the delay was a player leaving the table to perform his duties as a director. This could be considered "directly at fault", but I reduce it to "partly at fault" because part of the fault is the club rules that required him to play while directing.

I doubt the club rules _required_ him to play, I'm sure they would be happy to have a non-playing volunteer director (of course, whether they would get any...)

Do people directing at clubs really care about 10% on a board? I'm sure I lose more than that from worrying about the movement anyway. I wouldn't (and haven't) have any problem awarding myself 40% on a board if necessary (of course, I generally play and direct quickly enough that this isn't a problem).

My partners are perfectly aware that in playing with the director their score may suffer. They also don't care about the score at a random club night. It's not like it's anything important.

(People may disagree with that last statement. Those people need to lighten up. I also suspect that they don't make good directors either)

[barmar]

Perhaps "required" was too strong a word, and "encouraged" is better. For instance, the playing director may be preferable to having a half table.

[Coelacanth]

barmar, on 2012-May-01, 10:09, said:

Perhaps "required" was too strong a word, and "encouraged" is better. For instance, the playing director may be preferable to having a half table.

At our club the director will normally try to find someone to come in if there is a half table.

Recent anecdote: We had a half table and I called someone to fill in. She was not able to arrive until about halfway through the first round. (Four boards per round). We played three boards, but time was up so I decided to have a late play. I told the North player to just enter the last board as a passout in the Bridgemate (entering not played requires a director code and I was busy moving boards and getting everyone in position for the next round).

At the end of the session I found the NS pair and offered them Avg+ if they preferred to not play the late board. After all, they were in "no way at fault" for running out of time in the first round. No, they wanted their money's worth and insisted on playing the board.

So I found the board, got everyone together, and we sat down to play it. It was promptly passed out.

[blackshoe]

ROFL!

[bluejak]

blackshoe, on 2012-April-28, 12:32, said:

I don't see why it should make any difference whether he's being paid or not. Besides, don't volunteer directors in the EBU usually get their card fees comped?

I think "usually" is too high. Some do, some don't.

[Vampyr]

mjj29, on 2012-April-30, 16:56, said:

Do people directing at clubs really care about 10% on a board? I'm sure I lose more than that from worrying about the movement anyway.

It's really helpful to have a separate movement director.