[wank]

Real situation....

declarer faints during the hand and drops her cards on the table such that they're visible. unfortunately i don't know the hand, but you can safely assume the defenders will not be challenged after seeing declarer's cards land face up on the table, but let's assume they would have had a problem otherwise. how do you proceed?

oh yes i should made it clear declarer was fine and this was very much a momentary thing.

[TylerE]

Board fouled beyond all possibility of obtaining a bridge result. Avg+ for defenders, Avg- and a get well soon card for declarer.

[the hog]

I would cancel the board and award an avge+ to both sides.

[blackshoe]

First thing I'd do is see what help declarer needs. Is there a doctor in the house?

[blackshoe]

Quote

Law 48A: Declarer is not subject to restriction for exposing a card (but see Law 45C2), and no card of declarer’s or dummy’s hand ever becomes a penalty card. Declarer is not required to play any card dropped accidentally.

Applying this law directly, I would, if declarer recovers and can play the hand, tell her (or a substitute, if she can't) to pick up the hand and play it out. Information from her exposed cards is AI to the defenders (I think). However...

Quote

Law 12A2: The Director awards an artificial adjusted score if no rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board (see C2 below).

Under this law, I would award an artificial adjusted score of average plus to the defenders. For the declaring side, it depends on whether declarer is deemed "at fault" for the problem. I would say not, so the declaring side would also get average plus. If she is deemed "at fault", the declaring side would get average minus, but I think that's a mite harsh, under the circumstances.

I agree with others that normal play of the board is not possible here.

[gordontd]

In principle, whatever sympathy we might feel for a player, the player whose actions cause a board not to be played (if that ends up being the case here) is considered to be "at fault".

In your actual case, it sounds easy enough to let them play on if a substitute can be found or if declarer recovers enough.

[pran]

gordontd, on 2015-January-09, 02:37, said:

In principle, whatever sympathy we might feel for a player, the player whose actions cause a board not to be played (if that ends up being the case here) is considered to be "at fault".

Would you apply that principle even when the player's actions are the accidental result from (i.e. forced by) something an "outsider" does?

Or, as I have experienced twice: Players (GP in one case, nurse in another) abandoned their play in order to assist in emergencies. (One was fatal, the other ended happily).

Do you think that I was wrong in awarding Ave+ to both sides for the boards that could not be played normally?

[ahydra]

Somehow I think the medical problem should get more attention than the bridge result

But once declarer is back on her feet, 60/60 sounds fairest - though technically gordontd is correct and I wouldn't object if he awarded 50/60 instead.

As for pran's case of people leaving to assist with emergencies - I think that should be 40/60. The difference here is three-fold:

• the doctor was on-call, so had some idea he might not be able to finish the game;
  
• the fainting player can hopefully recover and continue play, whereas the doctor can't really get back in time, so a greater number of boards are rendered unplayable;
  
• you can draw a parallel between the doctor leaving after X boards and him leaving before the game started (or being diverted en-route to the club), where there would be the usual 40/60 penalty for any board not played due to lateness.

ahydra

[pran]

ahydra, on 2015-January-09, 05:27, said:

Somehow I think the medical problem should get more attention than the bridge result

But once declarer is back on her feet, 60/60 sounds fairest - though technically gordontd is correct and I wouldn't object if he awarded 50/60 instead.

As for pran's case of people leaving to assist with emergencies - I think that should be 40/60. The difference here is three-fold:

• the doctor was on-call, so had some idea he might not be able to finish the game;
  
• the fainting player can hopefully recover and continue play, whereas the doctor can't really get back in time, so a greater number of boards are rendered unplayable;
  
• you can draw a parallel between the doctor leaving after X boards and him leaving before the game started (or being diverted en-route to the club), where there would be the usual 40/60 penalty for any board not played due to lateness.

ahydra

I AM SHOCKED !

Whether the doctor was on-call is immaterial. This GP was participating in the tournament during his free time and simply responded to my call if any qualified medician was available in the room, but any GP worth his profession will automatically act when noticing an emergency.

A similar consideration applied to the other case when the nurse assisted on an apparent heart attack.

They both left their tables without hesitation and assisted until the ambulance professionals arrived and took the responsibility.

NOBODY at the events had any comment when I awarded 60/60 on each and every board that could not be played normally.

(As for drawing a parallell to late arrivals or late plays: I don't know how other authorities handle such cases, but we do allow for "force majeure" which clearly was the case in my situations.)

[RMB1]

There is relevant guidance/example in the EBU White Book: 8.12.7 and 8.12.10
If the play was sufficiently advanced then it is permitted to assign a score even if the board was not completed.

[gordontd]

pran, on 2015-January-09, 03:43, said:

Would you apply that principle even when the player's actions are the accidental result from (i.e. forced by) something an "outsider" does?

If it's caused by something from outside, the player is not at fault.

[ahydra]

pran, on 2015-January-09, 06:15, said:

I AM SHOCKED !

Whether the doctor was on-call is immaterial. This GP was participating in the tournament during his free time and simply responded to my call if any qualified medician was available in the room, but any GP worth his profession will automatically act when noticing an emergency.

A similar consideration applied to the other case when the nurse assisted on an apparent heart attack.

They both left their tables without hesitation and assisted until the ambulance professionals arrived and took the responsibility.

NOBODY at the events had any comment when I awarded 60/60 on each and every board that could not be played normally.

(As for drawing a parallell to late arrivals or late plays: I don't know how other authorities handle such cases, but we do allow for "force majeure" which clearly was the case in my situations.)

Sorry, you didn't make it clear that the medical emergency happened at the club. That's very different. My reading of your post was that the doctor left the club to go to wherever he was on call.

ahydra

[blackshoe]

I am generally strict in ruling, but I just can't see calling someone who has a medical problem "at fault".

Maybe we should just ban players with potential medical problems. After all, it's not like the player base is shrinking or anything.

I read Sven's post as being about emergencies at the event, not that folks were "on call" at a hospital or whatever and abandoned the game. Besides, the doctors around here might come and kibitz when they're on call, but they don't generally come to play.

[lamford]

I had to rule on an AC on an unfinished board at a EBU congress a good twenty years ago when one player had a heart attack, and went to hospital in an ambulance, just after the auction started. We wanted to award average plus to both sides (it would have been +3 IMPs), but were advised (by the TD) that we should endeavour to decide a result on the board, with the benefit of doubt given to the opponents of the unwell person, and the ruling was that the "non-offenders" would reach a slam 75% of the time, even though it had only been reached 50% of the time in the room. Seemed harsh at the time and seems harsh now. Maybe a director should have sat down for the final board.

[ahydra]

blackshoe, on 2015-January-09, 06:48, said:

Maybe we should just ban players with potential medical problems. After all, it's not like the player base is shrinking or anything.

I strongly hope this is just throwaway hyperbole. (From having read your posts over the years I get the impression it is. )

Quote

I read Sven's post as being about emergencies at the event, not that folks were "on call" at a hospital or whatever and abandoned the game. Besides, the doctors around here might come and kibitz when they're on call, but they don't generally come to play.

His post is completely ambiguous. I wonder if he considered that I might have got the wrong end of the stick before replying with his bold, italic "I AM SHOCKED"... Through making the same mistake myself, I've come to learn that if something doesn't sound right, it's always worth a double-take to see if you can figure out why the person who's offended you wrote what they did.

Thankfully I've never seen anyone have a medical emergency at the table or be called away from the club to assist at one; let's hope it stays that way.

ahydra

[gordontd]

ahydra, on 2015-January-09, 08:24, said:

Thankfully I've never seen anyone have a medical emergency at the table

I had to deal with two of them at the last Brighton Congress and managed to find a doctor quite quickly in both cases. I have a mental list of about six of them who are regular congress players and I've always found them willing to help out in emergencies.

[pran]

ahydra, on 2015-January-09, 08:24, said:

His post is completely ambiguous. I wonder if he considered that I might have got the wrong end of the stick before replying with his bold, italic "I AM SHOCKED"... Through making the same mistake myself, I've come to learn that if something doesn't sound right, it's always worth a double-take to see if you can figure out why the person who's offended you wrote what they did.

Thankfully I've never seen anyone have a medical emergency at the table or be called away from the club to assist at one; let's hope it stays that way.

ahydra

The idea never struck me that anybody could read my post as related to emergencies outside the event area under my control as CTD.

Those players assisting in the emergencies lost only a minor part of the total number of boards to be played and what I had to decide was the artificial adjusted scores to be awarded on these boards.

I have a strong feeling that this question really was of no importance to the patients and/or their partners. I must add that the partner to the deceased player insisted that although he abstained from the rest of the events he would appreciate the other players to complete the event as best they could in respect of his partner (and himself).

[VixTD]

RMB1, on 2015-January-09, 06:17, said:

There is relevant guidance/example in the EBU White Book: 8.12.7 and 8.12.10
If the play was sufficiently advanced then it is permitted to assign a score even if the board was not completed.

I nearly got this far on one occasion. A defender was so drunk they were unable to hold their cards, and they ended face up on the table (about six or seven left to play). I tried to keep play going with several penalty cards (even though declarer thought this was absurd), but when some were cancelled after a lead penalty had been chosen, I put them back in offender's hand, but they went straight back onto the table.

I was about to stop play, ask declarer to explain how the play had gone so far and what they planned to do next, and award an assigned score on what might happen (weighted in favour of the non-offenders), when someone helpfully claimed.

[pran]

VixTD, on 2015-January-09, 12:04, said:

I nearly got this far on one occasion. A defender was so drunk they were unable to hold their cards, and they ended face up on the table (about six or seven left to play). I tried to keep play going with several penalty cards (even though declarer thought this was absurd), but when some were cancelled after a lead penalty had been chosen, I put them back in offender's hand, but they went straight back onto the table.

I was about to stop play, ask declarer to explain how the play had gone so far and what they planned to do next, and award an assigned score on what might happen (weighted in favour of the non-offenders), when someone helpfully claimed.

Luckily we shall never have that problem in Norway:

The Norwegian Bridge Federation has zero tolerance on consumption of alcohol and/or on smoking during events sponsored by the federation (or subordinate bodies).

Any player exposing himself drunk at a table during an event will find himself immediately expelled from that event with a report to NBF, and then usually suspended from all events in Norway for at least 6 months.

Harsh? maybe.

[blackshoe]

I can see where drunken Vikings might be a problem.