[jeffford76]

I queried another high level ACBL director and here are some excerpts from his response:

Quote

First of all, I think the use of NP is rampant and ill advised in most situations since it allows a director to abdicate his duty to judge responsibility for a board not being played according to Law 12. So I agree with you that directors should not use NP when slow play causes a board not be played. But that is not the case in your situation, and I agree with what you did in the case of an ill player. To say using NP in your case is illegal is a big stretch in my opinion. I think the way you justify what you did is by saying that this is not an irregularity per se, but instead it is a change to the movement. I feel comfortable saying that the sitout is now part of the movement so the director can use his power under 8A1 to award NP to the pair "sitting out" those boards.

[gnasher]

barmar, on 2013-January-08, 09:38, said:

Perhaps it's because in American society, it's normal to make rules that provide equality, so "treating equal" and "following the rules" are conflated.

So you think that the English and American usages have diverged because our society makes inequitable rules and yours doesn't?

[Bbradley62]

gnasher, on 2013-January-08, 07:22, said:

blackshoe, on 2013-January-07, 18:03, said:

Still, my dictionary says that "fair" means "in accordance with the rules", so if the laws say to give 3 pairs 4 average plusses, then that's "fair", and ignoring the laws out of some misplaced sense of "it's not fair" is wrong.

Mine doesn't, and it wouldn't occur to me to use the word in that sense. However, this seems to be a difference between American and English usage:
American OED: "in accordance with the rules or standards; legitimate"
English OED: "treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination"

It also wouldn't have occurred to me to use "in accordance with the rules" as a primary definition of "fair". Every American kid who says "it's not fair" knows perfectly well that this is generally understood to mean that he is being treated worse than someone else. And when President Obama said wealthier Americans should pay their "fair share" in taxes, he didn't mean they should pay the amount required under current tax law; he meant that the law should be changed so that they be required to pay a greater (more fair) share than they currently pay.

[mjj29]

Bbradley62, on 2013-January-08, 12:55, said:

And when President Obama said wealthier Americans should pay their "fair share" in taxes, he didn't mean they should they amount required under current tax law; he meant that the law should be changed so that they be required to pay a greater (more fair) share than they currently pay.

It's debatable whether that should be "required to pay a greater (less fair) share" to be cynical on one side of the argument or that in fact that's precisely what he meant and that lots of people are dodging taxes (on the other side).

[blackshoe]

I would buy the argument that when a pair leaves early, the TD has the power under Law 8A1 to amend the movement so that those pairs who will not have the opportunity to play the leaving pair get a sitout. I suppose "not played" is equivalent to this (and easier to do in ACBLScore).

I suppose the same principle could apply when a pair arrives late.

[barmar]

gnasher, on 2013-January-08, 12:10, said:

So you think that the English and American usages have diverged because our society makes inequitable rules and yours doesn't?

More that they think they do. Not consciously, but rather we unconsciously associate equity with our rule-making. The country was founded out of a feeling of inequity: "No taxation without representation". And the 5th and 14th Amendments provide equal protection to all.

But as I said, I think the American dictionaries are just wrong. Just this morning I heard Governor Christie remarking that it's not fair how long it's taking Congress to approve disaster aid for Sandy victims, compared to Katrina. He was clearly using it in the equity sense, not rules sense.

[bluejak]

jeffford76, on 2013-January-04, 11:22, said:

I'm not sure which person you're saying hasn't read the law book correctly. If you mean me, I certainly understand that "not played" is not mentioned there, and I would read the laws to say that average plus is correct.

If you mean the person who gave the advice, it is a reasonably high level tournament director and I think it's insulting to him to imply that he has not read the laws carefully.

Very occasionally the advice I get from the top doesn't strictly match the law, or only matches a reading of it I wouldn't consider correct. I still think if I want to direct ACBL games I'm supposed to follow the advice, not say that I know better.

It is the aim of this forum to advise people of what is right, not to avoid insulting unknown and unnamed individuals who give poor advice. Being a top level TD makes it more important to make sure the advice is right, and more culpable when it is not. Ok, a top TD has probably read the law book and ignored it or misunderstood it rather than not read it, but those are pretty feeble excuses.

jeffford76, on 2013-January-07, 13:15, said:

You really don't understand why? In a 7-table Mitchell, who do you think is going to score better, a pair that plays 28 boards normally, or a pair that plays 24 boards normally and also gets 4 60% boards (which are factored up if their other boards were over 60%)? Many people don't think this is a fair comparison.

Many people may not, but when you are trying to play bridge to win and enjoy yourself you want to do as well as possible on a certain number of boards. It is not nice when four boards are taken away from you for a reason that is not your fault. You might have got a couple of 1400s: you might have bid a really clever grand slam: you might have executed the first double guard squeeze of your life. All this is taken away from you, and what do you get in return? Well, the law-makers have decided, perfectly correctly in my view, to give you a thing called an Average Plus as some sort of recompense for yor loss. And what happens? You do not get your Average Plus as required by Law because:

• The TD could not be bothered to work who was at fault, or
  
• The TD finds Not Played so much easier, or
  
• The TD does not understand the Law,or
  
• Someone at ACBL HQ has given the TD some advice, or
  
• Some people who have not lost a board at all moan "It's not fair."

I am amazed at anyone who think fair and according to the rules are synonyms!

[Trinidad]

Please excuse my ignorance, but I have a couple of questions:

- Where in the Law book does it say that you get Ave+ for a sit out?
- Where in the Law book does it say that you get Ave+ for a board that you were originally scheduled to play but did not play (because of unforeseen circumstances)?

Rik

[gordontd]

Trinidad, on 2013-January-17, 07:10, said:

- Where in the Law book does it say that you get Ave+ for a sit out?

You don't for a scheduled sit-out.

Trinidad, on 2013-January-17, 07:10, said:

- Where in the Law book does it say that you get Ave+ for a board that you were originally scheduled to play but did not play (because of unforeseen circumstances)?

L12C2a

[gnasher]

[Deleted, because it added nothing to what Gordon said.]

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2013-January-09, 12:03, said:

More that they think they do. Not consciously, but rather we unconsciously associate equity with our rule-making.

Which is why, for example, a large majority of states don't permit gay marriage. This desire for equity must be buried deep in the unconscious.

[Trinidad]

gordontd, on 2013-January-17, 07:57, said:

You don't for a scheduled sit-out.


L12C2a

It says:

Quote

When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained [and see C1(d)] the Director awards an artificial adjusted score according to responsibility for the irregularity: average minus (at most 40% of the available matchpoints in pairs) to a contestant directly at fault, average (50% in pairs) to a contestant only partly at fault, and average plus (at least 60% in pairs) to a contestant in no way at fault.

Is a player leaving ill an irregularity? I don't think so. It may make it necessary to "adjust the movement", but it is not an irregularity on the board.

The board is entirely playable and a result can be obtained (e.g. if we were willing to wait for the player to recover or if we would be able to find a replacement player).

So, Law 12C2a, as it is worded, does not apply. This is an area for regulations. And I have seen quite a few good regulations that deal specifically with what to do when a player has to leave. Usually they depend on at what point in the tournament the player is leaving. (Of course, the fact that I have seen those regulations is not proof in itself that they are legal.)

And suppose that Law 12C2a would apply, this would lead to absurd results:

1) A player picks up his cards on the first board of a 60 board tournament. When he sees the cards he gets a heart attack and is rushed to the hospital. We apply Law 12C2a, conclude that this player (who doesn't smoke or drink) is in no way at fault for his heart attack. At the end of the day, the results are posted and this pair wins with an average of 60.00% with the runners up having 58.97%.

2) You start a one winner Mitchell movement of 7 tables with a sit out for the moving pairs when they reach table 7. In the first round, the West player at table 1 picks up his cards for the first board, gets sick, and is rushed to the hospital. Now all players are playing the same number of boards. There are two "sit outs", but they are not created equal: One was scheduled and they get an NP and the other was accidental and they get an Ave+.

Let's just say that it is fortunate that Law 12C2a doesn't apply to cases where the boards are perfectly OK, but a player isn't.

Rik

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on 2013-January-17, 09:14, said:

Is a player leaving ill an irregularity? I don't think so. It may make it necessary to "adjust the movement", but it is not an irregularity on the board.

The board is entirely playable and a result can be obtained (e.g. if we were willing to wait for the player to recover or if we would be able to find a replacement player).

So, Law 12C2a, as it is worded, does not apply. This is an area for regulations. And I have seen quite a few good regulations that deal specifically with what to do when a player has to leave. Usually they depend on at what point in the tournament the player is leaving. (Of course, the fact that I have seen those regulations is not proof in itself that they are legal.)

And suppose that Law 12C2a would apply, this would lead to absurd results:

1) A player picks up his cards on the first board of a 60 board tournament. When he sees the cards he gets a heart attack and is rushed to the hospital. We apply Law 12C2a, conclude that this player (who doesn't smoke or drink) is in no way at fault for his heart attack. At the end of the day, the results are posted and this pair wins with an average of 60.00% with the runners up having 58.97%.

2) You start a one winner Mitchell movement of 7 tables with a sit out for the moving pairs when they reach table 7. In the first round, the West player at table 1 picks up his cards for the first board, gets sick, and is rushed to the hospital. Now all players are playing the same number of boards. There are two "sit outs", but they are not created equal: One was scheduled and they get an NP and the other was accidental and they get an Ave+.

Let's just say that it is fortunate that Law 12C2a doesn't apply to cases where the boards are perfectly OK, but a player isn't.

Rik

A player leaving for whatever reason is an irregularity. He was supposed to be there to play the hand. He ain't there.

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. The player concerned is not going to be back before the session ends. There is no replacement available. So the board cannot be played. Your scenario is not real, and Law 12C2a certainly does apply.

In your hypothetical situation one, he's not there, he's directly at fault. Any director who rules otherwise is doing it wrong.

"They" don't get an NP. And how does a pair who played no boards get an average of 60% for the session? Are you giving them Avg+ on every board? Then you've made two mistakes.

In both cases the correct action by the TD is to adjust the movement, not to award adjusted scores.

[gordontd]

Trinidad, on 2013-January-17, 09:14, said:

Is a player leaving ill an irregularity? I don't think so.

You have players regularly leaving in the middle of a hand due to illness?

Trinidad, on 2013-January-17, 09:14, said:

The board is entirely playable and a result can be obtained

Not by the same players.

Trinidad, on 2013-January-17, 09:14, said:

So, Law 12C2a, as it is worded, does not apply.

Good luck with getting support for that idea!

Trinidad, on 2013-January-17, 09:14, said:

1) A player picks up his cards on the first board of a 60 board tournament. When he sees the cards he gets a heart attack and is rushed to the hospital. We apply Law 12C2a, conclude that this player (who doesn't smoke or drink) is in no way at fault for his heart attack.

Actually, I think he is directly at fault within the meaning of the Law (which I have commented before, in #70 of this thread, would be better served by using the word "responsible" rather than "at fault"). But the regulations you've already alluded to will almost certainly negate all of their scores and re-schedule things as though they had never been there.

Trinidad, on 2013-January-17, 09:14, said:

2) You start a one winner Mitchell movement of 7 tables with a sit out for the moving pairs when they reach table 7. In the first round, the West player at table 1 picks up his cards for the first board, gets sick, and is rushed to the hospital. Now all players are playing the same number of boards. There are two "sit outs", but they are not created equal: One was scheduled and they get an NP and the other was accidental and they get an Ave+.

Once again, the movement will be re-scheduled to take account of the reduced number of contestants.

[jeffford76]

bluejak, on 2013-January-17, 05:57, said:

...

I understand you only reply to the posts you feel like, but it's hard to take seriously something that ignores the post stating the legal basis for the director changing the movement upon an illness, and instead just declaring it all illegal.

And I think it laughable the idea that the correct behavior for ACBL directors is determined by your reading of the lawbook, not by the advice given by ACBL HQ.

[blackshoe]

Call ACBL HQ. Is the guy or gal you're talking to a person in authority, or the janitor? How do you know?

[gnasher]

jeffford76, on 2013-January-17, 10:23, said:

And I think it laughable the idea that the correct behavior for ACBL directors is determined by your reading of the lawbook, not by the advice given by ACBL HQ.

The ACBL's general conditions of contest say that "ACBL events are conducted in accordance with the current version of the 'Laws of Duplicate Bridge' as promulgated in the Western Hemisphere by the ACBL." Those Laws say that "The Tournament Organizer's powers and duties include ... to announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these Laws" and "The Director applies and is bound by these Laws and supplementary regulations."

The correct behaviour of directors in the ACBL is determined first by the ACBL's version of the Laws, and second by the ACBL's regulations. Advice from ACBL HQ doesn't consititute regulation, and even if it did it couldn't override the Laws.

If a law is ambiguous, it's reasonable to seek and apply an interpretation from the ACBL. But when the ACBL-published Laws say one thing and the ACBL's verbal advice says another, it's clearly correct for the director to follow the Laws.

[Trinidad]

gordontd, on 2013-January-17, 10:03, said:

You have players regularly leaving in the middle of a hand due to illness?

I've seen it happen. It was not fun.
And given the average age of bridge players, I think more TDs have.

And fairly recently a player came up to me in the middle of a hand: He had just gotten a text message about a death in the family. Play stopped right there at trick 6 or so. (Our club is very liberal with respect to cell phones.)

gordontd, on 2013-January-17, 10:03, said:

Not by the same players.

Sure it can. It may be impractical, or undesired, but there is nothing wrong with the board. It can be played as soon as the players arrive, if we would want to.

gordontd, on 2013-January-17, 10:03, said:

Good luck with getting support for that idea!

There is plenty of support, otherwise NBOs and tournament organizers wouldn't write regulations to take care of just this situation.

gordontd, on 2013-January-17, 10:03, said:

Actually, I think he is directly at fault within the meaning of the Law (which I have commented before, in #70 of this thread, would be better served by using the word "responsible" rather than "at fault"). But the regulations you've already alluded to will almost certainly negate all of their scores and re-schedule things as though they had never been there.

Are we applying the laws as they are or as you wish they were?

gordontd, on 2013-January-17, 10:03, said:

Once again, the movement will be re-scheduled to take account of the reduced number of contestants.

Ooohhh that is a big no no if Law 12C2a would apply. The play has started once the cards were taken out of the board. We need to assign a score on this board and that makes the rest of the movement very problematic. (Of course, your approach to adjust the movement is the only one that makes sense, but only if you recognize the fact that Law 12C2a doesn't apply.)

But if you think this would be clearer: What if this happens on the first board of the second round? You cannot adjust the movement anymore. Then still half of the pairs -1 get Ave+ for the boards they don't play whereas half of them get an NP.

And all this trouble comes from thinking that a Law that is meant for boards where no result can be obtained due to an irregularity should be applied to boards where a result can be obtained, but won't be because of a calamity unrelated to the board in question.

Rik

[gordontd]

Trinidad, on 2013-January-17, 12:32, said:

I've seen it happen. It was not fun.

You miss the point. It doesn't happen regularly. It's an irregularity.

[barmar]

From the Definitions:

Quote

A deviation from correct procedure inclusive of, but not limited to, those which involve an infraction by a player.

Leaving due to an illness or other unavoidable and unexpected emergency is an irregularity (correct procedure is to play all scheduled boards, although I'm having trouble finding a law that spells this out explicitly), but would presumably not be considered an infraction.