[jeffford76]

gnasher, on 2013-January-17, 12:16, said:

If a law is ambiguous, it's reasonable to seek and apply an interpretation from the ACBL.

I thought that was the point of this thread. The ACBL interpretation is that 8A1 allows the director to change the movement midstream. Maybe you don't think it's ambiguous, but I think that I'll use the interpretation I'm given.

[Trinidad]

gordontd, on 2013-January-17, 12:52, said:

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

Yes, I missed that point. And yes, if somebody gets sick in the middle of a hand, that is an irregularity on that board. But not on the others that this person was originally scheduled to play, but never touched. Every time that board is played, it is played without irregularity. And when it is not played, it is not played, so there can't be an irregularity. And the heart attack 20 minutes ago on board 11 is not an irregularity for board 16 where the cards haven't even left the slots.

How a tournament organizer organizes his tournament is up to the organizer. How he deals with repairing the tournament when there is a calamity is also up to him. The Laws don't say anything about that. They deal with individual boards and go as far as telling how a board should be matchpointed, but that is where they stop. They don't deal with which board should be played by what player at what table at what point in time. They don't say what to do when some boards are scheduled to be played less than others. Then why would they say what to do when boards are played less than others for a reason that was not scheduled?

Rik

[Trinidad]

jeffford76, on 2013-January-17, 15:00, said:

I thought that was the point of this thread. The ACBL interpretation is that 8A1 allows the director to change the movement midstream. Maybe you don't think it's ambiguous, but I think that I'll use the interpretation I'm given.

Of course, a TD is allowed to change the movement midstream. The Laws deal with individual boards. If a TD decides that board 12 is going to be played 10 times and board 13 is going to be played twice only, he is allowed to do that. And he is allowed to make that decision in the middle of a session.

Now if he wants people coming into his game, he'd better have a good reason. And trying to run the game as smoothly as possible after a calamity is a very good reason.

Rik

[gnasher]

jeffford76, on 2013-January-17, 15:00, said:

I thought that was the point of this thread. The ACBL interpretation is that 8A1 allows the director to change the movement midstream. Maybe you don't think it's ambiguous, but I think that I'll use the interpretation I'm given.

I haven't expressed an opinion about whether any particular law is ambiguous, or about the purpose of this thread.

I was discussing what an ACBL director in an ACBL event should do when he receives advice which he thinks is contrary to the ACBL's published rules. That is, I was addressing the question "Given that the rules are unambiguous, what should I do with advice that conflicts with these rules?"

[jeffford76]

gnasher, on 2013-January-17, 16:14, said:

I was discussing what an ACBL director in an ACBL event should do when he receives advice which he thinks is contrary to the ACBL's published rules. That is, I was addressing the question "Given that the rules are unambiguous, what should I do with advice that conflicts with these rules?"

OK, but I don't think anyone was really arguing that. If you thought I was I didn't express myself well.

Unfortunately the ACBL doesn't actually make official interpretations of things like this. The best you can do is to look at custom and practice, and if you're lucky to ask the opinions of respected directors. I'm confident that rescheduling the movement to include sitouts (which is more easily entered into the scoring program with NP's) is what the official interpretation would be if we had one. Obviously others may disagree.

What I think is relevant to ACBL directors is the custom and practice and high-level director opinions within the ACBL. To me some of the comments in this thread, particularly those of bluejak, have rung of "It doesn't matter what the ACBL says, this is the one true way for directors".

[blackshoe]

jeffford76, on 2013-January-17, 15:00, said:

The ACBL interpretation is that 8A1 allows the director to change the movement midstream. Maybe you don't think it's ambiguous, but I think that I'll use the interpretation I'm given.

All I've seen in this thread is that some "high level directors" have advised that people use NP in, as far as I can tell, any case where a board is not played. I don't call that an official ACBL interpretation. Such an interpretation would have to come, IMO, from the ACBLLC.

[Redbird44]

[size="7"][size="5"]

barmar, on 2013-January-17, 14:44, said:

From the Definitions:

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.

This is an old thread so I doubt that anyone is still following it but I have a suggestion directly realated to this thread so here goes:

Why not give A+ to the persons who were there and ready to play . . and give those who had to leave but were not at fault a NP? If the absent pair were deemed to be at fault: maybe they got mad and left, or played slowly throughout, or whatever: then give the opponents avg + and the pair deemed at fault avg - ( I wouldn't argue with A++ and A-- in this case since I think it would discourage people from bad behavior.)

[blackshoe]

If they were at fault because they got mad and left, then I would agree with Average minus. If they were at fault because one of them fell ill, well, I don't see that as "directly at fault", so I would say it's at worst "partly at fault" (the quoted words are the words of law 12C2{a}) so I'd give them average. I do not think they were "in no way at fault", so I can't see giving them average plus.

I don't know what A++ and A-- means.

[gordontd]

I can't help feeling it would be better if the laws said "responsible" rather than "at fault".

[blackshoe]

Good point, Gordon. I wonder if the Drafting Committee considered that.

[pran]

gordontd, on 2018-April-06, 00:00, said:

I can't help feeling it would be better if the laws said "responsible" rather than "at fault".

Responsible for what, the irregularity I assume?

but can we not agree that this is synonymous to being at fault?
I (for one) cannot see any difference between being at fault and being responsible when the result is an irregularity.

[gordontd]

pran, on 2018-April-06, 04:30, said:

Responsible for what, the irregularity I assume?

but can we not agree that this is synonymous to being at fault?
I (for one) cannot see any difference between being at fault and being responsible when the result is an irregularity.

No, they aren't synonymous. It's possible to have responsibility for something this is not actually your fault. Certainly, players who are ill would find it easier to accept being told they are responsible for the board not being played than that they are at fault for not playing it.

[gordontd]

blackshoe, on 2018-April-06, 02:00, said:

Good point, Gordon. I wonder if the Drafting Committee considered that.

Prompted by my own post, I sent an email to the secretary of the WBFLC straight after I wrote it. In nine years we'll know whether or not it has had an effect!

[barmar]

gordontd, on 2018-April-06, 00:00, said:

I can't help feeling it would be better if the laws said "responsible" rather than "at fault".

This might assuage some poor feelings, but it shouldn't affect how the law is applied.

Unfortunately, the Laws use somewhat negative terms in relationship to irregularities, e.g. "offending player" even though the irregularity might not be considered "offensive". In general, irregularities and infractions are things you're not supposed to do, so it's natural to refer to them negatively.

A player who has become ill might just as well argue that they're not responsible. Definition:

Quote

being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it

The ill person might be the proximate cause, but not the primary cause (which would be the germ they caught, or the person they caught it from, or something else further down the line). At most it's possible they contributed to it by poor hygiene.

If they felt an illness coming on, but came to the game anyway, then you might be able to cast blame. But a few years ago I started vomiting a couple of rounds into the NAP, and had to leave -- I'm pretty sure I had no warning that this was coming.

[LH2650]

bluejak, on 2013-January-03, 20:04, said:

People ask for advice for the correct thing to do here, not what some person who has not read the Law book carefully considers correct.

Does Law 12C2d empower the ACBL (in my case) to allow clubs to award NPs here?

[blackshoe]

Probably, but afaik the ACBL has not done so (and it would have to be a regulation, not just a phone call to the "clubs" people in Horn Lake and a verbal "sure, go ahead".)

[Redbird44]

blackshoe, on 2018-April-06, 19:59, said:

Probably, but afaik the ACBL has not done so (and it would have to be a regulation, not just a phone call to the "clubs" people in Horn Lake and a verbal "sure, go ahead".)

I am relatively new to bridge . . but why not rewrite the rule so that it's application is fair all? I suggest something like this:

If the reason for the absent pair is deemed by the director, to be at no fault to them, then this: Give the pair who couldn’t finish the session a no play. Look at the average for that pair. If it is less than 50% then give the pair still present the difference between the average and 100% ( 100% - 44% = 56% so present pair would get 56% on all 3 boards.) If the average of the departed team is 50% or greater, then assign a no play to the remaining team.

If the reason that the absent pair is deemed to be with fault to them, then find a way to lower their score without affecting all the other players in the same direction. (I am a relatively new player but I think you already are able to do this?) For the pair who is present I would still follow the above formula as they shouldn’t be favored or punished because of the absence of a pair who is not available.


I just wrote to the ACBL with this suggestion. I hope that they take it seriously.

[blackshoe]

AFAIK, in ACBLScore you can't give just one pair at a table "not played". You'd have to give it to both.

[ddrankin]

blackshoe, on 2018-April-23, 18:06, said:

AFAIK, in ACBLScore you can't give just one pair at a table "not played". You'd have to give it to both.

If you enter "S" (for special) in the score field, ACBLScore will then allow a score entry for N/S, and a different score entry for E/W.

[barmar]

ddrankin, on 2018-April-24, 21:23, said:

If you enter "S" (for special) in the score field, ACBLScore will then allow a score entry for N/S, and a different score entry for E/W.

I haven't tried it, but I'm not sure that "NP" can be given as one of the special scores. How can a board be not played by only one of the pairs?