[Siegmund]

It comes down to whether you think failing to play fast enough to finish a board is an "irregularity." The laws don't explicitly say it is. But 8B2 speaks of "canceling a board" as something different from the "proper movement...and progression" set in 8A1.

If you do believe it's an irregularity when the players cause the movement to not be completed, then you go straight to 12C2 which tells you what adjusted score to award, and NP isn't in the list. It may well be 50/50 if you can't tell who is at fault... but my experience is that you almost invariably can.

I have used NP when a contestant withdrew for a medical emergency, and have seen it used when the whole last round of the game was cancelled for everyone because of time constraints. I have never used it in place of a late play and never will.

[RMB1]

aguahombre, on 2013-April-30, 22:40, said:

Do you see anything in the laws that prohibits it? If fault cannot be determined, do you object to the pairs getting the almost exact equivalent to the percent of their game for that board? ...

The pairs might object if they knew that Law 12C2 gives them (at least) 60% if they are not at fault.

[aguahombre]

RMB1, on 2013-May-01, 09:11, said:

The pairs might object if they knew that Law 12C2 gives them (at least) 60% if they are not at fault.

I am not convinced that applies. Depends on the interpretation of "owing to an irregularity". I would not have thought running out of time when neither pair is to blame, or a player getting sick was included in 12C2.

[gordontd]

aguahombre, on 2013-April-30, 22:40, said:

Which of the two words "not" and "played" do you feel is inaccurate?

And where in the laws do you find those two words used as a method of awarding a score on a board?

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2013-April-30, 22:40, said:

Do you see anything in the laws that prohibits it? If fault cannot be determined, do you object to the pairs getting the almost exact equivalent to the percent of their game for that board? Which of the two words "not" and "played" do you feel is inaccurate? Flader is saying what he would do. That is not a law interpretation; it is a concession that the issue is not covered by a law.

If he believes that, then he should have said so.

A board is scheduled to be played. Implicit in that is that it is scheduled to be scored. I will grant there is at least one case where "not played" is a viable approach. That one case is where the movement is amended to, for example, eliminate the last round, or part of it, perhaps due to lack of time. But then everybody loses the opportunity to play the same number of boards. A "slow play" case is different. Two pairs lose the opportunity to play (usually) one board. The schedule of boards to be played is not amended; they're simply told that in order to keep the movement going, they have to move, and therefore cannot play the board at this time. The director can require that the board be played at the end of the session. Many people don't like that - there is the "I have to go or I'll miss the last train" argument. Perhaps the venue does not remain available for some reason. I understand the objections, but it doesn't change the basic principle. Law 12C2a starts "When owing to an irregularity no score can be obtained…" Slow play is such an irregularity. The law continues "… the Director awards an artificial adjusted score according to responsibility for the irregularity…" Nothing in there at all about "not played". A pair not responsible for slow play is entitled to 60% of a top on this board. More if they're having a better game. It is neither fair nor legal to deprive them of this. A pair which is responsible for slow play may also get a windfall, if they're having a better than 40% game. Is that fair? It's certainly not legal.

I'm guessing, but I think "not played" was put into ACBLScore because amending a movement on the fly (to delete the last round, for example) is a PITA, and a little scary for many club TDs (you get a message that you may lose all the scores that are already entered). I don't know where the idea to use it for slow play cases originated, but I say again that Law 12C2a tells us how to score a board not played because of slow play, and "not played" is not the way.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2013-May-01, 09:36, said:

I am not convinced that applies. Depends on the interpretation of "owing to an irregularity". I would not have thought running out of time when neither pair is to blame, or a player getting sick was included in 12C2.

If a pair runs out of time somebody is to blame. It may be one or both of the pairs at the table, or it may be the slow pair that EW is following. In the latter case, the law would award 60% to both pairs at the table. In the former case, if one pair is to blame, they get Avg- and their opponents get Avg+. If they're both to blame, they both get Avg. Frankly the only real objection I see to following this law in slow play cases is the director's lament "it's too hard!" Pfui. Shut up and do your job.

If somebody gets sick, that's a different thing altogether. But the TD has bigger problems. If the pair leaves, do you score "not played" on all the boards they didn't play? What if they leave in the middle of the first round? I suppose if your goal is an afternoon of social bridge in a quasi-duplicate format, it doesn't matter. If your goal is a duplicate tournament (a contest to see who's the best contestant), it does.

I agree 100% with Siegmund's last paragraph. I would add that "unduly slow play" is specifically mentioned as something that might draw a procedural penalty (Law 90B2). To me, that makes it an irregularity. Note that "slow play" per se is not mentioned, but if it's not a problem, then it's not "unduly slow," is it? Or put the other way, if it's a problem (such that you're going to "take away" a board, then it's unduly slow.

It is Law 82B2 that gives the director the power to "require, postpone, or cancel the play of a board", but only "to rectify an error in procedure". So either unduly slow play is an error in procedure (an irregularity) or the director has no power to do anything about it.