[mink]

Barometer tourney with 16 tables, 30 boards to be played. At our first table, we have only one opponent. Her partner, she says, could not arrive in time as the local train she intended to ride had been cancelled. She had told her to take a taxi, but the taxi driver was not aware that a road had been closed some time ago, so the ride took much longer than expected and she arrived at the end of round 1 with no time to play any of the 2 boards. What score should be awarded according to the Laws? Law 12C2a seems to be relevant:

Quote

When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained [see also 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.

While, if anyone, the delayed player was "responsible" for being late, it appears to me that it was not her "fault". NBO (Germany) regulations suggest that average minus should be awarded for the pair as being not at the table, but the terms "responsibility" or "fault" are not referred to in the regulation, and reasons for the pair being not at the table are not considered by the regulation. What I know from the practice at other tourneys is that there are no penalties for players arriving late due to delayed trains.

[gordontd]

It would be usual to give them Av-. It's the player's responsibility to be there on time, and their fault if they are not.

[barmar]

A few years ago there was a traffic problem on the major highway leading to a tournament location (I think it was our district's North American Pairs qualifier), causing something like a half-hour delay. This affected a number of attendees, and the tournament organizers were aware of it and delayed the start.

But if there's a problem that just impacts one player, they're deemed to be at fault even if the ultimate cause was something outside their direct control. We're not placing blame, just recognizing that it was their absence that prevented play of the board, while the opponents were innocent.