[jillybean]

Hi,

I was discussing the pro’s and con’s of adjusting unfinished boards in clocked tournament with another forum member. We have opposing views so I thought I’d continue the debate here …

One view is that it is a clocked tourney, play to time no adjustments should be made, and the other is if there is an “obvious line” making adjustments is the better way to run an online tourney.

Your thoughts please.

jb

[jw_nl]

My tourneys are almost always 16 tables, clocked, 7-8 minutes per board, "unfinished boards will be adjusted" in the description, my Tournament Rules and during tournament. TD is not playing.
I like to finish my tournaments on scheduled time. Time will be added to the last round if necessary. Most players will know in advance that avoiding a bottomscore by slowplaying isn't possible. The number of adjustments is about 1 per 2 rounds. I never get complaints about this way of directing.
Still I hear sometimes: "A- for board x isn't fair. Opps were slowplaying". Or : "Opps didn't accept my valid claim". (In spite of all my announcements, but some people will never read )
I know that some TD's don't like to change A-- in case of unfinished tables. "That will learn them to play on time". Even if 3 players aren't guilty at all and assuming a player is really "guilty" if he is disconnected for a while. A- for "slowplaying" may be even an unjust reward instead of the bottomscore they deserve. And how about the A- in case of a rejected valid claim ?

[chicken]

the problem is, that very often u will find reasons and excuses which are not as obvious as a valid claim. therefore i prefer to do unclocked tourneys and adjust the boards which are not finished until last but one round. (e.g.: adjust after board 6/8 when playing 8/10 board tourney) this makes it about 3 adjustments in the whole tourney playing with 20 tables because usually the players catch up with the easy boards.

[jillybean]

chicken, on Dec 24 2005, 03:11 PM, said:

the problem is, that very often u will find reasons and excuses which are not as obvious as a valid claim. therefore i prefer to do unclocked tourneys and adjust the boards which are not finished until last but one round. (e.g.: adjust after board 6/8 when playing 8/10 board tourney) this makes it about 3 adjustments in the whole tourney playing with 20 tables because usually the players catch up with the easy boards.

Sorry, I dont understand this. Surely there are no unfinished boards in an unclocked tournament, completely different thing to a clocked tournament.

jb

[jikl]

I always adjust unfinished boards if it is obvious, I warn the players I will be doing this, but then also warn repeated slow play by a player or pair will result in blacklisting. I like to have my games running smoothly, if it means I have to be nasty sometimes then so be it.

Sean

[hotShot]

jillybean2, on Dec 24 2005, 03:56 PM, said:

Hi,

I was discussing the pro’s and con’s of adjusting unfinished boards in clocked tournament with another forum member. We have opposing views so I thought I’d continue the debate here …

One view is that it is a clocked tourney, play to time no adjustments should be made, and the other is if there is an “obvious line” making adjustments is the better way to run an online tourney.

Your thoughts please.

jb

The most important reasons for adjusting boards in a clocked tourney are:

- Players will never try to finish a board that will get them less than 40% or -3IMPs (AVE-), because that is what they get, if they don't finish.

- Each artificial score (AVE...) is lost as a reference result for the other tables. AT MP's this results in a board that has a different top than the others. To correct this, some scaling is used resulting in fractions of MP's. You will have seen results with 0.1% or less difference they usually result from this scaling. Players that should have reached an identical MP result, will end up with different results. Playing IMPs in the MBC you can see how an extra score is changing the IMP result, it is the same at tourneys. Of cause this effect gets smaller the more tables are involved.

The only reason not to adjust the score is:

Players that take more time to think might get a better score for the finished boards, than those trying to keep the time limit.
After a few boards, you will know the notorious slow players. It would be nice to give them some procedural penalty, but you can decide to use Ave =- (= for their opps) for the rest of the tourney.

[chicken]

[quote name='jillybean2' date='Dec 25 2005, 01:14 PM'] [/QUOTE]
Sorry, I dont understand this. Surely there are no unfinished boards in an unclocked tournament, completely different thing to a clocked tournament.

jb [/quote]
i tell the players and put it in tourney descr. that they have all the time they need (unclocked tourney), but i will adjust all boards which are not finished after 36 minutes (when playing assumed 6min/board in a 8 board tourney.
so the tourney runs smooth, because everybody can play in his/her tempo. the very slow players will get an AVE= on usually one board( no 6) but very often everybody catches up. normally i have one adjustment when playing a 20 table tourney this way.

[jillybean]

hotShot, on Dec 26 2005, 01:26 AM, said:

The only reason not to adjust the score is:

Players that take more time to think might get a better score for the finished boards, than those trying to keep the time limit.
After a few boards, you will know the notorious slow players. It would be nice to give them some procedural penalty, but you can decide to use Ave =- (= for their opps) for the rest of the tourney.

If it is clear who is the offending, slow pair, the correct way to adjust the board is A- offenders, A+ non offenders. It is my opinion that this should only be used if there is not a clear line and an actual result cannott be given.


LAW 12 - DIRECTOR’S DISCRETIONARY POWERS
C. Awarding an Adjusted Score

1. Artificial Score
When, owing to an irregularity, no result can be obtained, 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 partially at fault; average plus (at least 60% in pairs ) to
a contestant in no way at fault (see Law 86 for team play or Law 88 for
pairs play). The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance.

[hotShot]

jillybean2, on Dec 26 2005, 05:56 PM, said:

hotShot, on Dec 26 2005, 01:26 AM, said:

The only reason not to adjust the score is:

Players that take more time to think might get a better score for the finished boards, than those trying to keep the time limit.
After a few boards, you will know the notorious slow players. It would be nice to give them some procedural penalty, but you can decide to use Ave =- (= for their opps) for the rest of the tourney.

If it is clear who is the offending, slow pair, the correct way to adjust the board is A- offenders, A+ non offenders. It is my opinion that this should only be used if there is not a clear line and an actual result cannott be given.


LAW 12 - DIRECTOR’S DISCRETIONARY POWERS
C. Awarding an Adjusted Score

1. Artificial Score
When, owing to an irregularity, no result can be obtained, 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 partially at fault; average plus (at least 60% in pairs ) to
a contestant in no way at fault (see Law 86 for team play or Law 88 for
pairs play). The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance.

Law 12C is for cases where a board cannot be played. Cases like:


- one pair has seen this board already (table played the wrong boards before)
- the cards where put into the box face up and everyone could see them,
- a bid was made out of turnout of turn or a was insufficient

Following the LAWS you should always adjust if is possible at all. You should even adjust if there is no clear line of play. (Notice: in f2f bridge it is the TD's job to keep the tourney going, long discussions what play might be most likely should be done with the appeals commitee they have the time to do it. And they may avard split scores.)

Ave= does not influence the score, it is as if the board was not playedat all.

So if you give Ave=- you can give a penalty to one pair without revarding the other.
I use that if i can't be sure if there is a "non offending" side.

[jillybean]

How do you give an actual result if there is no clear line?

ty
jb

[hotShot]

jillybean2, on Dec 26 2005, 09:21 PM, said:

How do you give an actual result if there is no clear line?

ty
jb

Well if there is no clear line, you will have to estimate the line most likely taken. Taking the players strength into account.

At least this is what i have been told to do.

I find that hard, especially with players stronger than me, because they may see a line where i don't. And i don't like to exclude a player from a line i see, because he might be not strong enough to see it.

"Illegal", but common at club level, is to look at the results at the other tables ......

[jikl]

One thing I also do if it is obvious which is the time offending side is give the opps whatever is better between Av+/Av- or what I think which score they would have gotten. Yes, I do take into account player strengths, and sometimes I look at other examples of the declarer play from previous hands. (Especially since it is nearly always the declaring side that has computer problems)

Sean

[LH2650]

jillybean2, on Dec 24 2005, 08:56 AM, said:

I was discussing the pro’s and con’s of adjusting unfinished boards in clocked tournament with another forum member.

It is illegal to impose a result on an unfinished board. Laws 12C2 and 12C3 require a table result, which you don't have. You must use Law 12C1 (A, A+, A-) and procedural penalties.

Since the management has apparently not implemented software that allows procedural penalties, you can't use them. I believe that an ACBL Club Manager has the right to decide that no procedural penalties will be applied in his club, so the ACBL games are legal. You should do the same.

[jikl]

The ACBL is not the god of the bridge world. Do not presume to enforce us to use their rules. I could really go on a rant of all the ACBL evils right now, but calm is needed.

The official laws of bridge can not cover online bridge, as they were not written with this form of the game in mind. What we are trying to achieve here is the most EQUITABLE result possible given the known facts.

If a player knows he is going to get -20 IMPs on the last board of a face to face match, what happens if they sit there for 1 hour to make time run out?

You know tha answer...

The director has now been called 15 times, everyone knows who is tanking and they know the reason. Technical result, play is finished and they are awarded a procedural penalty for time. If another round is about to start, it will not be AV+/Av-, and you know that. They may award that at the table but they will be handing you an appeal form at the same time. We do not have an appeal committee, we are director and appeals, therefore we make the decision once.

Quoting ACBL policies has absoloutely no meaning here.

Sean

[pigpenz]

jikl, on Dec 30 2005, 11:53 PM, said:

The ACBL is not the god of the bridge world. Do not presume to enforce us to use their rules. I could really go on a rant of all the ACBL evils right now, but calm is needed.

The official laws of bridge can not cover online bridge, as they were not written with this form of the game in mind. What we are trying to achieve here is the most EQUITABLE result possible given the known facts.

If a player knows he is going to get -20 IMPs on the last board of a face to face match, what happens if they sit there for 1 hour to make time run out?

You know tha answer...

The director has now been called 15 times, everyone knows who is tanking and they know the reason. Technical result, play is finished and they are awarded a procedural penalty for time. If another round is about to start, it will not be AV+/Av-, and you know that. They may award that at the table but they will be handing you an appeal form at the same time. We do not have an appeal committee, we are director and appeals, therefore we make the decision once.

Quoting ACBL policies has absoloutely no meaning here.

Sean

But they are in their games here on BBO!!!
Some of the TDs go out of their way to run good games and others well we wont say. They are getting paid in somecases for running really large games that they can barely handle by themselves(100 pairs). Then they run into the time constraint of trying to get the scoring done so they can run the next game so lots of times especially with the last board of the contest int these larg games there might be up to 3-10 unfinished plays. Now i dont know if the TD function on BBO has a timing event that doesnt allow them to adjust score after a certain amount of time, but i have seen where you have to spend sometimes 10 minutes or so to find if the result has been adjusted. And then you arent really sure because in my hands it just shows up as an avg+/- hand

[LH2650]

jikl, on Dec 30 2005, 11:53 PM, said:

The ACBL is not the god of the bridge world. Do not presume to enforce us to use their rules. I could really go on a rant of all the ACBL evils right now, but calm is needed.

This has nothing to do with the ACBL. The WBF Code of Laws for Electronic Bridge are identical to the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge in this area.

Your complaint is with BBO, which does not allow the Director the latitude he is given by the Laws. My suggestion was that those running BBO tournaments live within the Laws and the constraints of BBO, rather than taking illegal actions in the name of equity.

[Echognome]

Bridge is a timed mental sport. I repeat. Bridge is a timed mental sport.

I don't understand making an adjustment on a board, UNLESS one of the following occurs:

- Someone at the table has been extremely slow AND the opponents call me to the table to complain about said slow play.

- A table gets delayed because of lack of subs or too many subs in a round. (although I prefer to add time to the round in that case)

- I am called to the table BEFORE the round is over because someone at the table is not accepting a valid claim.

I certainly wouldn't adjust a board without a director call before the round is over. The round clock is quite prominent on the screen. Imagine trying to run a fast pairs tourney and having everyone want adjustments from you because they didn't finish on time! It would be a farce of the added time pressure.

I understand there is some leeway in f2f bridge, but then just make sure your rounds are long enough for what you want in your tourney. I'd much rather have a table result than have to adjudicate how many tricks I expect declarer to take. Yes, average plus, minus, etc aren't any better, except players need to learn that slow play is detrimental to everyone's enjoyment.

[Echognome]

As a side issue. Suppose you feel that unfinished boards should potentially be adjusted. Do you believe they should be adjusted even if you are not asked to adjust?

[MickyB]

I always adjust when there is an obvious line of play. I'm not quite sure how the laws work here, but I don't believe it is correct to leave A-- because the TD hasn't been called; A-- can only be awarded if the TD intervenes when playing F2F!

Aside from any laws - they are there to play bridge, not to be given 40% because they are their opponents are too slow. If someone is slow, I hope that either I will notice or someone will tell me; But without any evidence has to who it is causing the delay, it seems wrong to leave A-- in when that may even be of benefit to the slow player(s).

[Echognome]

To me, the A-- is the software's suggestion of a punishment for slow play. The software designers certainly intended that this be the score whenever two pairs do not finish a board. Why should we be adjusting from that?

I will also quote a couple of laws to discuss:

Quote

The Laws are designed to define correct procedure, and to provide an adequate remedy when there is a departure from correct procedure. An offending player should be ready to pay any penalty graciously, or to accept any adjusted score awarded by the Tournament Director.

Quote

Adjusted Score — An arbitrary score awarded by the Director (see Law 12). It is either “artificial” or “assigned”. 1. An artificial adjusted score is one awarded in lieu of a result because no result can be obtained or estimated for a particular deal (e.g., when an irregularity prevents play of a deal). 2. An assigned adjusted score is awarded to one side, or to both sides, to be the result of the deal in place of the result actually obtained after an irregularity.

Quote

C. Awarding an Adjusted Score
1. Artificial Score
When, owing to an irregularity, no result can be obtained, 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 partially at fault; average plus (at least 60% in pairs ) to a contestant in no way at fault (see Law 86 for team play or Law 88 for pairs play). The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance.
2. Assigned Score
When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a result actually obtained after an irregularity, the score is, for a nonoffending side, the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred or, for an offending side, the most unfavourable result that was at all probable. The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance and may be assigned either in matchpoints or by altering the total-point score prior to matchpointing

So my interpretation is that we are assigning an Artificial score of average minus because both pairs are at fault for the slow play (and hence inability to attain a result). If you are going to give an Assigned score, you should do so on the basis of having an offending (slow) pair and non-offending pair. Then, in such a case, you will be giving the benefit of the doubt to the non-offending pair.