[BunnyGo]

blackshoe, on 2011-February-14, 13:34, said:

I got beat up severely by one of the TDs on staff at HQ (Keith Wells) when I suggested that NP gives players "the percent of the rest of their game".

I'm sorry, I'm probably just too distracted or hyped-up on caffeine to understand the difference, but what is the difference between:

A} Calculating the percentage based on the 23 boards (say) played, and
B} Calculating the percentage based on the 23 boards played, adding the same percentage for the 24th board and calculating the percentage over 24 boards (as I think you're suggesting).

I'm a few years out of grammar school, but I still remember that these produce the same result. What am I not understanding?

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2011-February-14, 13:34, said:

I got beat up severely by one of the TDs on staff at HQ (Keith Wells) when I suggested that NP gives players "the percent of the rest of their game". He said....

"When a director assigns a No Play, that board is completely thrown out for computation of that pairs score. ACBLscore (and the ACBL) awards masterpoints based upon percentage game, not total score achieved.It will factor results so the displayed total scores are all based upon the same average, but that is not what determines who "wins" an event. For the pair involved with a No Play, their total matchpoint score achieved on the boards that they actually played is compared to the total matchpoint score possible for that number of boards to determine their percentage game. That percentage is what is compared to the percentage of every other pair in the event."

Sounds like you two were making a distinction without a difference. L12 certainly appears to say NP's are just plain illegal. But NP would be an effective way not to have to calculate when the L12 caveat about avg+ for a pair with a 61+ game or avg- for a pair with 39- needs to be used.

[blackshoe]

It's not that simple, Aqua. Yes, maybe there are cases where the legal ruling and the NP ruling give the same final result. That doesn't make the NP ruling legal.

[bluejak]

We know that giving NP is illegal for a board scheduled for play because the Law book says so. Why not just not give an illegal score and not worry about the effect if we had?

As to the original case there is always a problem with ignoring the rules when something happens but there is also a problem with following the rules when you are sure something was not avoidable. I probably give Ave- but skip the VP penalty.

The playing TD case is not comparable because it is different when people are suggesting the TD gives himself a better score than the Law book says.

[pran]

bluejak, on 2011-February-14, 18:17, said:

As to the original case there is always a problem with ignoring the rules when something happens but there is also a problem with following the rules when you are sure something was not avoidable. I probably give Ave- but skip the VP penalty.

If you skip the VP penalty I assume this is because you consider the contestant not at fault but rather a victim of events completely outside that contestant's control ("force majeure"). Why then give Ave-?

Fortunately our Norwegian regulations include rules that allow the Director to waive penalties in cases of force majeure. But even without such express rules I would be very lenient to "victims of force majeure". However, as far as the artificial adjusted score is concerned Law 12C2a dictates that Ave- shall (only) be awarded to a contestant directly at fault.

[mjj29]

I'm not 100% sure about the OP case, but in the case of the nurse assisting while waiting for an ambulance I would not for a moment think of awarding anything other than av+/av+ on those boards.

[bluejak]

pran, on 2011-February-15, 03:35, said:

If you skip the VP penalty I assume this is because you consider the contestant not at fault but rather a victim of events completely outside that contestant's control ("force majeure"). Why then give Ave-?

No, I just generally follow the Laws. They require Average Minus in certain circumstances, but PPs are discretionary.

mjj29, on 2011-February-15, 03:39, said:

I'm not 100% sure about the OP case, but in the case of the nurse assisting while waiting for an ambulance I would not for a moment think of awarding anything other than av+/av+ on those boards.

As would we all, I trust.

[pran]

pran, on 2011-February-15, 03:35, said:

If you skip the VP penalty I assume this is because you consider the contestant not at fault but rather a victim of events completely outside that contestant's control ("force majeure"). Why then give Ave-?

Fortunately our Norwegian regulations include rules that allow the Director to waive penalties in cases of force majeure. But even without such express rules I would be very lenient to "victims of force majeure". However, as far as the artificial adjusted score is concerned Law 12C2a dictates that Ave- shall (only) be awarded to a contestant directly at fault.

bluejak, on 2011-February-15, 07:53, said:

No, I just generally follow the Laws. They require Average Minus in certain circumstances, but PPs are discretionary.

I don't understand?
The Laws require Average Minus in certain circumstances to a contestant directly at fault.
When you deal with contestants directly at fault do you then apply or waive prescribed PPs just at your own discretion?

[blackshoe]

What does "prescribed PPs" mean?

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2011-February-15, 08:36, said:

What does "prescribed PPs" mean?

Sample from our regulations:
Delay - Penalty
0-4 min - Warning
5-9 min - 1 VP
10-14 min - 2 VP
15-19 min - 3 VP
20-24 min - 4 VP
25-29 min - 5 VP

Don't you have such regulations?

[blackshoe]

For tournaments run by the ACBL (including Districts and Units) yes, we do. Where such regulations are in force, I would apply them. But that doesn't change the fact that absent such specific guidance, Law 90 leaves to the discretion of the TD when and how to apply a PP.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2011-February-15, 08:59, said:

For tournaments run by the ACBL (including Districts and Units) yes, we do. Where such regulations are in force, I would apply them. But that doesn't change the fact that absent such specific guidance, Law 90 leaves to the discretion of the TD when and how to apply a PP.

And our regulations specifically allow the Director to waive penalties (wholly or in part) in case of force majeure. Do yours?

[FrancesHinden]

pran, on 2011-February-13, 16:51, said:

All flights from one particular area in Norway was grounded and all the teams from that area were affected. Teams from other areas were not.

Why should the number of affected teams matter?

The number of affected teams matters. If some teams got there on time as required, and others were late, and the teams that got there are going to be inconvenienced through no fault of their own. I don't know enough about the event, but if you don't simply apply the regulations as written then a completely innocent team is going to have to play later, or faster, or not play all the boards they are entitled to, or something else without the recompense they are due.

If absolutely everyone is delayed then everyone has been affected equally and you can do whatever you like.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2011-February-15, 15:33, said:

And our regulations specifically allow the Director to waive penalties (wholly or in part) in case of force majeure. Do yours?

I don't believe so. What's your point? That Norway's regulations are better than the ACBL's? I'd be inclined to so stipulate even without knowing either RA's regs in detail.

[pran]

pran, on 2011-February-15, 15:33, said:

And our regulations specifically allow the Director to waive penalties (wholly or in part) in case of force majeure. Do yours?

blackshoe, on 2011-February-15, 17:15, said:

I don't believe so. What's your point? That Norway's regulations are better than the ACBL's? I'd be inclined to so stipulate even without knowing either RA's regs in detail.

My point is that the team failing to show up in time because of force majeure cannot be blamed for not showing up in time. Therefore they should (as far as possible) be treated the same way as any other contestant in no way at fault for an irregularity. If this results in Ave+ being awarded to both contestants in a match then so be it. Neither side is in any way at fault.

Say that you have a multisession (series) competition over multiple weekends and one team arrives one hour late at one session because of a two hour train delay. Do you blame them for not planning to arrive at the event two hours instead of one hour before the scheduled start of the session? Do you find it fair to apply the prescribed penalty for being one hour late?

Generally we never penalize contestants for irregularities they (indirectly) cause because of events completely out of their control ("force majeure").

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2011-February-15, 17:40, said:

Generally we never penalize contestants for irregularities they (indirectly) cause because of events completely out of their control ("force majeure").

Maybe the problem is that you use words like "penalise" and "prescribed PPs". What we are talking about is score adjustments.

There are so many things that can happen to delay a team. What if the team had not had an accident but had got lost trying to find the venue? What if the babysitter for one of the contestants had had a car crash and other arrangements had to be made at the last minute? What if a member of the team witnessed a car crash and had to wait around to give a statement to the police? What if a team member was waiting for an important delivery,and the delivery van was involved in a car crash? Who has the job of deciding which delays result in a score adjustment and which do not? Does anybody try to get to an event late?

There are rules and regulations, and they should be applied equally to all. A contestant who arrives late, for whatever reason, should be subject to a score adjustment. This is fair, and it is seen to be fair, and I think that most players would accept it with good grace.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2011-February-16, 12:32, said:

Maybe the problem is that you use words like "penalise" and "prescribed PPs". What we are talking about is score adjustments.

There are so many things that can happen to delay a team. What if the team had not had an accident but had got lost trying to find the venue? What if the babysitter for one of the contestants had had a car crash and other arrangements had to be made at the last minute? What if a member of the team witnessed a car crash and had to wait around to give a statement to the police? What if a team member was waiting for an important delivery,and the delivery van was involved in a car crash? Who has the job of deciding which delays result in a score adjustment and which do not? Does anybody try to get to an event late?

There are rules and regulations, and they should be applied equally to all. A contestant who arrives late, for whatever reason, should be subject to a score adjustment. This is fair, and it is seen to be fair, and I think that most players would accept it with good grace.

Please go back and read about the nurse participating in one of my recent tournaments who assisted at a possible heart attack instead of playing a couple of rounds. I can only understand what you write that she should be taking the full impact of a contestant who fails to show up because of her own fault and receive Ave- together with whatever PP is appropriate (instead of the Ave+ I awarded both to her and to her opponents in the affected rounds). Sorry, I have nothing to say except that I disgust such attitude.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2011-February-16, 14:04, said:

Please go back and read about the nurse participating in one of my recent tournaments who assisted at a possible heart attack instead of playing a couple of rounds.

I will not insult you by explaining the many ways in which this situation is different. Please stop using it as a substitute for discussing tardiness, which is what my post was about.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2011-February-16, 14:42, said:

I will not insult you by explaining the many ways in which this situation is different. Please stop using it as a substitute for discussing tardiness, which is what my post was about.

There is one single reason (not "many ways") why this situation is different: It is a case which can be (and should be) ruled "force majeure".

I assume you understand the meaning of this term so please do me the favour and recognise that I have all the time stressed "force majeure" (and nothing else) as the reason for waiving procedure penalties and in case for treating contestants as "in no way at fault" when awarding artificial adjusted scores. (This does of course not affect any artificial adjusted scores awarded to their opponents.)

Tardiness can also very well be due to force majeure. This is something the Director must have in mind and judge individually in each case.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2011-February-16, 15:01, said:

There is one single reason (not "many ways") why this situation is different: It is a case which can be (and should be) ruled "force majeure".

OK, then...

1. The nurse was at the premises on time and ready to play.
2. She was carrying out her ministrations under the instructions (or at least with the blessing) of the tournament directors.
3. The nurse situation is not what this thread is about.
4. Please stop using it as a distraction.

Quote

I assume you understand the meaning of this term so please do me the favour and recognise that I have all the time stressed "force majeure" (and nothing else) as the reason for waiving procedure penalties and in case for treating contestants as "in no way at fault" when awarding artificial adjusted scores. (This does of course not affect any artificial adjusted scores awarded to their opponents.)

OK, well I gave you specific examples, and can give any number of further ones. Which ones "count" and which don't?

Quote

Tardiness can also very well be due to force majeure. This is something the Director must have in mind and judge individually in each case.

So if your nurse had been delayed at work because she had to care for a heart attack victim there, she would have been permitted to arrive late without her scores being affected?

Applying the regulations is easy and correct. It avoids ambiguity and subjectivity and the resentment they may cause.

But your suggestion in an earlier post that a team delayed through "force majeure" receive A+ for the boards they couldn't play is wonderful and should at least receive style points.