[suprgrover]

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

As to why not NP in this case... most of the world recognizes that this is illegal. The board was scheduled to be played; it was not played. Law 12 requires that the TD award an artificial adjusted score. NP is not contemplated by that law. However, Mr. Wells also opined that

Quote

While a case could be made for assigning averages to both pairs in this instance, the No Play listing is certainly an acceptable alternative, neither blaming nor rewarding a pair who were not responsible for the failure to play a board. While not my preferred score to assign, it is a valid alternative in the minds of the ACBL board of Directors, otherwise it would not be an option within the program.

While the instance he and I were discussing was not this one, the same principle would apply. I do not agree with Mr. Wells, and I'm not certain the ACBL BoD does either, but that's another can of worms.

It gets worse. Here is a highlight from the Orlando Board of Directors meeting regarding slow play in NABC+ knockout events.

Quote

Players are expected to be aware, in a general sense, of time used and remaining in a segment in which they are playing regardless of whether a clock is in use or a time announcement has been made. An excuse of “no announcement” or “no clock immediately visible” will not be considered persuasive.
The TD may remove one or more boards from a segment. According to Laws 12 and 86 the TD may award either no score (when neither team is more at fault than the other), an assigned score (when a result already exists at one table which the TD wishes to preserve), or, an artificial score in IMPs. Every effort should be made to remove boards before they can be played at either table but not having done so does not preclude removing one or more later.

How Law 12 allows a TD to award "no score" seems impossible to me, and Law 86 seems to require some sort of score when the other table has obtained a result, but what do I know?

[blackshoe]

What I know is that the ACBL does whatever it damn well pleases, and to Hell with the laws.

[pran]

I am really astonished by the different attitudes that has been demonstrated in this thread.

Let me quote from the Norwegian regulation on late show up:

Quote

The TD decides whether the prescribed penalties for late show up are reduced or completely waived in case of force majeure. Incidents of force majeure must be reported to the TD as soon as possible . . . . .

As force majeure is accepted sudden illness, accidents as well as failure or accidents with otherwise reliable means of transportation. A condition is that the contestant would normally have arrived in ample time before the scheduled start of the event.

So in Norway the TD will try in each case whether a late contestant has allowed reasonable time for contingencies when force majeure is claimed.

I have full respect for an administration stating that the scheduled start times are binding on all contestants with no leeway (but I shall never appreciate it). Such administration should then enforce this rule even on a team that arrives late even if the reason is the loss of one of their members in an accident on their way to the event! (Yes, I am exaggerating - but either you allow force majeure or you do not).