[jillybean]

I head to the local, accredited, sanctioned, costly, ACBL Bridge Club for the second time in 2 weeks for the 10am game.
Due to the inclement weather, there are only 5 tables. We play a Howell movement.
By 12:30pm the snow is coming down, one pair decide they won't be able to get home if they defer their departure, and leave mid game with 3 rounds to go.

I'm obviously not delighted to miss 3 boards but what can I do.

I check the results later, all of the boards affected have been scored as Not Played.

[sanst]

If I was living in Vanvouver - or elswhere in Canada - this would probably be the least of my worries. Anyway, what else can you do than NP? It's an obvious case of force majeur.

[jillybean]

sanst, on 2025-February-04, 02:54, said:

If I was living in Vanvouver - or elswhere in Canada - this would probably be the least of my worries. Anyway, what else can you do than NP? It's an obvious case of force majeur.

If we follow the Laws in regards to boards in play, there is no provision for NP.

[Gerardo]

Opponents not at fault, A+
How much at fault are the ones who left?

[sanst]

 jillybean, on 2025-February-04, 04:47, said:

If we follow the Laws in regards to boards in play, there is no provision for NP.

There is more the Laws don't provide for. Not just a pair leaving because of bad weather or illness, which are not uncommon, or a forced end to a game. Sometimes you just can't play on. We've had a player dying of a heart attack and another one with a stroke, also an evacuation of the venue because of a nearby fire. What would you do? The program we use needs to be closed which can't be properly done without scores or NP's.
Especially in the case where a pair is forced to leave, NP, legal or not, is the pragmatic solution. Or would you award an artificial score, whether Avg+/Avg- or Avg=, to the pairs concerned? That is rather unreasonable in my opinion.

[jillybean]

sanst, on 2025-February-04, 12:46, said:

There is more the Laws don't provide for. Not just a pair leaving because of bad weather or illness, which are not uncommon, or a forced end to a game. Sometimes you just can't play on. We've had a player dying of a heart attack and another one with a stroke, also an evacuation of the venue because of a nearby fire. What would you do? The program we use needs to be closed which can't be properly done without scores or NP's.
Especially in the case where a pair is forced to leave, NP, legal or not, is the pragmatic solution. Or would you award an artificial score, whether Avg+/Avg- or Avg=, to the pairs concerned? That is rather unreasonable in my opinion.

Let's keep calm. If there is an earthquake/fire/evacuation of the building, the game ends abruptly.
We can tend to medical or other personal crisis in a prompt, caring, compassionate manner but I see no reason to foul the game for the remaining players.

[sanst]

Say 12 times Avg=/Avg= or Avg+/Avg- or Avg=/Avg+ is not fouling the game?

[jillybean]

For some reason you think that making up your own rules is better?

[pescetom]

For the second time running I agree with sanst
It's simple common sense that NP is fairer.

You are also wrong (if I remember law 12 correctly) when you say that the laws forbid it.
ACBL may forbid it but if so that is their choice, not something imposed by the laws.

[mycroft]

Depends on when they "had to leave".

Arguably the best thing to do is to remove all their scores from the game and NP all their plays, as if it were a phantom that "luckily" the first few rounds they could play for fun. IIRC that's the requirement in the EBU if for a reason beyond the players' control they have to leave before halfway. I consider "in the director's opinion" absolute here - if they allow it, it's "not in the player's control".

If it's the last round, sure, give A+/A- (or A+/0 if it's a "have to leave, don't care if it screws up your game, bye." Added suspensions afterward is up to club management.)

Where to draw the line in the middle is up to the director.

I would normally have a typical Canadian's attitude to "you and you alone think it's too snowy to stay?", but this *is* Vancouver we're talking about. They're almost as unused to actual snow as Pensacola.

(comments about my own opinion (or skill) of winter driving after the last 6 years will be very appropriate, and gleefully ignored.)

[pescetom]

 Gerardo, on 2025-February-04, 08:30, said:

How much at fault are the ones who left?

Seriously at fault IMO, just how unusual is some snow at midday in winter in Vancouver?
Unless there is more to it than "I don't want to drive in snow / miss my lunch" I would tell them to play it out or else.

[mycroft]

Vancouver is weird. Being coastal, its weather is more like Northern England/Southern Scotland than "Canada" or Northern and North-East U.S. Getting more than a dusting of snow that stays for a day or so (turning into ice sometimes, sure, before getting rained out) is a once-a-winter experience.

I'm more on the "really?" side of things here, but like all judgement rulings, I will defer to the director on site. If they thought the weather was bad enough that "yeah, sure, go home, I'll deal with it" - especially if, for instance, it was a special event and the pair came in from up the Coquihalla(*) - an hour to get out of Van, and two hours to get to the pass... Frankly, even if they came in from Hope or Chilliwack, I'd be "yeah, sure, go. Drive safe."


(*) spelt it right first time. Checked, though :-).

[sanst]

 jillybean, on 2025-February-05, 06:18, said:

For some reason you think that making up your own rules is better?

If necessary in the cases the Laws don't provide for. But they do more or less in Law12C2d, which is probably the basis for the EBU regulation. So, why can't an organiser use her or his own pragmatic solution, which is probably far more acceptable for the players in a club game than a whole load of artifical adjusted scores. Those will certainly lead to discussions about the scores, like "Why don't we get 60%?" or "Why do they get 50%?".

[pescetom]

sanst, on 2025-February-05, 14:46, said:

If necessary in the cases the Laws don't provide for. But they do more or less in Law12C2d, which is probably the basis for the EBU regulation. So, why can't an organiser use her or his own pragmatic solution, which is probably far more acceptable for the players in a club game than a whole load of artifical adjusted scores. Those will certainly lead to discussions about the scores, like "Why don't we get 60%?" or "Why do they get 50%?".

More in general, Law 12 seriously needs a refresh. The underlying assumption is clearly that Director will be challenged to calculate NP based upon the boards played and find it simpler to assign a percentage of the actual board. That made a lot of sense half a century ago, now it is nonsense.