[paulg]

I'm not a trained director but frequently get asked to help out and there was a situation at a tournament yesterday that caused me to consider a couple of scenarios where I would not know what to suggest. So I thought I'd ask.

It is a multiple teams event with three-board rounds. At one table, the pairs are very slow and they are told not to play the final board of the round: they have both been slow previously and warned, so the director decides to award AVE-/AVE- when neither admits to being slower this time.

Should the director now work out when the board will be played at the other table and remove it from that table?

If the board has already been played at the other table and team A made a slam missing two cashing aces due to a defensive revoke, are team A due an adjustment due to Law 86B? Or does the slow play fine trump this and make the other table result irrelevant?

Thanks for any advice.

[pran]

paulg, on 2018-May-28, 05:30, said:

I'm not a trained director but frequently get asked to help out and there was a situation at a tournament yesterday that caused me to consider a couple of scenarios where I would not know what to suggest. So I thought I'd ask.

It is a multiple teams event with three-board rounds. At one table, the pairs are very slow and they are told not to play the final board of the round: they have both been slow previously and warned, so the director decides to award AVE-/AVE- when neither admits to being slower this time.

Should the director now work out when the board will be played at the other table and remove it from that table?

If the board has already been played at the other table and team A made a slam missing two cashing aces due to a defensive revoke, are team A due an adjustment due to Law 86B? Or does the slow play fine trump this and make the other table result irrelevant?

Thanks for any advice.

AVE-/AVE- (penalty) results in split score on this board, I believe most scoring programs handle this effectively.

Such penalty can also be "combined" with a regular score when the board has been played at both tables or an adjusted score because of a favourable result to one side at the other table (according to Law 86B1).

[VixTD]

If the board hasn't been played at the other table the director should tell them not to play it.

If it has been played and one team has a particularly favourable result, law 86B should be applied. In your example (very similar to one given in the White Book), the director should work out what a "normal" score would be on the board and IMP that against the unusual score. The "normal" score could be 100% of eleven tricks in a game contract if it would be unusual to bid a slam, or some percentage of eleven tricks in a game contract and eleven tricks in a slam contract. You could look at what other tables did to help you work out how likely it is for a slam to be reached.

You could also throw in a couple of procedural penalties for slow play to make up for the average minuses they have escaped.

[blackshoe]

VixTD, on 2018-May-29, 06:29, said:

You could also throw in a couple of procedural penalties for slow play to make up for the average minuses they have escaped.

I don't think that's a very good reason for giving PPs.

[pran]

VixTD, on 2018-May-29, 06:29, said:

You could also throw in a couple of procedural penalties for slow play to make up for the average minuses they have escaped.

blackshoe, on 2018-May-29, 19:22, said:

I don't think that's a very good reason for giving PPs.

Obviously not,
but:

law 90 said:

Offences Subject to Procedural Penalty
The following are examples of offences subject to procedural penalty (but the offences are not limited to these):
A. Director’s Authority
The Director, in addition to implementing the rectifications in these Laws, may also assess procedural penalties for any offence that unduly delays or obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants, violates correct procedure, or requires the award of an adjusted score.
B. Offences Subject to Procedural Penalty
The following are examples of offences subject to procedural penalty (but the offences are not limited to these):
[...]
2. unduly slow play by a contestant.

is.

[VixTD]

pran, on 2018-May-30, 01:28, said:

blackshoe, on 2018-May-29, 19:22, said:

I don't think that's a very good reason for giving PPs.

Obviously not

It obviously is.

You were going to give them each an average minus because they were responsible for slow play that resulted in the cancellation of a board, where they would have been awarded an average (or average plus) had they not been at fault. Effectively, you were going to give them an average and a penalty for slow play.

Now the application of law 86B means they are given artificial scores that do not include a penalty for slow play, so you add in a penalty for slow play.

This really is so obvious it's hardly worth mentioning. If you're just nit-picking because there isn't a specified offence in the laws of "evading a procedural penalty through the award of an assigned adjusted score under law 86B" (something I wouldn't put past either of you) I'll leave you to it.

[pran]

VixTD, on 2018-May-30, 06:42, said:

It obviously is.

You were going to give them each an average minus because they were responsible for slow play that resulted in the cancellation of a board, where they would have been awarded an average (or average plus) had they not been at fault. Effectively, you were going to give them an average and a penalty for slow play.

Now the application of law 86B means they are given artificial scores that do not include a penalty for slow play, so you add in a penalty for slow play.

This really is so obvious it's hardly worth mentioning. If you're just nit-picking because there isn't a specified offence in the laws of "evading a procedural penalty through the award of an assigned adjusted score under law 86B" (something I wouldn't put past either of you) I'll leave you to it.

You may consider it nit-picking, but the PP is a separate penalty here for slow play and obstructing the game, it is not "to make up for the average minuses they have escaped."

PP (see Law 90) may never be imposed to make up for anything, nor can an offender evade a PP on the ground that Law 86 has been applied although the result here would be the same as if the PP had been given for such reason.

[barmar]

You can't give a PP for the specific purpose of making up for them not being penalized by the proscribed rectification. But you can give a PP when it's authorized, and it can have that effect.

[blackshoe]

What Barry said.

[VixTD]

barmar, on 2018-May-30, 08:45, said:

You can't give a PP for the specific purpose of making up for them not being penalized by the proscribed rectification. But you can give a PP when it's authorized, and it can have that effect.

Of course you can. You were going to penalize them for slow play by giving them an average minus. You can no longer do that because you're assigning a score, so you give them both the procedural penalty they've missed out on. I won't say it's obligatory to award it, as procedural penalties are discretionary, but it would seem very strange not to penalize both sides in this situation.

Some people have voiced the opinion that a contestant who receives an adverse adjusted score for wrongdoing don't need to be further penalized (for instance, if they blatantly took advantage of unauthorized information), but I think most people agree it is appropriate. And in this case, you have one side that's received an adjusted score in their favour. Where's their incentive to keep to time in future?

[pran]

VixTD, on 2018-May-31, 07:02, said:

Of course you can. You were going to penalize them for slow play by giving them an average minus. You can no longer do that because you're assigning a score, so you give them both the procedural penalty they've missed out on. I won't say it's obligatory to award it, as procedural penalties are discretionary, but it would seem very strange not to penalize both sides in this situation.

Some people have voiced the opinion that a contestant who receives an adverse adjusted score for wrongdoing don't need to be further penalized (for instance, if they blatantly took advantage of unauthorized information), but I think most people agree it is appropriate. And in this case, you have one side that's received an adjusted score in their favour. Where's their incentive to keep to time in future?

You should not confuse PP and adjusted score.

AVE- (for slow play) is a penalty not an adjusted score! Nothing in the laws prevents the Director from penalizing a contestant (for cause) in addition to awarding an adjusted score. On the contrary an irregularity that makes it necessary to award an adjusted score may well (in addition) be cause for <a penalty.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2018-May-31, 07:53, said:

You should not confuse PP and adjusted score.

True. Neither should you.

pran, on 2018-May-31, 07:53, said:

AVE- (for slow play) is a penalty not an adjusted score!

Nonsense. The board was scheduled to be played; it wasn't played. So the TD awards an artificial adjusted score. Law 12C2.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2018-May-31, 08:45, said:

[...]
Nonsense. The board was scheduled to be played; it wasn't played. So the TD awards an artificial adjusted score. Law 12C2.

Law 12C2{a} said:

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.

When both contestants are at fault for the irregularity then each contestant is (only) partly at fault (they have both contributed to the irregularity).
Consequently the artificial adjusted score in this case must be AVErage to each side.

Law 90 said:

A. Director’s Authority
The Director, in addition to implementing the rectifications in these Laws, may also assess procedural penalties for any offence that unduly delays or obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants, violates correct procedure, or requires the award of an adjusted score.
B. Offences Subject to Procedural Penalty
The following are examples of offences subject to procedural penalty (but the offences are not limited to these):
[...]
7. errors in procedure (such as failure to count cards in one’s hand, playing the wrong board, etc.) that require an adjusted score for any contestant.
[...]

Consequently when the Director "awards an artificial adjusted score" of AVE-/AVE- this is not an adjusted score according to Law 12 but a penalty according to Law 90.

In practice this distinction is irrelevant, the Director need not use Law 12 (for cause) in addition to Law 86 when adjusting scores. He uses Law 90 instead of Law 12 with the same result.

[blackshoe]

No. If both pairs are partly at fault, then awarding A-/A- is director error.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2018-May-31, 15:01, said:

No. If both pairs are partly at fault, then awarding A-/A- is director error.

The Director is free to impose penalties for cause at his discretion.

But I agree with you (and have stated to such effect all the time) that awarding artificial adjusted score A-/A- is director error.

[blackshoe]

I cannot help but think we're not on the same page, Sven, because I have no idea what you're talking about in that last post.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2018-June-01, 19:44, said:

I cannot help but think we're not on the same page, Sven, because I have no idea what you're talking about in that last post.

The distinction between PP and AAS:

AVE-/AVE+, AVE/AVE and AVE+/AVE- are typical artificial adjusted scores.

AVE-/AVE- is a typical penalty (and as far as I can understand not a legal artificial adjusted score)

[sanst]

pran, on 2018-June-02, 00:44, said:

The distinction between PP and AAS:

AVE-/AVE+, AVE/AVE and AVE+/AVE- are typical artificial adjusted scores.

AVE-/AVE- is a typical penalty (and as far as I can understand not a legal artificial adjusted score)

According to my version of the law book it's legal: "average minus (at most 40% of the available matchpoints in pairs) to a contestant directly at fault". Both parties can be directly at fault, e.g. E and S didn't count their cards at the start of the board and at the end of the play it's discovered that E had 14 cards and S 12. Avg-/Avg- is a legal AAS and you can give a PP on top. It says nowhere that the sum of the scores has to be 100%.

[paulg]

So if I had said that the board was scored as AVE/AVE and I had awarded a PP to both pairs, then everyone would have be happy?

The fact that the easiest way to enter this into the scoring program is AVE-/AVE- is irrelevant although potentially misleading upon examination.

[blackshoe]

If you ask the pairs who received A/A on a board, given a 10 mp top, how many mps they got on that board, the correct answer is 5. The PP (say 1 mp on a 10 top) is subtracted from their total mp score. At least, that's the way ACBLScore does it.