team delayed
#1
Posted 2011-February-12, 19:20
RR match, 1st round, two times 16 boards, 2hours20min for each segment.
team A plays team B but team B comes much delayed, so they compleatly miss the first segment. The reason (if relevant) is, that they had a car accident.
the rusult in IMPS in 2nd segment is 49-20 for Team A
how many VP and Imps would you expect A and B to have after this match?
#2
Posted 2011-February-12, 21:32
Practice Goodwill and Active Ethics
Director "Please"!
#3
Posted 2011-February-12, 21:39
Quote
0-5 min. warning for first offence, then 1 VP (3 IMP) for each subsequent offence
5-10 min. 1 VP (3 IMP)
10-15 min. 2 VPs (6 IMP)
15-20 min. 3 VPs (9 IMP)
20-30 min. 5 VPs (15 IMP)
Boards withdrawn due to time constraints resulting from late arrival are cancelled. The non-offending side shall be awarded 3 IMPs for each such board in teams matches of more than 10 boards, or 2 IMPs for each such board in Butler-scored matches or in teams matches of 10 boards or less.
So in this case, the offending team would start the 2nd stanza down 0-48 which would give an overall match score of 97-20 in imps to Team A which on the WBF VP scale is 25-3 in VPs but Team B would also suffer a 5 VP penalty so it would be 25 VPs for Team A and -2 VPs for Team B.
I think the car accident is irrelevant - they should drive more carefully and be thankful that they are still alive.
I ♦ bidding the suit below the suit I'm actually showing not to be described as a "transfer" for the benefit of people unfamiliar with the concept of a transfer
#4
Posted 2011-February-12, 22:20
mrdct, on 2011-February-12, 21:39, said:
Good Australian perspective until that part. You guys know how to drive?
#5
Posted 2011-February-12, 22:25
#6
Posted 2011-February-12, 22:58
barmar, on 2011-February-12, 22:25, said:
Barmar, you need to chill. was attempt at humor
#7
Posted 2011-February-13, 02:30
barmar, on 2011-February-12, 22:25, said:
Ever heard about split score in such matches?
If the late team was late due to "force majeure" the applicable regulation should allow for waiving all "penalties" when calculating the results on the match. (The VP results for the two teams on the match will then typically add up to more than 30, but that should not cause any problems.)
#8
Posted 2011-February-13, 04:16
Quote
It may cause a problem for other teams. If you are late the apply the regulations and stop worrying about the reason.
#9
Posted 2011-February-13, 05:10
#10
Posted 2011-February-13, 13:08
#11
Posted 2011-February-13, 15:15
Jeremy69A, on 2011-February-13, 04:16, said:
Yes, that is of course an attitude, but I certainly do not like it.
Two examples from my own experience:
About a Month ago I had a case of a player showing symptoms of a possible heart attack during a competition. Not many players noticed because it happened outside the playing rooms, and we saw no reason to stop the whole event (35 tables), but another player was a qualified nurse and took care of the patient while we waited for the ambulance. Naturally her pair was unable to play for a couple of rounds and their opponents of course received A+ for the affected boards. Should we have given the nurse and her partner A- for these boards? (As I remember we honored her efforts by awarding A+ also to her pair)
Some years ago a team became very late to a series and in fact was unable to play a couple of rounds because of severe weather delays to air traffic. They had booked their transport with good allowance for contingency but the delays here exceeded anything they could have prepared for. Should we have applied the regulations as if they themselves were responsible for this irregularity?
Shall we not be allowed to use common sense and worry about reasons in such situations?
#12
Posted 2011-February-13, 16:41
#13
Posted 2011-February-13, 16:43
pran, on 2011-February-13, 15:15, said:
I like your decision to award the nurse average plus, presumably on the basis that she was not at fault for the board being unplayable. In fact, the nurse is as much at fault for the board being unplayable as is a playing TD in the scenario in this thread and yet you advocate giving the playing TD "A" in that case.
#14
Posted 2011-February-13, 16:44
pran, on 2011-February-13, 15:15, said:
Two examples from my own experience:
<snip>
Some years ago a team became very late to a series and in fact was unable to play a couple of rounds because of severe weather delays to air traffic. They had booked their transport with good allowance for contingency but the delays here exceeded anything they could have prepared for. Should we have applied the regulations as if they themselves were responsible for this irregularity?
Yes.
The other teams got there, didn't they? By allowing discretion in applying late arrival, late play etc penalties you are being unjust to all the other teams who knew the rules and obeyed them.
I would only apply some discretion if _everyone_ was delayed
#15
Posted 2011-February-13, 16:47
jallerton, on 2011-February-13, 16:43, said:
I am not happy about awarding myself A+ when I am involved.
#16
Posted 2011-February-13, 16:51
FrancesHinden, on 2011-February-13, 16:44, said:
The other teams got there, didn't they? By allowing discretion in applying late arrival, late play etc penalties you are being unjust to all the other teams who knew the rules and obeyed them.
I would only apply some discretion if _everyone_ was delayed
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?
#17
Posted 2011-February-14, 11:33
The TDs said "we'll play 12 boards this half; if we need to pull boards and apply penalties in the second half, we will."
They didn't; we didn't play unusually quickly either.
For situations like this, I don't mind saying "if you're willing to do this, we'll play as normal; if it's a problem, here's the rules." Basically Law 81C5(? NLBH) again.
#18
Posted 2011-February-14, 11:50
#19
Posted 2011-February-14, 12:18
aguahombre, on 2011-February-14, 11:50, said:
That's what L12 says is the minimum to give to a pair in no way at fault.
London UK
#20
Posted 2011-February-14, 13:34
aguahombre, on 2011-February-14, 11:50, 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
Quote
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 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.
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean