Refusal to play with Robot
At todays club Duplicate, after his partner had gone offline for some time, the player said that he would not play with a Robot. Basically he is saying that players should not be forced to play with a robot, but should be allowed to time out and given an average at the end. Have other TDs faced this situation and is there anything in the Laws to cover this eg Law 81C1 "TD Duties and Responsibilities.....to maintain discipline and to ensure the orderly progress of the game"?
Comments
I had a player's partner not turn up and they opted to withdraw rather than keep playing the tournament with a robot. I certainly had sympathy with the position.
As a pragmatic measure I'd be content as a TD to let them take an average, I guess it should be Av- / Av+ since it's due to their disconnect and you should maybe warn them of that. I'd also want to check they weren't escaping from some doomed contract by this measure!
I think if we're inclined to throw the book at them the use of robot substitutes is part of the tournament regulations, LAW 90 B 8 cites 'failure to comply promptly with tournament regulations or instructions from the director' as grounds for a procedural penalty. Probably gets you back to the 40/60 for that board.
So what would you do if the other player also went offline "accidentally" ?
I think the White Book's guidance here is reasonable; WB 2.4.5 covers withdrawal for legitimate reasons (the remaining boards go anywhere between Av-/Av+ and 0/Av+ depending on how acceptable the withdrawal is), and WB 2.8.2j covers less legitimate reasons (disqualification by default, can be downgraded to a DP on every unplayed board, so somewhere around -10%/Av+).
My personal judgement about this is that this behaviour falls under "Sometimes the TD may judge that while a withdrawal is not wholly acceptable, it is not sufficiently bad to disqualify the contestant." in WB 2.4.5, so I'd probably be scoring the boards at 15%/Av+ (i.e. Av-/Av+ with a 25% penalty), based on the White Book guidance that this situation should have both an artificial score and a penalty.
Also bear in mind that if a player plays in less than half the tournament, then the robot substitutes count as the player occupying that slot, not the withdrawn player. In addition to affecting things like master points and NGS, this also means that existing scores against the withdrawing pair are cancelled (WB 2.4.4).
As for "Have other TDs faced this situation", it hasn't happened to me as a TD, but I've seen it happen while I was a player (one of the opponents was upset about their partner vanishing and very upset about having to play with a robot instead, and eventually called the Director and left the tournament). On that occasion, I think that the Director ruled that most of the scores stood, both against human and against robot (however, I had a particularly good score that round that I asked the Director to adjust away, because I had a suspicion that my opponent had intentionally thrown the board rather than making a legitimate mistake).
I don't think players should be forced to play with robots if they don't want to, but they should get AV- for any boards they don't play while waiting for their partners to return. If it goes on for too long, presumably at some point they will give up playing and the pair will be replaced with two robots.
The power to appoint substitutes comes from the White Book which gives the TD various options. The power to use robots comes from Sky-Blue Book which identifies robots as legitimate 'players'.
To an extent, players owe it to the field to play and allow opponents to play bridge rather than get AVE-/AVE+ for not being able to play. The extent that the TD should insist/persuade a player play with a temporary substitute depends on the circumstances.
I don't trust robot disclosures. :o so maybe that is why some players don't like playing with them.
Last night I was called because a player lost a trick. The robot had disclosed his hand as "Ace of Spades, 16 + points and a strong heart suit" - which was a bit unusual as the player held the Ace of Spades himself! Assuming that this hand didn't breach law 1, the player assumed that the robot was showing a void and failed to cash his Ace of Spades. (The robot held the King)
https://www.bridgebase.com/myhands/hands.php?tourney=46631-1631385002-&username=briancom - board 9
I ruled under Law 21A - but on thoughts, should players be more aware that Robotic bidding is based on "best match" rather than "perfect match".
The Sky-Blue Book notes that robot explanations are not infallible
This might be regarded as geral bridge knowledge - in the sense that players inexperienced with playing against robot need to be told this.
I've seen a robot explain a bid as guaranteeing a 14-card hand before now (and yet, it made the bid anyway).
This is probably a violation of the disclosure rules, given that the explanations seem to be out of sync with the actual bidding mechanism, but it may not be one that's in the Director's power to do anything.
"The extent that the TD should insist/persuade a player to play with a temporary substitute depends on the circumstances."
I remember a player in the Spring Fours telling me that his partner would be held up for the start and asking if I could find him a substitute partner. When I looked around and found that the only person not already playing was his mother, he elected to take -3 IMP each board instead.
I have had a player who said they didnt want to play with a robot when their partner crashed and hadn't returned for a while. I said they would have to take Ave- if they refused the robot and they were happy with this. Their partner was back by the next hand.