Pairs League scoring

Our club runs a Pairs League of 16 pairs over 3 weeks where each pair plays 5 other pairs each week. Last week one pair did not attend though they had given notice that they couldn't. A substitute could not be found so there was a 5 board sit out for which we awarded a score of 12-8 to the non offending pair.
In order to clarify the final ranking should we delete all the scores for the missing pair over the whole event? They also missed the previous match but a substitute pair was found. In other words should the League just involve the actual players who have played in all 3 matches?
I would be grateful for other people's experience of Pairs Leagues and how they cope with no shows.
Thanks

Comments

  • @stayman said:
    should the League just involve the actual players who have played in all 3 matches?

    I allow all scores to stand and give pairs the scores obtained by a substitute pair. I would not give prizes / master points / promotion to a "pair" where there has been so much substitution of (one or both) players that I can not identify a core pair. In the case of a competition played over 3 sessions, a core pair would consist of those players who played twice. (If three players played two sessions each, the pair can designate who was not the core player.)

  • Just to clarify - the first session was played by one pair, the second session by a scratch pair who agreed to help, and in the the third session, all matches were scored 12-8. Players have expressed concern that including these scores randomises the outcome. How should we answer them?

  • Pairs Leagues are generally very unfair. Because of the long sit out substitute pairs are used. Generally the substitute pairs are of much higher standard because only good pairs are easily available at short notice.
    However you score them the result won't be fair.
    I'm not sure how you get 12 8. This is giving a bonus to those playing the missing pair that week.
  • @Alan16248 said:
    Pairs Leagues are generally very unfair. Because of the long sit out substitute pairs are used. Generally the substitute pairs are of much higher standard because only good pairs are easily available at short notice.

    What a strange assertion. Why would good pairs not already be playing in the league? My experience of substitutes is that they are more often cobbled together as an unfamiliar partnership.

  • It was an observation of experience rather than an assertion.
  • So what is the solution?
  • @00022097 said:
    So what is the solution?

    Robin gave one above. Where there any regulations for the event?

    You might look at the White Book section 3.3.8 & 3.3.9

    Alternatively, if they are deemed to have withdrawn White Book 2.4.2 should apply, which would give the 12 VPs mentioned but with refinements to opposing pairs who have done well.

    All in all, 12-8 seems a bit ungenerous to the opposing pairs (and I agree that the offending pair shouldn't be able to win anything.

  • A couple of TDs have expressed the view that all results for the no show pair should be scrapped, making it a 15-pair all play all situation. What is the expert opinion on that, please?

  • The pair played more than half the event, so according to our regulations those scores should stand. The status of the scores from the first substitute pair should have been clarified at the time and not now retrospectively changed. The problem with new ideas at this stage is that some of those expressing them might have an interest in their being changed.

  • Thank you all for your comments. They were very helpful; we will put in place and publish clear rules to cover these situations in the future.

  • @gordonrainsford said:
    The pair played more than half the event, so according to our regulations those scores should stand. The status of the scores from the first substitute pair should have been clarified at the time and not now retrospectively changed. The problem with new ideas at this stage is that some of those expressing them might have an interest in their being changed.

    According to the OP two different pairs each played a third of the tournament. I realise the hope/intent (when introducing the substitute pair for week 2) was for one pair to play the first and third sessions ... but that didn't happen. This situation needs to be defined in local regulations for the competition.

  • Absolutely right. I am sure the subcommittee will have this in place for the next league.

Sign In or Register to comment.