Slow play - boards not played

What are the rules (if any) on scores to be awarded if a board is taken away due to slow play? In one club, the TD awards 40% to both pairs, saying 'that is club policy'. This causes some dissatisfaction especially when one pair has been kept waiting 5-10 minutes by the other pair arriving late. The TD's reply is 'you just have to speed up'. At all other clubs I know, it is 50-50 or 60-40 if one pair is clearly at fault. This is an EBU affiliated club, in the NGS scheme etc. Can the club decide what to award?

Comments

  • It's up to the Director, not the Club.
    It's generally difficult to see who is to blame so 50-50 is a common decision.

    If I think it's clearly due to other circumstances such as a delayed start I sometimes award 60-60

    Alan

    1. We would not normally "fine" someone for a first instance.
    2. We do not record any instance of taking a board away because of slow play.
    3. As we have no records of previous instances, each occurrence is a "first" occurrence.
    4. See point 1.
  • Buried in the White Book (81.4.1) is

    If the table is told not to play the board [before it is played], the board is cancelled and an artificial adjusted score awarded (Law 12C2).

    For a pair at fault, awarding 40% should be sufficient, but if there are aggravating circumstances the pair can also be given a procedural penalty.

  • I think it's ok to have a club policy that usually 40% is awarded to both sides ("directly at fault") as long as the TD has the power to vary this on occasions when it's clear that it was one side rather than the other who was at fault.

  • It's hard to think of any circumstances where I would give 40/40 even if my Club thought they could tell me what to do.

    Alan

  • I suppose with a Howell movement, if a table is late finishing a round, it affects 3 tables in the next round. If they don't catch up, this can escalate in subsequent rounds until the whole room is affected; so the TD has to take boards away to stop the 'infection' from spreading. The only thing is 40-40 seems draconian, as both pairs have already suffered in not playing a board. It is even more anomalous when one pair is clearly responsible e.g. by coming late to the table.

  • I don't think that coming late means clearly responsible.
    It depends on who was responsible at the previous table.

    Alan

  • @16248 said:
    It's hard to think of any circumstances where I would give 40/40 even if my Club thought they could tell me what to do.

    Well the laws tell you to do that whenever both sides are directly at fault. Can you think of no circumstances where that would apply?

  • @00022097 said:
    I suppose with a Howell movement, if a table is late finishing a round, it affects 3 tables in the next round. If they don't catch up, this can escalate in subsequent rounds until the whole room is affected; so the TD has to take boards away to stop the 'infection' from spreading. The only thing is 40-40 seems draconian, as both pairs have already suffered in not playing a board. It is even more anomalous when one pair is clearly responsible e.g. by coming late to the table.

    Somebody has to be responsible, so at least one pair should be getting Av-

  • Unless I watch every table all the time I have no evidence to decide.
    If I ask I rarely get a sensible answer or an admission of guilt.

    Alan

  • @16248 said:
    Unless I watch every table all the time I have no evidence to decide.
    If I ask I rarely get a sensible answer or an admission of guilt.

    Then the laws tell you to decide on the balance of probabilities, not to decide that neither pair is directly responsible.

  • @gordonrainsford said:

    @16248 said:
    Unless I watch every table all the time I have no evidence to decide.
    If I ask I rarely get a sensible answer or an admission of guilt.

    Then the laws tell you to decide on the balance of probabilities, not to decide that neither pair is directly responsible.

    That could lead to a law suit in some clubs! I think the 'ideal solution' would be TV cameras or electronic recording of each bid and card played, so that there is irrefutable evidence of time taken by each player. It happens in chess, so why not in bridge?

  • @00022097 said:

    @gordonrainsford said:

    @16248 said:
    Unless I watch every table all the time I have no evidence to decide.
    If I ask I rarely get a sensible answer or an admission of guilt.

    Then the laws tell you to decide on the balance of probabilities, not to decide that neither pair is directly responsible.

    That could lead to a law suit in some clubs! I think the 'ideal solution' would be TV cameras or electronic recording of each bid and card played, so that there is irrefutable evidence of time taken by each player. It happens in chess, so why not in bridge?

    May I direct you to this thread?

  • @00022097 said:
    That could lead to a law suit in some clubs!

    The defendants would be able to produce multiple expert witnesses who could explain that the director is allowed to decide score adjustments on the basis of balance of probabilities. A higher standard of proof is needed for disciplinary proceedings with non-score sanctions.

  • I would like to argue that slow play - when not deliberate (as covered in Law 74C7) - does not constitute an IRREGULARITY in terms of the Laws as speed of play is not referenced other than in 74C7. Any actions by TDs therefore fall under REGULATIONS rather than LAWS and so clubs, as a Regulating Authority, are free to adopt whatever policy they think best facilitates an enjoyable game for their members. Two points to add are that in setting the procedure the club should protect the TD as best possible from any accusations of favouratism, and that the policy should be advertised to club members.

Sign In or Register to comment.