[blackshoe]

I've just had a bit of a back and forth email exchange with ACBL HQ. I am informed that, in the opinion of the ACBL, "not played" is a legal score adjustment under Law 12C2A, and that "it is a valid alternative in the minds of the ACBL Board of Directors, otherwise it would not be an option within the program". So here is yet another Law that doesn't mean the same thing in North America as it apparently does in the rest of the world, nor, apparently, does it mean what it says, since "not played" is not one of Average minus, Average, Average plus. I don't like it, but there it is.

[Phil]

Are you referring to a "No Play" (NP)?

[blackshoe]

Yes.

[Phil]

Groan. If I had to give an average minus to a pair that got behind when I pulled a board I would have a mutiny on my hands.

[blackshoe]

Here's a scenario: you tell a table not to play the second and last board in the current round, that they are too far behind, and that they will get a late play at the end of the session. Neither pair at this table is at fault; the fault lies with the EW pair at the next table, which has been slow for the entire session. Both pairs at this table are having less than 50% games on the other boards they've played. Let's call it 45%. At the end of the last round, both pairs involved at this table finish at about the same time. However, the NS pair, without informing either the TD or the other pair, has decided they don't want to stick around, so they leave. The EW pair is still there, and still prepared to play the late play. Your ruling?

As it happened, the pair who was at fault was also told not to play the second board on what I've described above as the current round, but the first board was an early claim, so they played the second board anyway. No late play for them!

As for the average minus, well, if they're directly at fault, that's what the law (at least other than in North America) says they should get. The law also says "An offending player should be ready to pay any penalty or rectification graciously or to accept any adjusted score awarded by the tournament director." However, the fact is that in North America, you don't have to give A-. Or A+ if they were not at all at fault. Just give a NP, and if pairs get more or less than what the law entitles them to, well, too bad.

[bluejak]

Phil, on 2010-December-20, 16:03, said:

Groan. If I had to give an average minus to a pair that got behind when I pulled a board I would have a mutiny on my hands.

While, of course, no-one gives a damn about the people who leave the club for ever because they are always having to wait for slow players about whom the TD does nothing.

[McBruce]

bluejak, on 2010-December-20, 18:50, said:

While, of course, no-one gives a damn about the people who leave the club for ever because they are always having to wait for slow players about whom the TD does nothing.

My idea as a club director on the subject of slow play has always been to take a positive attitude. Once you make it known to your players that you expect everyone to make an effort to catch up after a long round, but do not attach a reputation to those who are most often slow, the players will respond by being more aware. I find that standing at the table as they finish play helps quite a bit: when they are done I can ensure that the score is filled out quickly and the E-W pair moves as soon as possible. If the delay is more than 4 minutes I usually go to both affected tables and let them know that I expect all eight players to avoid delays so that they can catch up, over the next two rounds if necessary. (When those who waited give me the 'not my fault' line, I tell them I am not asking anyone to play fast, I am simply asking everyone to try to avoid delays.)

Oh, and of course, nobody ever gets NP for an unplayed board when time runs out. My ACBL-printed Law book's version of 12C2a does not seem to admit the idea of NP and I wonder how the ACBL BoD came up with the interpretation. But we've been through this on this forum dozens of times.

[blackshoe]

I'm not entirely sure it's a BoD interpretation, since I've never seen anything on it in writing. The TD who told me "it is a valid alternative in the minds of the ACBL Board of Directors, otherwise it would not be an option within the program" may have assumed the "valid alternative" bit, and in any case his logic is completely wrong, since there are other, actually valid reasons for the option to be in the program, which have nothing to do with off the wall interpretations of law 12C2.

The fact is, though, that if I disagree with a local club TD on this subject, she will call HQ, and HQ will tell her she's right and I'm wrong, and there's not a whole lot I can do to change that. Maybe I'll take up solitaire.

[Phil]

Yes, hovering tends to work with the slowpokes. - I'll also score the board myself not so much because I'm faster, but because it prevents the slow pairs from looking at the traveler (which undoubtedly is one of the reasons they got behind in the 1st place).

I'm allowing 15 minutes for a two board round and 22 for a three board round - but no scheduled breaks. This should be plenty of time to play a club game.

[blackshoe]

Around here, about a year ago, somebody (one of the club owners, I think) decided that players would like to play more boards in a session. For whatever reason, rather than lengthen the session any, they cut the time per round. We get about 13 minutes for a two board round, and 18 or 19 for a three board round. Plus about 10 seconds "move time". I don't know of any player who can regularly stand up, move to the next table, and sit down ready to play in ten seconds. Not to mention that when you get to the next table, nobody's moved yet. Of course, this shortening of time available can't possibly have anything to do with slow play - the slow players would be slow if you gave them twenty minutes per board. I think that's the theory anyway.

Last time I tried the hovering thing I got complaints that I was making the players nervous.

[mycroft]

We have one or two players who are *perenially* slow, frequently get two "late plays" in a session, and of course are the last ones finished in the last round, so they don't get to play them. And they Don't Care. I don't know what to do about them, but letting them keep their 25-board score intact seems insanely wrong to me.

One I have told that in my game, if he gets a late play and isn't able to finish it, unless he can show me that *this time* it wasn't his fault, I'm giving A-/A+. If he gets two late plays and therefore can't play one, that is also automatically A-/A+. If he can't play both, they're both A- and a penalty. I'm going to say that to the other one, too, soon.

I still don't think he cares. Meanwhile, all the people who are losing boards to him *do care*, even with the A+.

[Bbradley62]

mycroft, on 2010-December-21, 10:49, said:

We have one or two players who are *perenially* slow, frequently get two "late plays" in a session, and of course are the last ones finished in the last round, so they don't get to play them. And they Don't Care. I don't know what to do about them, but letting them keep their 25-board score intact seems insanely wrong to me.

One I have told that in my game, if he gets a late play and isn't able to finish it, unless he can show me that *this time* it wasn't his fault, I'm giving A-/A+. If he gets two late plays and therefore can't play one, that is also automatically A-/A+. If he can't play both, they're both A- and a penalty. I'm going to say that to the other one, too, soon.

I still don't think he cares. Meanwhile, all the people who are losing boards to him *do care*, even with the A+.

The "penalty" you mention should include suspension from your game, after a specified threshhold has been met.

[lexlogan]

Phil, on 2010-December-21, 08:26, said:

Yes, hovering tends to work with the slowpokes. - I'll also score the board myself not so much because I'm faster, but because it prevents the slow pairs from looking at the traveler (which undoubtedly is one of the reasons they got behind in the 1st place).

I'm allowing 15 minutes for a two board round and 22 for a three board round - but no scheduled breaks. This should be plenty of time to play a club game.

I used to hover. Then a man twice my size waited until everyone left the club to begin berating me for the practice. After listening to his harangue I asked that he leave the premises. He became more agitated but finally walked out the door -- only to stick his foot back in to prevent me from closing it. The board listened to his complaints and mine, and decided nothing. I haven't directed since, much to the chagrin of the Monday night players who enjoyed my five-minute tips before the game and knowing the game would finish no later than 10:15.