[freewindy]

I'm Sangho Choi from South Korea.

Recently I directed a Swiss team game. 19table, 8 boards/round, 7 round.

55 minutes are assigned for playing 1 round.

player level is intermediate.

Before tournament, I anounced that unplayed boards can not be played after 51 minutes from round start.

At table 3(NS team 3, EW team 17), players finished 7th board at 52 minutes. So I said that last board(board 12) will be scored as average and did that. and deal was

West Deal, NS Vul.

---

but scoring correction periond, North(team 17) said that he got a very favorable result from board 12 at their table.

Actually, he got very good result(4HX-2, +300). At other tables, most of EW made 3NT or down(undoubled).

Here are travellers.

BOARD 12
Section Table NS EW Contract Dec Lead NS+ NS- IMPs IMPs
=================================================================
A 3 17 50/50 0 0
A 6 12 3NT-2 E D3 +100 0 0
A 9 15 3NT+1 E D6 -430 -10 10
A 2 8 3NT-2 E D6 +100 11 -11
A 5 18 3NT-1 E DJ +50 0 0
A 10 13 3NT-1 E D6 +50 10 -10
A 7 16 1H+1 W H10 -110 -4 4
A 1 19 2H+1 W H10 -140 0 0
A 4 14 3NT= E D6 -400 -10 10
A 17 3 4Hx-2 W DA +300 0 0
A 12 6 4S-2 W H9 +100 0 0
A 15 9 3NT-1 E D6 +50 10 -10
A 8 2 3NT= E H8 -400 -11 11
A 18 5 4H-1 W S7 +50 0 0
A 13 10 3NT= E D6 -400 -10 10
A 16 7 3NT-1 E DJ +50 4 -4
A 19 1 2S+1 W H10 -140 0 0
A 14 4 3NT-1 E DJ +50 10 -10

=================================================================

So I think it's proper time to apply law 86D.

I guess that if board was played, result would be

4H-1 by west 30%, -20+300=250, IMP+6
4S-1 by west 30%, -20+300=250, IMP+6
3NT= by East 20%, +400+300=700, IMP+12
3NT-1 by East 20%, -20+300=250, IMP+6

So I assigned +7 IMP(0.3*6+0.3*6+0.2*12+0.2*6) for team 17.

However, I'm not sure that this is correct approach.

Here is law commentary from WBF.

Law 86D
When, in team play, a board cannot be played at the table for whatever reason, while it has already
been played at the other table, it is possible to deviate from the routine artificial adjusted score. To do this we need an unusual result on the played board. The TD works with a range of normal results on a board, which do not ask for the application of this law. Given the fact that the innocent side will receive some IMPs anyway (average plus), a couple of not doubled overtricks are not considered to create an unusual result.
When the innocent side received a very good score and the board is made unplayable at this table
(by the other side), it is mandatory to give an assigned adjusted score with full weight to this result.
Assume that the team that got a good score at one table caused the board to be cancelled at the other; if the TD gives an assigned adjusted score the weight of the good result needs to be small; 30% sounds
reasonable.
If the board has to be cancelled because of a mistake at the second table, and the innocent side received a very good result at the first table, it should get full weight. If the offenders received a very good score the weight can be less (50% looks reasonable). And if no side is responsible the weight could be somewhat higher (let us say 60%).

I judged that both pair are responsible for slow play at table 3 and so both pairs are offender.


I did't understand bold phrase at law 86D commentary.

Can someone tell me right approach(with some calculated IMP)? also any comment will be fine.

Another question : For canceld board due to slow play, if I judged that both are faulty, Can I assign average minus for both team?

[pran]

freewindy, on 2016-March-27, 20:49, said:

Recently I directed a Swiss team game. 19table, 8 boards/round, 7 round.

55 minutes are assigned for playing 1 round.

player level is intermediate.

Before tournament, I anounced that unplayed boards can not be played after 51 minutes from round start.

At table 3(NS team 3, EW team 17), players finished 7th board at 52 minutes. So I said that last board will be scored as average. board number is 12 and deal was

---

but scoring correction periond, North form team 17 get a very favorable result from unplayed board at their table.

Actually, he got very good result(4HX-2, +300).

Here are travellers.

BOARD 12
Section Table NS EW Contract Dec Lead NS+ NS- IMPs IMPs
=================================================================
A 3 17 50/50 0 0
A 6 12 3NT-2 E D3 100 0 0
A 9 15 3NT+1 E D6 430 -10 10
A 2 8 3NT-2 E D6 100 11 -11
A 5 18 3NT-1 E DJ 50 0 0
A 10 13 3NT-1 E D6 50 10 -10
A 7 16 1H+1 W H10 110 -4 4
A 1 19 2H+1 W H10 140 0 0
A 4 14 3NT= E D6 400 -10 10
A 17 3 4Hx-2 W DA 300 0 0
A 12 6 4S-2 W H9 100 0 0
A 15 9 3NT-1 E D6 50 10 -10
A 8 2 3NT= E H8 400 -11 11
A 18 5 4H-1 W S7 50 0 0
A 13 10 3NT= E D6 400 -10 10
A 16 7 3NT-1 E DJ 50 4 -4
A 19 1 2S+1 W H10 140 0 0
A 14 4 3NT-1 E DJ 50 10 -10

=================================================================

So I think it's proper time to apply law 86D

I think NOT!

By awarding 50/50 at the late table you imply that both sides are partly at fault, which means that you have no Non-offending side. And you have shown no foundation for any theory on what the result might have been at the late table had they played the board.

BTW, the results are easier read if you present them in the same column as the results for NS, e.g.
A 9 15 3NT+1 E D6 -430 -10 10


After posting this I notice that you have added more text with you OP.

This does not change my opinion on the application of Law 86D. Notice the clause in this law: (and should do so when that result appears favourable to the non-offending side).

As to your last question: Yes, you most certainly may assign average minus for both teams, but instead I usually impose a direct penalty of for instance 0,5VP (properly announced to all contestants before each match!)

[freewindy]

Quote

I think NOT!

By awarding 50/50 at the late table you imply that both sides are partly at fault, which means that you have no Non-offending side. And you have shown no foundation for any theory on what the result might have been at the late table had they played the board.

BTW, the results are easier read if you present them in the same column as the results for NS, e.g.
A 9 15 3NT+1 E D6 -430 -10 10

In WBF Law 86D
D. Result Obtained at Other Table
In team play when the Director awards an adjusted score (excluding any
award that ensues from application of Law 6D2), and a result has been
obtained* between the same contestants at another table, the Director may
assign an adjusted score in IMPs or total points (and should do so when
that result appears favourable to the non-offending side).

It seems that I don't need an adjust score becase there is no Non-offending side.

But in Law commentary
Law 86D
When, in team play, a board cannot be played at the table for whatever reason, while it has already
been played at the other table, it is possible to deviate from the routine artificial adjusted score. To do
this we need an unusual result on the played board. The TD works with a range of normal results on a
board, which do not ask for the application of this law. Given the fact that the innocent side will receive
some IMPs anyway (average plus), a couple of not doubled overtricks are not considered to create an
unusual result.
When the innocent side received a very good score and the board is made unplayable at this table
(by the other side), it is mandatory to give an assigned adjusted score with full weight to this result.
Assume that the team that got a good score at one table caused the board to be cancelled at the other; if
the TD gives an assigned adjusted score the weight of the good result needs to be small; 30% sounds
reasonable.
If the board has to be cancelled because of a mistake at the second table, and the innocent side received
a very good result at the first table, it should get full weight. If the offenders received a very
good score the weight can be less (50% looks reasonable). And if no side is responsible the weight
could be somewhat higher (let us say 60%).

It seems that I need adjust score even thouth that both are offenders.

[pran]

If you can be sure that there would not have been any extraordinary result at the late table - yes, but how can you be sure of that?

The point is that because a board has been cancelled in one room there is no relevant result with which to compare the corresponding result from the other room. And there is no innocent side to protect, so that board should simply be considered void in the match.

[FrancesHinden]

I disagree. With both sides at fault for slow play, you may not be obliged to apply Law 86 but I certainly think it is correct to here.

[jallerton]

FrancesHinden, on 2016-March-28, 10:36, said:

I disagree. With both sides at fault for slow play, you may not be obliged to apply Law 86 but I certainly think it is correct to here.

"correct" is too strong. As we cannot identify "the" non-offending side, the "should" part of Law 86D does not apply so we are in the realms of "may". So it seems to be at the TD's discretion whether to award anything other than average to both sides.

[Pig Trader]

You could have avoided the whole problem by allowing a more reasonable time per round. At an EBU congress last weekend, we allowed 52 minutes for seven board matches. That suggests allowing 59 or 60 minutes for 8 boards. In the Swiss Pairs we did assign one or two averages over the three sessions where a table would have started the last board significantly after all the other tables.

However, in the Swiss Teams, we really don't want a situation where one table has played a board and the other table is prevented from doing so. If there is a table getting seriously behind, we ask the faster table not to play a particular board that the slower table is due to play last, until it looks like we will allow the slow table to play it. That way, if we have to take a board away, then the faster table won't have played it either. But better still is to draw players' attention that they are getting behind while they have still have good opportunity to catch up.