[jillybean]

It seems to be routine where I play to adjust boards that are not played, (run out of time to play the board) to AVG
Actually, in some places its routine to adjust all boards that are not completed due to an infraction to average but that's another story.


I've just discovered that there is an option on the Bridge Mates to indicate a board has not been played and you do this by entering 10 for the contract?

Thanks.

[mycroft]

0 is "not played" - and it will show up as "Not Played". It will be imported into ACBLScor as NP. You can change it if we get it in as late play.

It should require (I think it's a bridgemate option?) Director approval for NP. But you need Director approval for Average, too. Frankly, this isn't something the players should do anyway - when the Director pulls a board, they NP it in the 'mates.

Having said that, it's changeable just as quickly in ACBLScor after being brought in from BWS - to Average or A+/A- or NP or Special: +130/-110 or whatever. Don't assume this is a "solution" to the director assigning lazy scores - it's just as easy as before.

[paulg]

It is my understanding that 'Not Played' should only be used for boards that you are not scheduled to play. If you cannot play a board in a round because of slow play, then the Director should award an artificial score for that board.

If an event is scheduled for seven rounds, but the Director decides to cut the movement short for time reasons so that no-one plays the final round, then this would be a reasonable use of NP.

However I stress that this is my understanding and not necessarily the regulations in any NBO.

Paul

[jillybean]

Michael. Ok, the bridge mate option is easy, I'm still finding my way around ACBLScor but I will take. a look.

Paul. That was my original understanding too. If both pairs are slow they should both be given A-, One pair responsible for the unplayed board A-, A+
If they don't play the board because the Director messed up the distribution of boards, they get A+.

If we are playing a nice game and don't want to assign blame to anyone, A= would be more appropriate than NP?

[paulg]

jillybean, on 2024-January-30, 13:22, said:

Michael. Ok, the bridge mate option is easy, I'm still finding my way around ACBLScor but I will take. a look.

Paul. That was my original understanding too. If both pairs are slow they should both be given A-, One pair responsible for the unplayed board A-, A+
If they don't play the board because the Director messed up the distribution of boards, they get A+.

If we are playing a nice game and don't want to assign blame to anyone, A= would be more appropriate than NP?

This is what I do.

[mycroft]

It can be good to assign "no play" to a late board that you intend or expect to be able to late play. It shows up on ACBLScor as "late play" to remind you, and there's a LATE command to show you pairs and board.

Yes, you shouldn't use it as "they didn't get to it, but were supposed to", unless (for instance) it's the 93-year-old with Parkinson's that we know will only get through 22 and "tonight it's your turn to have the short round" where the multiple A- would have them just not come back. Also, "your score" from a NP is not a great thing to encourage for the continually slow 55% pairs - they can take their "partially at fault" 50%s, and if they don't like it, can play that little bit faster next time, even if that nets them the same 53% as the "penalty" does.

Other cases: fire alarm, lost a round (but you can change the ending round, too); medical issue; entire room was too slow and your 27 board movement became 25 or 26 to get out by 2200;...

In a club, I'm not so upset; but there would almost never be a board taken away that wasn't given a 12C2 at a tournament (or a club game that had serious intent, or to a pair that wastes time rather than plays slowly.

[jillybean]

Thanks for the clarification. I have changed the number of rounds to end a game on time, adjusted boards that a pair cannot start or finish in time, usually to average as it is preferred to play a nice game, I'll work on that. A newly qualified director remarked we should be using not played...hmmm.

[TylerE]

Outside any extreme emergency, any game that adjusted that to average I would never return to. That's not bridge. That's throwing cards around. Why even bother keeping score at that point?

[sanst]

In my opinion, a practical approach is advisable in clubs where a social game is played, especially if the director is also a player, which is almost standard over here. It takes a lot of time to find out what and especially who caused the delay, not to mention the lion’s den in which you have to venture. Nobody is going to be happy if you are questioning all possibly involved, delaying the play at quite a few tables. The chances that you find out what happened are slim with all the contradictory statements that you can expect. Don’t bother, enter NP - or let the players do that themselves - and let your scoring program decide. In the Dutch software you can make the necessary provisions. It’s usual to ignore that board for the players who didn’t play it and compute their average - MP’s are more or less standard in the not so ambitious clubs - over the boards that they played.

[jillybean]

TylerE, on 2024-January-30, 20:58, said:

Outside any extreme emergency, any game that adjusted that to average I would never return to. That's not bridge. That's throwing cards around. Why even bother keeping score at that point?

Where are you located?

[mycroft]

Adjusted "that". What?

If I've noticed you're late three rounds in a row, probably telling you that at least once as I pulled the boards for the next table after calling the round, and now you're so late that I have to pull a board to get caught up - you're not getting "NP".

Partly, there's no place in the Laws that allows for that - explicitly you are to award a 12C2 Artificial Adjusted Score. At the club, okay, let's be a little more polite to the *occasional* offenders, we bend the rules a fair bit anyway.

Partly, you're taking more time to play than the rest of the players are allowed. In many cases, that allows you to think longer and score better - and bridge is a game where you are to aim for the best score you can *under the constraints in play*, which includes "playing 3 boards in 20 minutes, consistently". Of course, there are also the players who waste a whole bunch of time, so while they do play 3 boards in 20 minutes, it still takes them 23. Those I'm also happy to not "NP" - Hurry Up And Think, as mcBruce says.

Then there are those who consistently take 25 minutes to play the first round, show up 5 minutes late for round two, and manage to run the rest of the rounds at 20 minutes to avoid losing a board (but frustrating the **** out of their next round opponents and the pair following them). Oddly enough, in tournaments when they play through the break and "get caught up", it magically takes them 25 minutes to play the next round...(or they insist on "having their break" after being caught up and don't get to the table until 5 minutes into the round). Again, eventually they slip, and the axe is waiting.

Sure and if you're not warned, or it's not obvious, and we start with A+/A- (or A=/A=) "out of the blue", you might get upset, especially if it's a change from previous policies. But - again, especially if you're one of the "regular 55%ers", some of which almost certainly comes from only having to play 23 of the 24 boards and some of which comes from getting that "extra think" on another 4 boards - that doesn't mean that you should get your missed board "for free". It's not fair to your opponents, it's not fair to the other tables, it's not fair to the pairs following. If it's in a Howell, especially - because instead of it just being 3 tables that get behind because of the slow pair, it goes 1-3-5-whole room.

And obviously, if there are non-bridge, non-lack-of-care reasons that a pair is going to lose 2 boards every session, then "you weren't, in fact, scheduled to play this board" - NP. My "after the stroke" occasional partner. The 90-year-old with Parkinson's. The player with epilepsy who zoned out for 15 minutes once every two or three weeks. But again, at the tournament, I would ensure that their opponents didn't get "NP"ed - there, they should expect to be able to play all their boards.

As I said to [very A player, who consistently took 40+% of the round time, forcing everyone else to play fast to catch up] who came up to me and told me "I don't appreciate being rushed" after one round, "it's not me rushing you. There are 12 tables waiting for you to finish."

[mycroft]

Jilly, as discussed (and discussed repeatedly on various threads here), Paul is right - there is no Legal justification for "NP" for a board that is scheduled to be played and wasn't for any reason wholly present at the table.

The director is also "right" - many if not most clubs will "NP" these boards. As you say, it's nicer than 12C2.

I would be upset if I had to wait 5 minutes to get to a table, then had them faff around, not switch boards, and generally not help us catch them up, so much that now you pull a board, and I am considered "partly at fault". Even if I am on a 43% game and "average" helps my score. But more so if a) I am running 57% today, and 50% is likely to drop me a place, and b) this is a pair that I would expect closer to 60% on (and many of this type are). I understand assigning A+/A- is "less nice", but remember who you're being "less nice" to by "being nice".

Nobody but SBs (in particular, not the ACBL) are going to care what you do in the club, as long as you're consistent (and it's not coming out of the blue - you've grabbed the done boards the last couple of rounds, you've warned them they need to catch up once, now they lose a board). But you know the habitual offenders, and you almost certainly know *why* they're slow. And if it's something you should be "nice" about, fine. If it's not, then explain that this is not on, and further issues will (whatever) - and then do it. In a multi-director club, discuss with the club manager - you might find that they agree with you about the pairs and the reasons, and are happy to let you take the hit (or will publicise their decision to the rest of the directors, so it's consistent. "Yeah, they're a problem, and I've been meaning to do something about it. Thanks for giving me the push.")

[jillybean]

If I am catering for the senior who sits N/S because he has mobility issues, he has challenges with his fine motor skills, necessitating him to be slow and careful playing the cards. It's a friendly game but he causes the table to lose the 3rd board on a regular basis.
The correct adjustment (A- A+) but keeping in mind that we are playing a "friendly" game, we adjust to A= A+
We are not using NP here and I assume that you can't assign NP A+ , nor would you want to?

Oh, you answered above as I was typing my question, amazing.

[mycroft]

No problem. Yes, that one I would likely be "NP"ing - and explaining to anyone who wonders that "you know and we know they're only going to get 22 of the 24 in; this week it was you; it's what we do to keep him coming, which we all want, don't we?"

Again, not perfectly legal, but definitely more arguable than many of the things that happen.

Having said that, if he's also the kind of player who regularly scores 43%, there isn't a big issue with "A+/A" and his scores going to 45% (unless he's regularly beating out other C pairs for points, I guess).

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2024-January-31, 10:27, said:

Having said that, if he's also the kind of player who regularly scores 43%, there isn't a big issue with "A+/A" and his scores going to 45% (unless he's regularly beating out other C pairs for points, I guess).

Heh, maybe your 43%ers are different from ours. My limited experience is that they complain the loudest, even assigned 50%, possibly because they understand the situation the least.
There again, the 63%ers are often surprisingly docile in accepting 50%, despite that significantly damaging their average and accusing them of being partly at fault.

Whatever, I do not contemplate NP for a board out of time, the regulations say no and make sense to me here.
Where our regulations do get under my skin is when a pair has abandoned the tournament without fault, I find it absurd to use L12 rather than NP for the remaining boards (or remove all their scores altogether if not having played some huge part of the tournament).
The underlying problem as always is that L12 was written before computer-based scoring was widely available and has not yet been updated.

[blackshoe]

When and where to use "not played" is a matter of law, not regulation. As has been said upthread, you only use it when you're changing the scheduling of a board. When there has been an irregularity affecting whether a board is played, the director must award an adjusted score.

Mycroft confirms my memory that "late play" is an option for bridge mates, though memory says it's an actual option separate from "not played" that can be separately activated for players to use. Been a while so I suppose I might be wrong about that.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2024-February-02, 12:23, said:

As has been said upthread, you only use it when you're changing the scheduling of a board. When there has been an irregularity affecting whether a board is played, the director must award an adjusted score.

And as I implied upthread, that is arguably a poor and outdated law.

[blackshoe]

Sure, because why should somebody get an adjusted score just because they committed an irregularity?

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2024-February-03, 08:36, said:

Sure, because why should somebody get an adjusted score just because they committed an irregularity?

Because the irregularity can be penalized without assigning both sides an artificial score that has no sure relation to their probable performance on the board.
Assuming computer based scoring is available, which the Laws still fail to do (in 2024).

[blackshoe]

What do you mean by "computer based scoring"?