[barmar]

 Keene_JP, on 2020-July-14, 11:36, said:

as director i've received notifications from the system re an incomplete board. by the time i get to the table, it has been adjusted to something like 'making', 'down 1'. etc. I'm the only director -- must be GIB doing this. SO -- does GIB first give A== and then later review ? Confused.

The system automatically assigns A== to incomplete boards. Then the TD can review and assign another score.

There's also an org-specific option that will automatically use GIB to assign a score if the board was almost done (less than 4 or 5 tricks left).

[McBruce]

 Keene_JP, on 2020-July-10, 18:13, said:

Fred -- very good article. My question relates to incident when i was directing VACB game yesterday. On an incomplete hand, GIB assigned A== and NS complained. Investigation revealed that only 4 1/2 tricks had been played. Even though declarer was very good player and outlined what he would have done (perhaps benefiting from seeing all hands afterward) i felt that with 8 1/2 tricks to go, there was too much uncertainty and let the GIB ruling stand. Was this wrong? Is there a required minimal # tricks played before adjustments other than A== should be made?

In reductio ad absurdum: one side reaches, say 3NT, and opening lead is made -- then -- that's all. Time limit reached. Given the lead, say there are 9 obvious off the top tricks and no hope for more. What should be done?

Thanks in advance for your answer -- i've caught a lot of flak over this, including be called "lazy".

-=-= Keene_JP

If they only get 4 1/2 tricks played on the last board there is a reason somewhere and Table History may find it. If the declarer had to endure slow bidding and play on the preceding boards and this is clearly shown by Table History, I might award his side A+ and the others A-. What I look for in Table History is whether there were messages from the other side asking them to speed up or watch the clock, as well as clear breaks in tempo in fairly clear situations. Often a table loses valuable time by a player making his first call late, because he has left the table during the previous hand as dummy and not arrived back in time. If the result is obvious or close to it that is what I would adjust to, without clear evidence that one side was primarily responsible for the lateness. The key to avoiding these situations is to make sure they cannot happen by getting in there early at problem tables: in a game of 6-12 tables it is not difficult to go table to table and check to see if anyone is falling behind, stopping off to give a warning if they are. Our games are 14 minute, 2 board rounds, and I usually do a walk-through once or twice and take note of the tables that are behind, then watch them more closely later to ensure they catch up. I also claim for the last table if they have decided to embark on a time-wasting line such as cashing winners in hopes of a misclick when the defenders cannot help but know what to keep. This keeps things moving and can be corrected later if a mistake is made. In larger games you'll have more tables to watch and sometimes you won't be able to help it when half the room has bid to 5♥* and the other half is trying to squeeze out an 11th trick in 5♠ and every auction had more bids than passes and most of the room is going to be late. In those cases, you try to focus on the ones who have played the least once down to the last three minutes, so they can get in enough tricks that the decision will be apparent.