[jtfanclub]

I defined my test tourneys as "3.5 boards per round". The players have 6 minutes per board so that the cutoff to start the fourth board of a set is 21 minutes, and then I adjust to 7 minutes per board with 2 minutes to go so everybody gets full time to finish the last board who got to it (if I could adjust it to 6.5 minutes, I would. I can't, can I?).

Therefore, I do not penalize for slow play unless the person plays quickly through boards 1-3 and then suddenly slows down when it looks like he's getting a bad result for board 4 (which has not yet happened), though I do sub out frequently for really slow people. On the other hand, it's not fair to the opponents pounding their heads against the keyboard waiting for this guy to get an average on the 4th boards. I've been giving out A+=...+ for the pair who had to wait for the slow guys, and = for the slow guys.

1. Do you think this is fair to the table?
2. Do you think this is fair to the other tables?

Thanks, jtfanclub/Matthew

P.S. Anybody else wish that A+= would be "player & partner +/opponents =" for the name you typed in instead of "N&S +/E&W ="?

EDIT: Hmmm...upon rereading it I made it sound like these are common. They aren't. They happen when:
1. the opponents complain of slow play before the round is half over, and
2. I make the determination that only one side is slow (usually by sneaking in repeatedly), and one of:
A. I determine that the slow player is slow due to mechanical issues and isn't so slow that he's disrupting the game, or
B. That it's due to mechanical issues and no subs are currently available, or
C. I sub out the player, but the damage has been done.

This has happened four times in two tourneys, one of which was by my swamped co-TD (who was playing, but slowed by the TD calls).

[spwdo]

hi,

A= seems a lot to get when u woud have gotten a bad result, even A- many woud settle for if they are in a mp`s 0% or imps more then minus 3 imps contract.

I always try to adjust to the obviuos, when in doubgt of outcome and u know for sure who was responsibil for the slowplay adjust the "dougbful" tricks for the opps(non slowplayers), so that a "convenient" slowplayer wont get away with it.

With A= only as "punischment"(i call it award) it pays off to try funny contracts last baord and see what happens, when u cant make it, play slow and your overallresult wont change because of the A=


Marc

[jtfanclub]

Wow, I was even less clear than I thought. Sorry.

I only adjust when the last board was never started due to time constraints. Somebody who plays through boards 1-3 quickly and then slows down on board 4 would, and should, be penalized.

If it helps, this is the same situation as mink's, in the other active thread here.

[BurnKryten]

Just off the top, giving Ave+= is never equitable to the other tables - 55% > 50%. It seems to me that it's not right to increase the value of a particular board, especially an unplayed board, to more than 100%. If a pair is at fault for the late play, then sure, use Ave-+... otherwise, Ave== seems fair.

Just my two cents.