[blackshoe]

Unfortunately, directors are not permitted to base their rulings on hope. Nor should they be.

[RMB1]

The European Bridge League introduced a regulation which required the TD to stop play of a board once the auction had started because of slow play and to award an adjusted score. This was for the pairs in Menton in 2003. The TDs were "reluctant" to apply the regulation. ASAIK, the EBL thought such a regulation was legal.

I can see nothing in the laws that allows cancelling a board before it has started for slow play that would not also allow stopping a board once it has started.

[pran]

dcrc2, on 2012-April-01, 06:37, said:

Possibly. Though while I've often heard it said that it's illegal to cancel the board in the middle of the auction, I'm not entirely sure which Laws this is supposed to be derived from. (I don't find your or Sven's references convincing, sorry.) So it is unclear to me whether or not 17A provides the time limit. I hope it doesn't.

How do you understand

Law 8B1 said:

B. End of Round
1. In general, a round ends when the Director gives the signal for the start of the following round; but if any table has not completed play by that time, the round continues for that table until there has been a progression of players.

(My enhancement)
Where in the laws do you find any authority for the Director to cancel a board after the auction (period) has begun on that board unless there has been an irregularity that makes normal play of the board impossible?

[dcrc2]

pran, on 2012-April-01, 12:11, said:

Where in the laws do you find any authority for the Director to cancel a board after the auction (period) has begun on that board unless there has been an irregularity that makes normal play of the board impossible?

As Robin just said -

Quote

I can see nothing in the laws that allows cancelling a board before it has started for slow play that would not also allow stopping a board once it has started.

[blackshoe]

You guys can argue all you want. This is not an issue that will be resolved at our level. Write to your RAs, see what they say. Or give them a test case (Law 93C2 permits the TD or AC to forward a case to the RA).

[PeterAlan]

It seems to me too that there is nothing specific in the Laws that determines whether or not a board must be played out once the hands have been drawn; instead, in the absence of any specific provision, and of any requirements of the Regulating Authority (Law 80B1), it would appear essentiallly to come within the Tournament Organiser's powers and their delegation to the Director, under the following Laws:

Law 80B2 said:

2. The Tournament Organizer’s powers and duties include:
...
(e) to establish the conditions for bidding and play in accordance with these laws, together with any special conditions (as, for example, play with screens – provisions for rectification of actions not transmitted across the screen may be varied).
(f) to announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with,these Laws.
...
(i) to establish suitable conditions of play and announce them to the contestants.

Law 81 said:

A. Official Status
The Director is the official representative of the Tournament Organizer.
B. Restrictions and Responsibilities
1. The Director is responsible for the on-site technical management of the tournament. He has powers to remedy any omissions of the Tournament Organizer.
2. The Director applies, and is bound by, these Laws and supplementary regulations announced under authority given in these Laws.
C. Director’s Duties and Powers
.... The Director’s duties and powers normally include also the following:
1. to maintain discipline and to ensure the orderly progress of the game.

(Note the last sentence of Law 81B1.)

Law 82A said:

A. Director’s Duty
It is the responsibility of the Director to rectify errors of procedure and to maintain the progress of the game in a manner that is not contrary to these Laws.

If it is accepted that there are no other specific provisions for these to conflict with, then it seems to me that these confer sufficient powers on the TO / TD to halt play of a board at any stage in order to deal with slow play. I'd certainly agree with

RMB1, on 2012-April-01, 10:59, said:

I can see nothing in the laws that allows cancelling a board before it has started for slow play that would not also allow stopping a board once it has started.

In response to pran's

pran, on 2012-April-01, 12:11, said:

How do you understand

Law 8B1 said:

B. End of Round
1. In general, a round ends when the Director gives the signal for the start of the following round; but if any table has not completed play by that time, the round continues for that table until there has been a progression of players.

(My enhancement)
Where in the laws do you find any authority for the Director to cancel a board after the auction (period) has begun on that board unless there has been an irregularity that makes normal play of the board impossible?

(1) I understand Law 8B1 as being solely about defining when the end of a round is deemed to occur (an interpretation re-inforced by the heading "End of Round") - I don't think it was ever intended to say anything specific about the regulation of the play of a board; instead, it's just saying that if a table over-runs for a while they're not deemed to have ended the round until they move on. As far as I'm concerned, play can be completed not only by playing the board out, but also by the Director terminating play of the board. After all, surely you accept that if the players took hours to complete the board the Director would have to step in sooner or later?

(2) My answer to your question "Where in the laws do you find any authority for the Director to cancel a board after the auction (period) has begun on that board ..." lies in the Laws I cited above.

In EBU-land the RA's guidance would seem to offer the Tournament Organiser the opportunity to set its own conditions, and is only saying "play the board out" in the absence of such conditions:

White Book 81.4.1 (p 111) said:

For many events the Tournament Organiser prescribes the speed of play, and the actions the TD takes if players play more slowly than prescribed. The remainder of this section is relevant for other events.
...
As a matter of principle, a TD should not remove a board from a table because it is late once an auction has commenced, unless the table was told not to play the board. In the latter case a procedural penalty for both sides should be issued and the board cancelled.

[blackshoe]

The clock calls for the end of the round. At table 3

1. One player has taken his hand out of the board. He hasn't looked at it.
2. As above, but he has looked at it.
3. As the two above, but two or more players have taken their hands out.
4. Dealer has made a call, but no one else.
5. It is the first round of the auction.
6. It is the second round of the auction.
7. The auction is over, but the opening lead has not been chosen.
8. The auction is over, the opening lead has been chosen.
9. The auction is over, the opening lead has been faced.
10. As #9, and the dummy has come down.
11. They are on trick two.
12. They are on trick six.
13. They are on trick twelve.
14. They've finished the play, but the score has not been entered.
15. In any of the above scenarios, one (or more) players have suggested ignoring the clock.

In which of the above scenarios does the TD have the authority to cancel the board? Where is the line? Why is the line where you say it is?

FWIW, unless and until I become convinced that "you can't cancel a board once someone takes his hand out" is wrong, I will not cancel a board in that situation.

[dcrc2]

PeterAlan, on 2012-April-02, 07:18, said:

WB 81.4.1 said:

As a matter of principle, a TD should not remove a board from a table because it is late once an auction has commenced, unless the table was told not to play the board. In the latter case a procedural penalty for both sides should be issued and the board cancelled.

Thanks for finding the White Book reference. Having seen this, I take back what I said earlier about cancelling the board during the auction being illegal. It seems clear from the White Book wording that, while we are indeed instructed not to cancel a board after the start of the auction, this instruction is purely advice and not an interpretation of law. A club could choose to overrule this advice, though I think this would be seriously misguided for the reasons others have given.

[PeterAlan]

blackshoe, on 2012-April-02, 12:34, said:

The clock calls for the end of the round. At table 3

1. One player has taken his hand out of the board. He hasn't looked at it.
2. As above, but he has looked at it.
3. As the two above, but two or more players have taken their hands out.
4. Dealer has made a call, but no one else.
5. It is the first round of the auction.
6. It is the second round of the auction.
7. The auction is over, but the opening lead has not been chosen.
8. The auction is over, the opening lead has been chosen.
9. The auction is over, the opening lead has been faced.
10. As #9, and the dummy has come down.
11. They are on trick two.
12. They are on trick six.
13. They are on trick twelve.
14. They've finished the play, but the score has not been entered.
15. In any of the above scenarios, one (or more) players have suggested ignoring the clock.

In which of the above scenarios does the TD have the authority to cancel the board? Where is the line? Why is the line where you say it is?

FWIW, unless and until I become convinced that "you can't cancel a board once someone takes his hand out" is wrong, I will not cancel a board in that situation.

For the reasons I gave above, and provided the Tournament Organiser / Tournament Director has previously made clear to all concerned what slow play rules are to be applied and that the situation in question is within those parameters, I would maintain that in any of these scenarios the TD has the authority to cancel the board. It would normally be unusual to draw the line so that scenario 14 is included, but in order to rule out wasting further time if the result of the board might be in dispute, I can see some merit in that too.

What's reasonable depends on how those parameters are expressed, and I suggest that there's an implict requirement of reasonableness. I would, for example, regard it as reasonable to say "if you haven't finished a board, including scoring it, by [say] 2 minutes after the move is called, then I'll cancel it" (your scenario 14). I would not regard it as reasonable to say "you can't start the second board any later than 3 minutes into the round" (your scenario 1). Within that constraint, it's up to the TO / TD to decide what the rules are, and in terms of which state of the board (start, auction, lead, etc) they are defined, and they have the authority to do so and to enforce them.

dcrc2, on 2012-April-02, 15:33, said:

It seems clear from the White Book wording that, while we are indeed instructed not to cancel a board after the start of the auction, this instruction is purely advice and not an interpretation of law. A club could choose to overrule this advice, though I think this would be seriously misguided for the reasons others have given.

I think you should look again at all the White Book wording I quoted. From the first sentence, the Tournament Organiser (here the club) may "prescribe[s] the speed of play, and the actions the TD takes if players play more slowly than prescribed", and the rest of the advice applies only to events where this is not done. Even then, I would suggest that the TD, under Law 81B1, has the authority to set these parameters him/herself at the start of the event, provided they are made clear to everyone. Where these slow play parameters are set, by the TO/TD, I don't have a problem with them involving the termination of play on a board where the auction has started, and so don't agree that this is necessarily "seriously misguided". To repeat my earlier question, surely you would accept that if the players took hours over the auction then the TD would have to step in sooner or later? In many events, any significant late play time is just not practical.

[blackshoe]

PeterAlan, on 2012-April-02, 17:30, said:

For the reasons I gave above, and provided the Tournament Organiser / Tournament Director has previously made clear to all concerned what slow play rules are to be applied and that the situation in question is within those parameters…

In ACBL clubs, at least, this is not going to happen.

[gordontd]

PeterAlan, on 2012-April-02, 17:30, said:

I would, for example, regard it as reasonable to say "if you haven't finished a board, including scoring it, by [say] 2 minutes after the move is called, then I'll cancel it" (your scenario 14).

How much better it would be to tell them that they won't be able to play one of the boards from the next round.

PeterAlan, on 2012-April-02, 17:30, said:

Where these slow play parameters are set, by the TO/TD, I don't have a problem with them involving the termination of play on a board where the auction has started, and so don't agree that this is necessarily "seriously misguided".

It still seems seriously misguided to me, for the reasons given at the start of this thread. I'm not quite sure what it achieves (on any round but the final one) that can't be achieved by taking away boards not yet started, but it does open the door to all sorts of underhand behaviour.

[blackshoe]

You know, maybe I'm just weird, but it never occurred to me to wonder "how might someone cheat in this scenario?"

[gordontd]

blackshoe, on 2012-April-03, 06:43, said:

You know, maybe I'm just weird, but it never occurred to me to wonder "how might someone cheat in this scenario?"

Yes, I'm not particularly suspicious by nature, but in this case it's just blindingly obvious that in some circumstances players would be able to affect the outcome of an unfinished board simply by speeding up or slowing down.

How many players would manage to get a lead on the table fast enough to be allowed to play a board that they believed they lost in the auction? Would they even know what their normal tempo would be in selecting their lead, when they have all the distraction of potentially having the board taken away, and not wanting to do anything unethical?

So much simpler for us all just to accept that standard TD practice in this situation has developed for a reason, and follow it.

[bluejak]

Chris3875, on 2012-March-30, 14:21, said:

I am very sympathetic with swanway's situation - there is certainly plenty of time allocated at his/her club to allow boards to be played. We also brought in a local rule at our club that if the opening lead had not been made (ie. they were still bidding the hand) when the 3 minute warning bell rang, then the board was to be handed in and the director applies the appropriate penalty. Players are aware of this rule and it is enforced without fear or favour - there is no late play. Maybe it sounds tough, but we have players who travel long distances to play at our club (a large number 80+ kilometres round trip and some up to 200 kilometres) so it is important for them to know that the session will finish between 4.00-4.15pm. Even an extra 2 minutes per round to cater for the players who prefer to discuss how the previous hand should have been bid or played rather than get on with the job can add an extra 20 minutes to the session. This local rule was moved at our annual meeting a few years ago and was accepted by a big majority of the players - slow play had been a problem and continues to be so at another local club who allow play to continue if the cards have been removed from the board. Assuming that we allow 7 minutes for a board to be bid and played, if you let play continue after the cards have been removed, that table could hold up play for an extra 4 minutes - pretty frustrating for players that are adhering to time. Attendance at our club has not been affected since this rule was brought in - on the contrary, our table numbers have risen.

While the reason given is good, the method is poor. No session is going to finish 20+ minutes late because of slow play when I am directing, nor any other competent TD I have known. But if I traveled 80+ kilometers and had a board taken off me where I had acquired a top in the bidding then I would never visit your club again.

TDs should just control slow play by other means. Pushing the players works most of the time, and the occasional board removed, whether you allow late plays or not, helps. Timers help.



As for the legalities, I just cannot see how a board once started can be stopped without a Law permitting it. While I accept you have started a board once you have looked at the cards, I accept the practical approach of taking a board away if no calls have been made, though I believe it to be illegal.

[PeterAlan]

Gordon, I'm not advocating any departure from standard TD practice, let alone any specific one, merely trying to give an answer of sorts to the question(s) about the legality of certain courses of action. Describing something as "reasonable" doesn't mean I favour it.

I suppose, also, that I'm starting from the viewpoint that your concerns about players gaming the cancelling of current round boards would be overstated, in the places I play most of my bridge anyway, but maybe I'm just naive! Incidentally, it seems to me that there could also be some, though probably lesser, opportunities for that sort of shennanigan if you're removing board(s) from the next round, though I don't want to think particularly hard about it! That practice, of course, also has the disadvantage that it affects pairs who were not any part of the slow play, even if they do get Ave+ by way of compensation.

[Chris3875]

The "bums on seats" voting at our club is, I think, the proof of the pudding. At a neighbouring club players complain constantly about never knowing what time they will get home and about having to sit and wait every round for the slow players. The pairs following slow players are constantly having to play "catch up" and don't like it. Please don't get the impression that we are taking boards off players on a regular basis - in fact, these days, it rarely happens because players are aware of the local rule. It is difficult for playing Directors to be on the floor hurrying players along. I am comfortable with our local rule but I have written to our Chief Director to get an opinion from him on whether it is "illegal".

[bluejak]

Please don't misunderstand: I am not suggesting allowing slow play. Any session where people do not know how long it will take is anathema. But there are a lot of things one can sensibly do, and only the one mentioned seems illegal.