[pran]

bluejak, on Oct 3 2009, 06:40 PM, said:

You can assume what you like, but leagues are run in this way all over the place.  While it may be true there are two rounds within a session that is still of no relevance to the fact that sessions are unconnected with each other, and we have no intention of changing a method that works in many many leagues just to suit your methods.  I do not come over to Norway and tell you to run your events differently.

What seriously worries me is that you seem to find it acceptable for players to resume play of the remaining boards after a round has been interrupted so that they have had the possibility to learn their standing at the time of the interruption from the boards already played in that round .

You could look at Law 76B3 which clearly shows the principle. (I don't think the lawmakers have imagined any other possibility for players to receive such information during a round other than from a spectator.)

Obviously contrary to you I find the concept of "round" very relevant in many situations, this is one of them, and I find your willingness to discard that principle from the laws rather disturbing.

I have neither had nor have any interest in influencing how you play your tournaments. You introduced some league concept of yours and asked for my comments.

And to just repeat my opinion on the original question: I think the only legal way to handle the situation when a match is interrupted during a round is to either cancel the round or let the result be determined from the boards already played. It should never be any question of completing a round by playing the remaining boards at a later time.

Sven

[bluejak]

The league has asked the two teams to replay or finish the match. They have said that they do not mind whether the teams replay the whole match, the second half, or just play the outstanding seven boards. They have said they need the agreement between the two teams as to when to play or replay and how many boards to be told to the league by halfway through the league season, though the actual playing need not be done until later.

If the teams cannot decide how many boards to play, then the league will then decide. If the teams cannot, or will not, agree when to play, then the league will make a decision as to how to score the match. Nine imps as described earlier, or 14 imps [2 imps a board] have been mentioned.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on Oct 5 2009, 04:44 PM, said:

The league has asked the two teams to replay or finish the match. They have said that they do not mind whether the teams replay the whole match, the second half, or just play the outstanding seven boards. They have said they need the agreement between the two teams as to when to play or replay and how many boards to be told to the league by halfway through the league season, though the actual playing need not be done until later.

If the teams cannot decide how many boards to play, then the league will then decide. If the teams cannot, or will not, agree when to play, then the league will make a decision as to how to score the match. Nine imps as described earlier, or 14 imps [2 imps a board] have been mentioned.

I really don't understand this. Why should the NOS, who showed up ready to play the whole match on the night, be required to do anything additional?

I also do not understand the 2 IMPs/board when the usual penalty in the EBU is 3.

[pran]

bluejak, on Oct 5 2009, 10:44 AM, said:

The league has asked the two teams to replay or finish the match. They have said that they do not mind whether the teams replay the whole match, the second half, or just play the outstanding seven boards. They have said they need the agreement between the two teams as to when to play or replay and how many boards to be told to the league by halfway through the league season, though the actual playing need not be done until later.

If the teams cannot decide how many boards to play, then the league will then decide. If the teams cannot, or will not, agree when to play, then the league will make a decision as to how to score the match. Nine imps as described earlier, or 14 imps [2 imps a board] have been mentioned.

If the CoC empowers "the league" to make such decisions in this situation then that's it, case closed.

If not then I cannot understand how either side can legally be forced to accept any procedure that can reduce the intermediate result they have already achieved from the boards that were played.

And what rights does a team enjoy when present and ready to play a match according to schedule if their opponents for whatever reason do not show up or cannot play the complete match?

But it is your event, I don't really care.

Sven

[bluejak]

There are times when very unfortunate things happen to people. It is quite normal for other people, even bridge opponents, to give them leeway.

As for the question of 2 imps a board, you might re-read all of this thread. There is certainly a well-held view that 3 imps is a lot, especially when more than one or two boards are concerned.

Quote

In Ton Kooijman's Commentary [I think it is there: I have read it somewhere anyway ] he says that Average Plus and Minus is only suitable for one or two boards, and regulations should be made to avoid too many Average Pluses or Minuses.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on Oct 5 2009, 11:54 PM, said:

There are times when very unfortunate things happen to people.  It is quite normal for other people, even bridge opponents, to give them leeway.

I understand that, but as you know, leagues are starting up around now, plus the early rounds of several knockout competitions must be played. Finding dates that 8 people can all manage is difficult.

Quote

As for the question of 2 imps a board, you might re-read all of this thread.  There is certainly a well-held view that 3 imps is a lot, especially when more than one or two boards are concerned..

I did read all of the posts, including yours, expressing the opinion that 3 IMPs is harsh, but if there is nothing in the CoC, I don't think that there is a good reason to use anything but the default.

Quote

In Ton Kooijman's Commentary [I think it is there: I have read it somewhere anyway ] he says that Average Plus and Minus is only suitable for one or two boards, and regulations should be made to avoid too many Average Pluses or Minuses.

Maybe so, but the past cannot be undone.

[pran]

bluejak, on Oct 5 2009, 05:54 PM, said:

There are times when very unfortunate things happen to people.  It is quite normal for other people, even bridge opponents, to give them leeway.

That is precisely why I voted for having the 17 played boards (alone) decide the result of the match without any request for the last 7 boards to be played or be assigned any kind of an adjusted score. (An IMPs penalty had been in order if the "offending side" had really been to blame.)

You didn't answer my question: What rights does a team enjoy in your league when present and ready to play a match according to schedule if their opponents for whatever reason do not show up or cannot play the complete match?

Sven

[jeremy69]

If the match is not to be completed then i don't think it should be scored on 17 boards alone. One side stopped playing albeit for unhappy and unavoidable reasons. In the absence of any regulations in the league covering this I think the organisers can impose whatever adjustment they like although they may want to cover it for the future. It seems to me as if 21 imps is too much so 2 per board is perhaps more equitable.
If, however, both teams actually want to play the rest of the boards then I see no reason to stop them.

[bluejak]

Vampyr, on Oct 6 2009, 04:54 AM, said:

bluejak, on Oct 5 2009, 11:54 PM, said:

There are times when very unfortunate things happen to people.  It is quite normal for other people, even bridge opponents, to give them leeway.

I understand that, but as you know, leagues are starting up around now, plus the early rounds of several knockout competitions must be played. Finding dates that 8 people can all manage is difficult.

Not true. Our league is not like other leagues: we do not have the arranging problems of every other league I have ever played in [except one other local league]. Ours is a Thursday league, with four clubs providing regular venues. Between now and the end of the season there are 31 Thursdays. There are 16 matches arranged for those, plus at least two and at most five knockout matches. That leaves between 10 and 13 open dates. It is extremely easy to rearrange any problem match at this time of the season.

As for the knockout rounds of other competitions I am sure one of the two teams never plays in them. Yes, members of the other team play, but we are out of Crockfords: none of them are playing in the Nicko or the Gold Cup: so that leaves th Cambria Cup - two matches before April and the Welsh Cup - ditto. Since the members who play in the Cambria/Welsh are spread across three league teams they will never be organised for a Thursday.

It is jolly easy to play in and organise teams in a Thursday league. After suffering in the West Essex League, the South East Essex league, the West London league, the Manchester league and probably a few more I have forgotten it is just heaven!

[Lobowolf]

aguahombre, on Oct 1 2009, 06:23 PM, said:

The late Irv Kostal is on record as one of three players to win a National pairs event back in the sixties.

Did I miss one? I hadn't heard anything about Irv passing away. Sorry to hear if this is true.