[olegru]

ACBL speedball.
Director summoned with complain about slow play. Director came, noticed slow play, and rushed the slow player. The slow player speed up a little but became very slow again after director left the table. Director summoned the second time and watched the slow play. Then last board of the round been skipped and average assigned. I don't really care about result for responsible for the slow game pair.
But what about innocent pair?
If, say, pair with no fault had the average result in the tournament ~77%, what result in the skept board should be adjusted to them 50% or 77%?

[ArtK78]

If a pair is assigned and Average score (or, for that matter, an Ave+), it should equal the greater of 50% (60% for Ave+) or the percentage of their game. I could not tell you if that is what happens in a BBO ACBL game.

[Vampyr]

ArtK78, on 2012-April-02, 11:12, said:

If a pair is assigned and Average score (or, for that matter, an Ave+), it should equal the greater of 50% (60% for Ave+) or the percentage of their game. I could not tell you if that is what happens in a BBO ACBL game.

These comments are accurate with respect to Average Plus; however, an Average score is 50%.

[ArtK78]

Vampyr, on 2012-April-02, 11:58, said:

ArtK78, on 2012-April-02, 11:12, said:

If a pair is assigned and Average score (or, for that matter, an Ave+), it should equal the greater of 50% (60% for Ave+) or the percentage of their game. I could not tell you if that is what happens in a BBO ACBL game.

These comments are accurate with respect to Average Plus; however, an Average score is 50%.

There are many reasons for assigning an average score for a board to a pair when the pair is totally innocent of any wrongdoing on the board. It makes no sense for a pair with a significantly above-average game to be awarded a 50% score on a hand through no fault of their own.

It has always been my understanding that the award of an average score was actually an award of 50% or a pair's percentage score, whichever is higher. If that is not the case, it should be.

[Vampyr]

ArtK78, on 2012-April-02, 12:36, said:

There are many reasons for assigning an average score for a board to a pair when the pair is totally innocent of any wrongdoing on the board. It makes no sense for a pair with a significantly above-average game to be awarded a 50% score on a hand through no fault of their own.

That's why a pair which was in no way at fault is normally given Average-Plus.

Quote

It has always been my understanding that the award of an average score was actually an award of 50% or a pair's percentage score, whichever is higher. If that is not the case, it should be.

This is an Average-Plus, except that the minimum is 60%.

[barmar]

What the Laws actually say are:

Law 12C said:

2. a. When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained [and see C1(d)] the Director awards an artificial adjusted score according to responsibility for the irregularity: average minus (at most 40% of the available matchpoints in pairs) to a contestant directly at fault, average (50% in pairs) to a contestant only partly at fault, and average plus (at least 60% in pairs) to a contestant in no way at fault.

c. The foregoing is modified for a non-offending contestant that obtains a session score exceeding 60% of the available matchpoints or for an offending contestant that obtains a session score that is less than 40% of the available matchpoints (or the equivalent in imps). Such contestants are awarded the percentage obtained (or the equivalent in imps) on the other boards of that session.

The assigned score is 60% if your side is not at fault, 50% if you're partially at fault. So if all the lateness was caused by the opponents, then they get Ave-, you get Ave+, and 12C2c says that this means the max of 60% and your session score, so it can only improve your score.

If both sides are partially at fault, they each get Ave. In this case, there's no non-offending side, so no one gets a bump up to their session score above 60%. They're both offending, so if either of them has a session score below 40%, that will be the score assigned to the board.

This is what the Laws say. I haven't checked the BBO code to see if we actually do it as stated in the Laws.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2012-April-02, 16:10, said:

If both sides are partially at fault, they each get Ave. In this case, there's no non-offending side, so no one gets a bump up to their session score above 60%. They're both offending, so if either of them has a session score below 40%, that will be the score assigned to the board.

A side partially at fault gets an Average. This can never be modified to "below 40%". An Average is 50%.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2012-April-02, 16:20, said:

A side partially at fault gets an Average. This can never be modified to "below 40%". An Average is 50%.

If they're partially at fault, then they're an "offending contestant". The Law I quoted says that if their session score is less than 40%, the assigned score is modified to their score on the rest of the boards of the session. It doesn't say this only happens if they were assigned Average Minus.

[blackshoe]

[Groucho Marx]That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard![/Groucho Marx]

[bluejak]

barmar, on 2012-April-03, 13:49, said:

If they're partially at fault, then they're an "offending contestant". The Law I quoted says that if their session score is less than 40%, the assigned score is modified to their score on the rest of the boards of the session. It doesn't say this only happens if they were assigned Average Minus.

No, it doesn't.

If a side is partly at fault, it gets Average, which is 50% in a pair game, never more nor less.

[barmar]

Are you saying that a side that is partly at fault is a non-offending contestant, so 12C1c's "less than 40%" clause doesn't apply to them?

Or is it because 12C2a uses "at most" and "at least" only when describing Ave- and Ave+, and not when mentioning Ave, so the modifications in 12C2c don't apply to the latter case?

[blackshoe]

The latter, I expect.

[mycroft]

I have to admit, barmar, that I have never read that Law the way you did, and that it is a perfectly rational reading. However, I am quite certain that the way we are reading it - that only A- is "40% or 100% - opps score, whichever is lower"; A= is 50% independent of session - is the way it's intended to be, and the way it's ruled IRL.

This looks like a "send to Grattan, for his 'clarify' file" case.

[barmar]

I spend too much time down below in the IBLF, it's easy to get into Secretary Bird mode.

[bluejak]

I spend a lot of time on IBLF and try to avoid Secretary Birds.

There is absolutely no point in doing what people do on BLML, and try to do on IBLF, namely take no notice of what is actually done and argue something else which is a possible reading of the Laws. It does not really matter a sparrow's f**t whether it could be read that way when you know it does not mean that way and no-one else reads it that way.

Average Plus is 60% or your session score, whichever is greater.

Average is 50%.

Average Minus outside the ACBL is 40% or your session score, whichever is less.

Average Minus in the ACBL is 40% or your 100% less your opponent's session score, whichever is less.

That is what they are, so sue me.

[mgoetze]

olegru, on 2012-April-02, 10:18, said:

ACBL speedball.
Director summoned with complain about slow play. Director came, noticed slow play, and rushed the slow player. The slow player speed up a little but became very slow again after director left the table. Director summoned the second time and watched the slow play. Then last board of the round been skipped and average assigned. I don't really care about result for responsible for the slow game pair.
But what about innocent pair?
If, say, pair with no fault had the average result in the tournament ~77%, what result in the skept board should be adjusted to them 50% or 77%?

If Director determines there was an innocent pair, he should adjust the board from Ave/Ave to Ave+/Ave-.

[blackshoe]

If there are no outside factors, then the responsibility for slow play must be allocated between the two pairs at the table. Clearly if one pair is "in no way at fault" (and so should get A+) the other pair must be "directly at fault" (and so get A-). Equally clearly, if one pair is only "partly at fault", so must the other pair be, and so both pairs should get Average. Outside factors may change the TD's allocation of responsibility.

[bluejak]

I am not sure I agree with this. The first part, certainly. But a pair that is partly at fault can be opposed to a pair completely at fault. For that matter, Ave-/Ave- is certainly possible if the TD decides both pairs are completely at fault.

If a board would have been played if AB had done nothing wrong, and would also have been played if CD had done nothing wrong, that does not mean both are partly at fault: it means both are completely at fault.

[blackshoe]

Hm. You have a point, I think, but… does "completely" mean the same thing as "directly"? In the words of the law, then, what's the difference between "directly" and "partly"?

[bluejak]

To me:

If something would not have occurred because of what you did unless someone else did something as well you are partly responsible.

If something would have occurred because of what you did even if someone else who did something had not then you are directly responsible.