[uday]

So lets say the play of a board gets curtailed because the round clocks runs out, and the software assigns the usual Ave minus (or whatever) to both sides.

Now the TD is summoned.

Do the Laws cover this situation? Assuming that neither side was to blame, should the TD simply adjust the result to the likely outcome?

Does this apply? (from the WBF online law document)

"
Normal Play of the Board Is Impossible
---------------------------------------------
The Director may award an artificial adjusted score if no rectification can
be made that will permit normal play of the board (see Law 88).
"

Uday

[jillybean]

I don’t think the laws handle the problem of an incomplete board at all well. Law12C allows the director to assign an artificial adjusted score (A=+-) to an incomplete board and an assigned score only to a completed board after an irregularity. I don’t know why this isn’t better addressed for online play where incomplete boards are a regular occurrence. Its usually a simple process to assign an a result to an unfinished board and only when there is no clear line of play is an artificial score made, following Law12C1. This is why it is important to call the td if there is a delay so that if needed she can assign the correct artificial score.

lusobrasil’s comment on this was: We should ALWAYS get a result on those boards

http://forums.bridge...showtopic=12986

[hotShot]

The laws don't have a regulation for unfinished boards.
The TD can order slow pairs not to play the last board of a round, he can punish slow play, but he has to allow to finish the board.
I don't know how an unfinished board could happen f2f. (OK a player could drop dead in the middle of the board, but I don't think you need a regulation for that.)

The passage you quote expresses that the laws advise the TD to get a score whenever possible.
(Remember:
If a board is unfinished due to a disputed claim, the TD is instructed to finish it.
If the players have put away the cards and are disputing the result, the TD has to reconstruct the most likely play.
Even if revokes happen, the TD should try to get a score first.
)
If e.g. someone is shouting at his partner "You should have bid 7NT at board 8!", any pair that has not played board 8 yet, has a huge advantage/disadvantage because they know the best play or contract for that board. Only in cases like this the TD has to assign a artificial score A+,A-, A=.

I think that following the intentions of the laws, the TD should adjust to the likely outcome.

[jillybean]

hotShot, on Feb 17 2007, 12:56 AM, said:

The laws don't have a regulation for unfinished boards.
The TD can order slow pairs not to play the last board of a round, he can punish slow play, but he has to allow to finish the board.
I don't know how an unfinished board could happen f2f. (OK a player could drop dead in the middle of the board, but I don't think you need a regulation for that.)

The passage you quote expresses that the laws advise the TD to get a score whenever possible.
(Remember:
If a board is unfinished due to a disputed claim, the TD is instructed to finish it.
If the players have put away the cards and are disputing the result, the TD has to reconstruct the most likely play.
Even if revokes happen, the TD should try to get a score first.
)
If e.g. someone is shouting at his partner "You should have bid 7NT at board 8!", any pair that has not played board 8 yet, has a huge advantage/disadvantage because they know the best play or contract for that board. Only in cases like this the TD has to assign a artificial score A+,A-, A=.

I think that following the intentions of the laws, the TD should adjust to the likely outcome.

Obviously unfinished boards are rarely a problem in f2f bridge, Im talking about
The WBF Code of Laws for Electronic Bridge

[blackshoe]

When the Laws say "when a result was obtained..." they're talking about the table in question, not other tables where the board was or will be played. So the fact that a result was obtained at tables 1-22 is not relevant to ruling at table 23, where the software cut off play of the board before it was finished.

The laws do not contemplate that a board once started will not be finished, but the software does. Since we're stuck with the software unless and until that software is modified, we have to do the best we can to deal with situations where the software does something outside the laws, as here.

Law 12A starts by telling us that the TD may award an adjusted score only when the laws tell him to do so, or when the laws provide no indemnity for a particular offense, or when an incorrect penalty has been paid, or when "no rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board". I would include playing the board to completion in "normal play". The software has prevented that, and AFAIK there is no way to go back and "rectify" the software's action. So this provision of Law 12A applies.

Law 12C now tells us how to award an adjusted score. Law 12C1 starts "when, owing to an irregularity, no result can be obtained..." and Law 12C2 starts "when the Director awards an adjusted score in place of a result actually obtained..." These two clauses tell us when to apply the relevant sub-section of Law 12C. When the software has stopped play, no result has been obtained (that we can sometimes predict what the result might be is irrelevant). So we are led to Law 12C1, and an artificial adjusted score. The software automatically assigns average minus to both sides, which on reading Law 12C1 we can see assumes that both pairs are "directly at fault". But the Law requires the TD to investigate, and make that determination based on the facts of the particular case. It may be that only one pair was at fault. It may be that one or both pairs were partially at fault. TD must decide. But the adjusted score will be one of the possible combinations of average minus, average, and average plus. In particular:

Both sides directly at fault: avg- to both sides.
Both sides partially at fault: avg to both sides.
One side directily at fault, the other partially at fault: avg-/avg
One side directly at fault, the other in no way at fault: avg-/avg+

I do not think it's possible, in this online "slow play" situation that one side is only partially at fault and the other in no way at fault, or that both sides are in no way at fault, but I'm open to being shown how either of those might occur.

In any case, clearly whatever adjustment is made should be made under Law 12C1.

[jillybean]

By not adjusting boards to obvious results you create a situation where a player going 4HX-4 or opps making 6NT due to poor defense can stall until time runs out and receive a better result. We have no automatic recording of delays and it is very difficult for a TD to keep track of deliberate slow play.

[blackshoe]

Heh. "Obvious" is a slippery concept.

I am disinclined to assume that players will generally be unethical just because they think they can get with it. Some will, sure, but those players are relatively rare, imo, and not worth worrying about. In any case, I would not make an illegal ruling just to try to cover the possibility that one side or the other is cheating.

[hotShot]

The correct way would be:

1) When the time is up, move all finished pairs to their new table.
2) Let the slow tables finish the board and move them to their new table
3) Cancel a board of the next round if neccessarry and give the late pair A- and the waiting pair A+
4) Count how often a player has been red and how often a pair has been late in a tourney, this may help to decide what side is slow.

[jillybean]

blackshoe, on Feb 17 2007, 10:32 AM, said:

Heh. "Obvious" is a slippery concept.

I am disinclined to assume that players will generally be unethical just because they think they can get with it. Some will, sure, but those players are relatively rare, imo, and not worth worrying about. In any case, I would not make an illegal ruling just to try to cover the possibility that one side or the other is cheating.

Come and play in some online tournaments, you may be surprised at what goes on

You were asking if one side could be only partially at fault and the other in no way at fault online, many scenarios result in an unfinished board and like ‘obvious results’ reliant on the td’s interpretation

A player believes the opps have not disclosed their agreements satisfactorily, stops play and calls the TD. The TD is busy and it takes a min or 2 for the TD to get to the table, bids are explained and play continues but time runs out. Who is at fault?

A player is stuck, loses connection a couple of times, the board is incomplete at the round change. Is the stuck player directly at fault or partially at fault? Would you make a different adjustment if this happens regularly or only on ‘bad boards’ ?

A player is disconnected and it takes time find a sub – is the remaining player and the sub directly at fault or partially at fault or not at all at fault?

A player in an indy is being abusive, by the time the TD sorts out what is going on and finds a sub, time has run out. How do you adjust?

A complicated auction, both sides taking time to bid. Contract is 6N, time runs out with declarer holding remaining 2 winning cards to make 6N. All other tables play 3N, how do you adjust?

(I guess at the end of the day, deciding on A+ A+ is not going to matter much as long as one TD is making the adjustments and she is consistent.)

The TD’s job is to restore equity after an irregularity and I can’t see how leaving boards with an artificial score when an actual result is obvious is the best practice. Its just not the same a live bridge.

[blackshoe]

jillybean2, on Feb 17 2007, 01:11 PM, said:

Come and play in some online tournaments, you may be surprised at what goes on 

Quite possibly. I think though that if rampant cheating is normal, an impression I sometimes get from people's comments, I would prefer to stick to f2f bridge.

Jillybean said:

You were asking if one side could be only partially at fault and the other in no way at fault online, many scenarios result in an unfinished board and like ‘obvious results’ reliant on the td’s interpretation

Not quite. I said I couldn't see it, but would be willing to be shown how it might happen.

Jillybean said:

A player believes the opps have not disclosed their agreements satisfactorily, stops play and calls the TD. The TD is busy and it takes a min or 2 for the TD to get to the table, bids are explained and play continues but time runs out. Who is at fault?

1. The software designer
2. The TD.

Seriously, this is a situation where, ideally, the clock should stop when the TD is called, and start up again when she tells the players to continue playing. Yes, I know the software won't allow it. More later, if I don't forget.

Jillybean said:

A player is stuck, loses connection a couple of times, the board is incomplete at the round change. Is the stuck player directly at fault or partially at fault? Would you make a different adjustment if this happens regularly or only on ‘bad boards’ ?

This is a case of external factors (the quality of a player's internet connection) influencing the game. Such problems happen occassionally to everyone, and if that's the situation, I would not call the "stuck" player directly at fault. I might not even consider him partially at fault. In the nature of the internet (here I'm talking about how data gets from point a to point it's not his fault at all, unless he's deliberately using a known poor connection (something akin, say, to trying to play a first person shooter on a dialup connection).

Jillybean said:

A player is disconnected and it takes time find a sub  – is the remaining player and the sub directly at fault or partially at fault or not at all at fault?/

Not at all at fault. This one's easy.

Jillybean said:

A player in an indy is being abusive, by the time the TD sorts out what is going on and finds a sub, time has run out. How do you adjust?

Avg+ to the 3 remaining players. The fourth player is gone, so who cares?

Jillybean said:

A complicated auction, both sides taking time to bid. Contract is 6N, time runs out with declarer holding remaining 2 winning cards to make 6N. All other tables play 3N, how do you adjust?

I sympathize with the desire to give the declaring side 6N making, but the laws do not support that. Maybe they should.

Jillybean said:

The TD’s job is to restore equity after an irregularity and I can’t see how leaving boards with an artificial score when an actual result is obvious is the best practice. Its just not the same a live bridge. 

The TD's job is to run the game in accordance with the laws. Every TD should keep Law 81B2 firmly in mind at all times.

I have heard "bridge is a timed event" many times in f2f bridge. It's a true statement. But the timing required by the laws is only that

Law 8B said:

n 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.

Online bridge differs here only because the software was written to make it different. In my opinion, and I have been both a programmer and a software designer, that is a design flaw - the software should have been written to comply with the laws in the first place. Maybe the laws should be different, but they aren't (that quote comes from the Online Laws).

But never mind what ought to be the case - an online TD has to deal with the software she's got. Fair enough. But that doesn't mean that it is right to give a legally unsupportable ruling just because you think it's "obvious" they would have made the contract if they'd had time. A result was almost obtained. So what? This ain't horseshoes.

If you take the position that compliance with the laws as written is not necessary, that a TD can use his judgement to decide when to ignore the laws, you're not alone. I had a (f2f) TD here tell me a while back that "I can make any ruling I want". And so she can. But the power to do that does not make "any ruling I want" lawful.

I suppose the folks who bid to 6N and were about to make it might be upset to get avg+ instead of a top. But if you give them that top, and give the defenders a bottom, won't they be upset because they didn't get the avg+ for which the laws call? Okay, give declaring side their top, and defending side their avg+ (ACBLScore will do that, I dunno about bbo). Everybody's happy right? What about the other players in your tournament?

Online bridge is in its infancy. The laws will surely need to be amended to account for the realities of this new medium. In the meantime, TDs must do the best they can, but I submit that we should at least try to stay within the laws as written as much as possible, even if they don't seem "fair" to us in a given situation.

One last quote from TFLB

Law 12B said:

The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the penalty provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side.

What this means is that if, for example, Law 26 is invoked, and declarer gets to impose lead penalties, you can't adjust the score because the lead penalty imposed seems to you to have unduly favored one side or the other. In the same light, I submit that you cannot give a different score adjustment than the law allows for similar reasons.

[hotShot]

blackshoe you are right, the the laws do not allow to end a round with unfinished boards, but you draw the wrong conclusion about score correction.

Take a look at the laws and you will find, that they order the TD to do everything possible to retrieve a result, before he is allowed to assign an artificial score.

What if one or all all player drop their cards openly on the table right after the bidding?
No artificial score is allowed, a result has to be set.
Disputed claim, the rules don't allow the play to go on but the TD has to find a result.
Or take an UI case there the wrong contract was played, because the UI was used.
No artificial score is allowed, the TD sets the contract that would have been bid without using the UI and he has to find the result that this unplayed contract would have had.

So there are tons of cases that prove that the rules order the TD to get a result at almost any cost, even if it means he has to finish bidding alone and play the board against himself.

Since a TD can't change the software, he has to do his best to follow the intention of the laws which is to obtain a result at almost any cost, once a board has been started.

So a TD should adjust any board that has been started, even if the outcome is not obvious, to get a result.

[blackshoe]

I think you're the one who's drawing the wrong conclusion. Yes, there are situations where the laws direct the TD to determine an actual result, but those are specific cases. Claims, in particular, are not score adjustments. In a UI case, a result will have been obtained, so the laws lead to 12C2 rather than 12C1. Your "tons of cases" don't prove what you claim they prove, because in the case in question, it is 12C1 that applies. And 12C1 acknowledges that there are cases where a result cannot be obtained, and specifically requires, in those cases, that an artificial adjusted score be awarded. This is one of those cases.

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on Feb 18 2007, 04:57 AM, said:

Online bridge differs here only because the software was written to make it different. In my opinion, and I have been both a programmer and a software designer, that is a design flaw - the software should have been written to comply with the laws in the first place. Maybe the laws should be different, but they aren't (that quote comes from the Online Laws).

I'm going to disagree fairly strongly with this assertion...

The Laws that govern the game of bridge are designed for a specific form of the game that involves people shoving little pieces of pasteboard arround on a table. Bridge is in the process of transitioning to a new medium. Over time, we'll learn to differentiate between those Laws that govern bridge as a whole and those that are specific to a playing environment.

Case in point: I've never heard anyone make a serious argument that Online bridge clients should be coded in such a way as to permit leads out of turn or revokes. The Laws have regulations to deal with these types of irregularities. One might argue that writing code to eliminate the ability of players to make certain types of errors introduces a real change to the game. However, I think that it would be ludicrous to re-write the BBO client so that it complies with the Law book.

[blackshoe]

I'm not quite sure what assertion you're disagreeing with. All I said was that in this particular case (ie, determining the end of a round) the software should, IMO, have been written to comply with the laws as they currently exist. Coding to prevent certain irregularities is a different kettle of fish, and I have no problem with that (it is my understanding that some people do, though).

[hotShot]

How about using Law 72 B 1. ?

Quote

B. Infraction of Law

    1. Adjusted Score
        Whenever the Director deems that an offender could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue, afterwards awarding an adjusted score if he considers that the offending side gained an advantage through the irregularity.

I would think that playing slow is an irregularity as the rules set a time limit.
So not finishing within the time limit and by that getting a better score (e.g. Ave- instead of a bottom) is damaging the non offending side.

So I think adjusting the score is fine. Since part of the board is played it is suitable to correct the score to the likely outcome.

[jillybean]

blackshoe, on Feb 17 2007, 10:10 AM, said:

The laws do not contemplate that a board once started will not be finished, but the software does. Since we're stuck with the software unless and until that software is modified, we have to do the best we can to deal with situations where the software does something outside the laws, as here.

I agree completely that the laws don't address the problem of unfinished boards in a clocked, online tournament. Trying to fit this situation into a set of laws that are not relevant is completely wrong. I think the best we can do is apply some logic here and get a result when ever possible. Its not going to be perfect every time and the laws don’t permit it but IMHO the result we get is a lot closer to bridge than the alternative.

jb

[blackshoe]

Law 72B1 says "he (the TD) shall allow play to continue...' but he can't do that, the software won't let him. So this Law does not apply.

Quote

Since part of the board is played it is suitable to correct the score to the likely outcome.

I disagree. There is no law that says that.

[BillHiggin]

It seems to me that the original question (with editorial comment) boils down to:
"We need a legal method to deal with a situation that we have illegally created".

Stopping play of a hand in progress is not allowed, and therefore the laws do not address a resolution of it. Fix the situation rather than inventing a bandaid. There is nothing wrong with ruling that players not be allowed to start a new hand within the last N minutes of a round. Once they have started a hand, the only legal option is to finish it (barring certain covered exceptions).

[hotShot]

blackshoe, on Feb 19 2007, 07:40 PM, said:

Law 72B1 says "he (the TD) shall allow play to continue...' but he can't do that, the software won't let him. So this Law does not apply.

Quote

Since part of the board is played it is suitable to correct the score to the likely outcome.

I disagree. There is no law that says that.

Since we agree that the problem is not in the laws, it is obvious that the solution cannot be found in the laws either.

LAWS 82 orders the TD to perform "RECTIFICATION OF ERRORS OF PROCEDURE". The way BBO handles the round end could be seen as an "error of procedure", so the TD has the duty to rectify this error and he has the right to adjust boards.

I my 2nd post to this thread I stated how the software should have handled the problem, but until Fred and Uday decide to adapt the software (and I see a lot of good reasons, why they should leave it as it is) each TD has do deal with this problem and find a solution for it.

Law 80 (E/F)

Quote

E. Special Conditions
    to establish special conditions for bidding and play (such as written bidding, bidding boxes, screens - penalty provisions for actions not transmitted across a screen may be suspended).

F. Supplementary Regulations
    to publish or announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these Laws.

allows the sponsoring organisation (BBO/ the host in BBO) to establish "Special Conditions" and "Supplementary Regulations".
It is obviously a special condition to organize a timed event, and the way how to handle the unfinished boards could be defined by "Supplementary Regulations".

Unfinished boards are causing chances to cheat and produce a massive injustice to pairs that are a non offending side. In fact if internet connections or a busy TDs are causing a delay, there are only non offending sides involved.

The condition LAW 80 puts on the SO is that their regulations should not conflict (to much) with these laws.

Now assigning an artificial score is as illegal as an adjusted score, since the only legal way would be to finish the boards play. Assigning an artificial score is additionally damaging the non offending side. I tried to point out that in other cases when part of a board is played, assigning an artificial score is not allowed. I also tried to point out, that there are laws that allow a score adjustment is similar cases.

So my conclusion is that adjusting the score is not conflicting with these laws, as method to handle timed events.

[blackshoe]

Hotshot: I went through your last post several times, and there is much there that makes no sense to me. But to cut to the chase, as it were, adjusting the score is not in conflict with the laws, so long as the correct adjustment method is used. That would be an artificial adjusted score in accordance with Law 12C1, not an assigned adjusted score.

In the original post, Uday asked 3 questions:

1. Do the Laws cover this situation?

No, in that the laws do not contemplate that a board once started can be abandoned or stopped before the last trick is played (except in cases of claim or concession). Yes, in that the Laws do provide a remedy.

2. Assuming that neither side was to blame, should the TD simply adjust the result to the likely outcome?

No. The Laws do not permit this.

3. Does this apply? (from the WBF online law document)

"
Normal Play of the Board Is Impossible
---------------------------------------------
The Director may award an artificial adjusted score if no rectification can
be made that will permit normal play of the board (see Law 88).

Yes.

Those are my answers to Uday's questions, and I will stand by them.