[inquiry]

Here is my take on this question, and how I instruct TD's that direct for me.

This is the "legal" language of we use to allow our TD's to issue adjusted scores in our tournaments. Our comments or additions and/or views are added to the laws below in blue italic lettering like this.

The tricky law to enforce is when the scores are adjusted by the computer program. The BridgeVu software used on BridgeBase Online automatically assigns average minus to both pairs when they fail to finish a board in a round. In our view, this computer adjustment allows the director the discretionary power to adjust the score under LAW 12 A2 (not to mention law 88). If a likely final result can be determined on the hand (say only the last trick remained to be played-or declarer is all trumps and opponents have no trumps, etc), we will adjust the score to that result. If the exact result can not be determined, but if there is a high probability one side was going to get a good board, our directors might award average plus to that side and average to the other. If there is no sure way to determine the outcome on a hand, and no sure way to determine for certain the offending side, we will award averages to both sides. Under Law 88 if we can not determine the likely result, but we can reasonably determine the offending side solely responsible for the slow play, the non-offending side gets and average plus and the offending side an average minus.

LAW 12 - DIRECTOR’S DISCRETIONARY POWERS

A. Right to Award an Adjusted Score
The Director may award an adjusted score (or scores), either on his own initiative or on the application of any player, but only when these Laws empower him to do so, or:

1. Laws Provide No Indemnity
The Director may award an assigned adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to the non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation of law committed by an opponent.

2. 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). Law 88 says the non-offending side for time-based penalty should be awarded 60% or the average of their game (whichever is greater). Currently, it is not practical for our TD's to obtain the average score of a pair in time to be used, so we will award 60% (average plus) for these cases (note, the computer assigns average minus initially, so we will need to change these by hand).

3. Incorrect Penalty Has Been Paid
The Director may award an adjusted score if an incorrect penalty has been paid.

B. No Adjustment for Undue Severity of Penalty
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.

C. Awarding an Adjusted Score
1. Artificial Score
When, owing to an irregularity, no result can be obtained, 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 partially at fault; average plus (at least 60% in pairs ) to a contestant in no way at fault (see Law 86 for team play or Law 88 for pairs play). The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance.

2. Assigned Score
When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a result actually obtained after an irregularity, the score is, for a non-offending side, the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred or, for an offending side, the most unfavorable result that was at all probable. The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance and may be assigned either in matchpoints

((Note: This information is extracted from the worldbridge federations online rules of bridge. For the complete document, see WBF Online Bridge Rules ))

[mink]

This thread sounds like anybody can interpret the laws according to his own beliefs. This is not how it should be. There is a laws committee in the WBF, and there are minutes of their meetings.

Most interesting finding there was in the "Minutes of the meeting of the WBF Laws Committee held on 30th October 2001 in Paris, France". It reads:

Quote

5. The committee agreed that references to irregularities
in the laws refer to irregularities committed by players. An
action by a Director may be an error but this does not
constitute an ‘irregularity’ within the meaning of the laws.

Not allowing the players to finish is not the players fault, so I would consider that it is a directors fault. The consequence from this is that in case you really think an assigned adjusted score is not possible you have to award average plus for both sides - this is the usual procedure in case of director errors (Law 82C).

However, pragmatically I would vote for finding an assigned score, and do so even if there is more than one possible final score - just take the most likely one, or, if the director knows who caused the delay, act as if this side had claimed and the claim was disputed.

If a pair has bid an impossible slam and it is just unclear if they will go down 1 or 2, I clearly would award them their bad score they deserve and not something artificial, even if the play had not started yet.

Karl

[blackshoe]

inquiry, on Feb 19 2007, 11:38 PM, said:

The tricky law to enforce is when the scores are adjusted by the computer program. The BridgeVu software used on BridgeBase Online automatically assigns average minus to both pairs when they fail to finish a board in a round.In our view, this computer adjustment allows the director the discretionary power to adjust the score under LAW 12 A2 (not to mention law 88).

At least you give some guidance to your TDs. I commend you for that. But...

The software's assignment of avg- to both sides is not the "irregularity" - it is simply a default decision that both pairs are at fault. The "irregularity" is that the software prevented completion of the board. IOW, the board was not completed, and there is no way it can be completed, so that's what brings Law 12A2 into play.

Quote

  If a likely final result can be determined on the hand (say only the last trick remained to be played-or declarer is all trumps and opponents have no trumps, etc), we will adjust the score to that result.

Law 12A2 specifically tells the director to award an artificial adjusted score. To invoke 12A2, and then award something other than an artificial adjusted score is not lawful.

Quote

If the exact result can not be determined, but if there is a high probability one side was going to get a good board, our directors might award average plus to that side and average to the other.

Again, there is no basis in law for this.

Quote

If there is no sure way to determine the outcome on a hand, and no sure way to determine for certain the offending side, we will award averages to both sides.

You award avg to both sides when both are partially at fault. How do you determine fault? You investigate. Once you have the facts, you make your ruling in accordance with those facts. If you can't determine the facts to your satisifaction, you do the best you can, and (in theory) notify the players of their right to appeal (see Law 85B).

Quote

Under Law 88 if we can not determine the likely result, but we can reasonably determine the offending side solely responsible for the slow play, the non-offending side gets and average plus and the offending side an average minus.

That's not Law 88, it's Law 12C1.

[blackshoe]

mink, on Feb 20 2007, 11:23 AM, said:

This thread sounds like anybody can interpret the laws according to his own beliefs. This  is not how it should be. There is a laws committee in the WBF, and there are minutes of their meetings.

Indeed, it isn't how it should be - nor how it is, where people follow the laws (and the interpretations of the LC). There are, of course, those who believe they can do whatever they like. One poster upthread said that since the laws don't address the particular problem, they are irrelevant, and trying to use them to decide what to do is wrong. I disagree completely with that approach. Rather, you have the laws, you are told (Law 81B2) to apply them, you do the best you can. If you can't figure it out, you ask for help. If you think that where the laws take you in a given situation is the wrong place, you lobby for change in the laws. But as a director you must follow Law 81B2, and rule in accordance with, not in defiance of, the laws.

(I snipped the WBFLC minute)

Quote

Not allowing the players to finish is not the players fault, so I would consider that it is a directors fault. The consequence from this is that in case you really think an assigned adjusted score is not possible you have to award average plus for both sides - this is the usual procedure in case of director errors (Law 82C).

I'll buy director error as soon as you show me how the way the software works is the director's fault.

When a board is not completed on time, there is "slow play". That is almost always some contestant's fault, at least partly. Law 12C1 tells the director how to deal with that.

Quote

However, pragmatically I would vote for finding an assigned score, and do so even if there is more than one possible final score - just take the most likely one, or, if the director knows who caused the delay, act as if this side had claimed and the claim was disputed.

If a pair has bid an impossible slam and it is just unclear if they will go down 1 or 2, I clearly would award them their bad score they deserve and not something artificial, even if the play had not started yet.

And here you're doing just what you deprecated in the beginning of your post - interpreting the laws to suit yourself. Please let's not do that.

[uday]

Quote

The "irregularity" is that the software prevented completion of the board. IOW, the board was not completed, and there is no way it can be completed, so that's what brings Law 12A2 into play.

There are a few reasons why we choose to do this (terminating the play when the clock runs out) in this type of movement. In order, I think:

- keep the game moving for all pairs
- ensure that the total time taken is predictable


We've found that people (perhaps it is the TDs) don't seem to like untimed events where you need to rely on the TD to keep the game moving when boards slow down. TDs have the choice today of creating either timed or untimed events (it is true that the selection has side-effects on the movement, so a TD can't choose, for instance, an untimed mitchell)



Would it be more palatable if, (when the players failed to complete the board in the alloted time in a timed event), robotic substitutes were assigned to finish off the board so that a result was achieved? Is that even weirder than assigning A-- and leaving it to the TD to sort out? It does achieve a result.

[inquiry]

blackshoe, on Feb 20 2007, 03:57 PM, said:

inquiry, on Feb 19 2007, 11:38 PM, said:

The tricky law to enforce is when the scores are adjusted by the computer program. The BridgeVu software used on BridgeBase Online automatically assigns average minus to both pairs when they fail to finish a board in a round.In our view, this computer adjustment allows the director the discretionary power to adjust the score under LAW 12 A2 (not to mention law 88).

At least you give some guidance to your TDs. I commend you for that. But...

The software's assignment of avg- to both sides is not the "irregularity" - it is simply a default decision that both pairs are at fault. The "irregularity" is that the software prevented completion of the board. IOW, the board was not completed, and there is no way it can be completed, so that's what brings Law 12A2 into play.

Quote

   If a likely final result can be determined on the hand (say only the last trick remained to be played-or declarer is all trumps and opponents have no trumps, etc), we will adjust the score to that result.

Law 12A2 specifically tells the director to award an artificial adjusted score. To invoke 12A2, and then award something other than an artificial adjusted score is not lawful.

Quote

If the exact result can not be determined, but if there is a high probability one side was going to get a good board, our directors might award average plus to that side and average to the other.

Again, there is no basis in law for this.

Quote

If there is no sure way to determine the outcome on a hand, and no sure way to determine for certain the offending side, we will award averages to both sides.

You award avg to both sides when both are partially at fault. How do you determine fault? You investigate. Once you have the facts, you make your ruling in accordance with those facts. If you can't determine the facts to your satisifaction, you do the best you can, and (in theory) notify the players of their right to appeal (see Law 85B).

Quote

Under Law 88 if we can not determine the likely result, but we can reasonably determine the offending side solely responsible for the slow play, the non-offending side gets and average plus and the offending side an average minus.

That's not Law 88, it's Law 12C1.

First, don't take this the wrong way, but I hope you never choose to play in one of our tournaments. There is nothing more annoying than someone quoting the laws of F2F bridge to us all the time in situations where online bridge can not be treated like F2F bridge.

Next, you seem to have a concept in mind as to what an Artificially Adjusted Score might be. Law 88 states that for a non-offending side it is the greater of 60% or the their average on completed boards. On the BBO, the only choices for non=adjusted scores are Average, Average minus (40%) or Average plus (60%). So right out of the box, we can not adhere to LAW 88, because if someone has a 65% game, the best we can do is give them 60%.

But an Adjusted score is defined as
Either "artificial"' or "assigned'", where
1. An artificial adjusted score is one awarded in lieu of a result because no result can be obtained or estimated for a particular deal (e.g., when an irregularity prevents play of a deal).
2. An assigned adjusted score is awarded to one side, or to both sides, to be the result of the deal in place of the result actually obtained after an irregularity.

Law 12.A.1 clearly allows the director to award an assigned adjusted score if an infraction has occurred. In a timed game, the infraction was the hand was not completed. Let me give you two typical endings...

Time runs out, this is the ending. As a Director, we can see that North will surely win the last trick, there is no bridge question, the result is known even though the hand was not finished. Our TD's would award the last trick to north, and give assign what ever that result woudl be (making or down in the contract.

This seems entirely reasonable, consistent with both the laws and the feeling of "fair play".

---

Time runs out, this is the ending. As a Director, we can see that North will surely win the last trick, there is no bridge question, the result is known even though the hand was not finished. Our TD's would award the last trick to north, and give assign what ever that result woudl be (making or down in the contract.

This seems entirely reasonable, consistent with both the laws and the feeling of "fair play".

---

Time runs out, this is the ending. As a Director, we can see that North will surely win the last trick, there is no bridge question, the result is known even though the hand was not finished. Our TD's would award the last trick to north, and give assign what ever that result woudl be (making or down in the contract.

This seems entirely reasonable, consistent with both the laws and the feeling of "fair play".

---

In other cases, were the reasonable result CAN NOT be determined, do the best we can with assigning average plus, averages and average minsus. The Average minus is reserved when one side clearly caused the delay (say a player disconnected or did not play for long stretch and his partner did not want a sub). In those cases, we give Average + to non-offending side, and average minus to offending side. You might say the person who was not connected was not "at fault", but this is a timed event, and we do offer the chance to get a replacement.

[Gerben42]

I'm sorry to not have joined in earlier but this situation is similar to a speedball event where play ceases as soon as the round is called. Then the director looks at the hand and sets a result.

Quite simply

You do not deserve an artificial score on a first time offence

So if 6NT was about to make for a top score, you get that. And your opponents get -990. They do not deserve Ave-, Ave+, or Ave.

In addition you can give pairs a warning that they better hurry up next time.

Multiple offenders will get penalties but independent of the board result. I'm not sure if this is possible, but you can tell them maybe not to play in your tourney again.

[jikl]

Quote

QUOTE (jillybean2 @ Feb 17 2007, 01:11 PM)
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. 

I find this to be a revealing comment. You might know every law in the rulebook, you might be able to quote every law backwards and forwards. All well and good. Let's look at laws in general, not bridge laws, all laws. For instance in some places one loses their taxi(cab) licence for not having a bail of hay in their boot. Yes, an out of date law that has not been removed. New laws are introduced over the top of these laws; some would say they supercede the old laws, but you will find that this old law still exists because it has not been repealed.

Let's apply this to the Bridge Laws. Yes, each new version supercedes completely the previous laws. However, we now have a situation where some very hastily written adjuncts that do not cater to all situations were introduced in between the normal law introduction phase, so yes we have some imperfect laws.

Whilst all of your answers strictly apply the laws of the game, you would not be found to be in error anywhere in the world. The real question is whether these applications of imperfect laws are within the spirit of the game. An online bridge savvy appeals committee might overturn these obvious results ones.

We are not far (at least I believe this to be the case) from having a complete set of laws rather than the incomplete one we are currently using. So this is a short lived problem that we have to deal with in the meantime.

The one thing I found really strange was the fact you could only really quote laws because you are not familiar with aspects of online directing, therefore, whilst you could easily answer Uday's original questions, you have no practical experience here at all.

There are far too many differenced between online bridge and offline bridge. A few quick examples:

You have an hour before you have to go somewhere, you see a 50 minute Tourney. (This is the beauty of clocked Tourneys)

You are playing in a Tourney, the phone rings, do you answer it? (Or someone knocks at the door) (Cat jumps onto your lap) These are not possible in offline bridge. There are so many possible reasons for delays in online bridge that are not possible in offline bridge.

Having to wait on subs etc.

--------

I already know your answer, programmers fault. This is your only answer because it does not concur with your beloved Law Book. Therefore this is not bridge etc, blah blah. Better not tell the ACBL that.

What this comes down to practical application of law in situations that are not covered by law, I know, I know, they are covered in your law book, sort of. Realistically they are not covered at all, therefore it is time to use logic and imagination rather than blind faith to a flawed document.

Sean

[hotShot]

If you adapt the laws for online bridge, you will find that several laws are obsolete, because:

-bids out of turn
-insufficient bids
-leads out of turn
-revokes

won't happen, because the software does not allow them.

The alerting procedure is more like using screens, and private chat can avoid a lot of UI situations.

But you also have problems that you usually don't have in f2f bridge. I can't remember a club evenings where a player left in the middle of a tourney. Online directing is mostly about subbing player.

It is quite easy to determine the slow players in f2f bridge and as TD i can put some pressure on them.
I can go to their table, i can issue warnings, I can order to skip a board awarding A- to the responsible side and I can assign penalties if necessary.
If I go the a table online, the player won't even notice (Fred, could you give TD's a button to send an official "The TD is looking at you!" message), the software is not helping much to issue warnings and it's not possible to assign penalties.
As TD you have no way to find out, who is responsible for the slow performance of a table.

In f2f bridge you plan with 8 min/board including shuffling and writing down results. Perhaps you give a extra minute for moving to the next table. Online these extra duties are performed by the software, so 8 min/board is much time.

If you organize an unclocked event, the end of the tourney depends on the slowest playing pair, and there are always pairs that take 10-12 minutes per board, while the majority is using 6 minutes/board. So if you create a tourney with 8 boards to play most players are ready within an hour and some will still be playing after 2 hours.
No wonder player and TD's prefer clocked events, they can plan the time consumption much better this way.
But for this kind of event we need new laws to define what to do with unfinished boards.

It would be perfect if the software would try to finish unfinished boards, if at least the bidding was finished and the first card played.

[blackshoe]

Okay. Three consecutive responses taking me to task. "Don't take this the wrong way" - how should I take it? "Blind faith to flawed laws". "several laws are obsolete". Let me respond to that.

Uday asked three questions. Basically "do the laws cover the situation where a board is aborted by the software due to time running out?" and "if so, how?" and "if not, how should the TD deal with it". I have acknowledged that the laws do not directly address the problem, but have pointed out how they can be applied to deal with it in spite of that lack. Now I'm told I lack experience with online bridge (true), that I am so blinded by my knowledge of the laws that I can't see their spirit, that the laws are "irrelevant", that, basically, I don't know what I'm talking about so I should STFU. If you don't know what that acronym means, go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STFU. If you do know what it means, you'll perhaps recognize that I am a bit annoyed. I'm trying to help, thank you very much.

Never played in or directed a formal duplicate speedball, either, so I was not aware that a similar situation exists there. I would imagine, however, that the Conditions of Contest (CoC) for such events specify how to handle the situation. It sounds, though, like such CoC conflict with the laws, if they allow the TD to award an assigned adjusted score rather than an artificial one, using his judgement as to what the outcome would have been.

When I woke up this morning, it came to my mind that perhaps this question should be submitted to the WBFLC. The Online Laws were first promulgated in 2001. The Preface to those Laws contains the following

Quote

The Committee has agreed that during the early years of its existence this Code of Laws shall be reviewed annually and all Game Providers in particular, and others interested also, are invited to let the Committee have their comments when sufficient time has elapsed for experience to be gained of its effects and associated problems.

Game Providers will note the powers given to them to regulate temporary changes of the provisions where these are necessitated by the limitations of the software. The WBF anticipates that developments in software configuration will eliminate any such requirement in due course.

I had it in mind to offer to send the question to Grattan Endicott, WBFLC Secretary, to see if he might wish to present it to the committee. But I'm merely an acquaintance of his - the question might better come from BBO directly. I will PM Uday with this offer.

In the meantime, I have some sympathy with the idea that it might be fairer, or at least perceived to be fairer by the players, if when the software cuts short a board, and an actual result, though not in fact obtained, is "obvious", the director were permitted to award an assigned adjusted score. It is not, as I have shown, strictly speaking lawful, but neither, IMO, is the same practice applied to f2f speedballs. In any event you folks running games here are going to do what you want whatever I say, so I'm done here. <shrug>

[blackshoe]

uday, on Feb 20 2007, 04:25 PM, said:

Quote

The "irregularity" is that the software prevented completion of the board. IOW, the board was not completed, and there is no way it can be completed, so that's what brings Law 12A2 into play.

There are a few reasons why we choose to do this (terminating the play when the clock runs out) in this type of movement. In order, I think:

- keep the game moving for all pairs
- ensure that the total time taken is predictable


We've found that people (perhaps it is the TDs) don't seem to like untimed events where you need to rely on the TD to keep the game moving when boards slow down. TDs have the choice today of creating either timed or untimed events (it is true that the selection has side-effects on the movement, so a TD can't choose, for instance, an untimed mitchell)



Would it be more palatable if, (when the players failed to complete the board in the alloted time in a timed event), robotic substitutes were assigned to finish off the board so that a result was achieved? Is that even weirder than assigning A-- and leaving it to the TD to sort out? It does achieve a result.

I think I owe Uday an answer on this one, so...

Good reasons, I think, in this era of the expectation of "instant gratification".

IME in f2f bridge, people don't like having boards taken away, nor do they like being delayed by slow players. There is a trend at the clubs around here (I can't speak for the rest of the world) to ignore the concept of a "late play" envisioned in the laws, and simply cancel boards before they are started (I have only once seen a TD stop a board once started, and that was because it was started in defiance of the TD's instruction not to do so). Sometimes the TD will say "we'll let you have a late play if there's time", but of course there never is. <shrug>

Robotic subs is one solution, but I don't know if it's the best. Is the robot a better or worse player than the human for whom it is substituting? Will players accept this solution? I dunno.

I have tried to show in this thread how the laws as currently written should be applied to this problem. Folks don't want to do that - they want to award an assigned adjusted score, adjusting to the "obvious" result. I don't think the result will always be that obvious, but I don't have a problem with changing the laws to allow this. In the interim, while it's not strictly legal (because it conflicts with the laws as written), I suppose a sponsoring organization could issue a regulation to the same effect.

[blackshoe]

inquiry, on Feb 20 2007, 04:52 PM, said:

First, don't take this the wrong way, but I hope you never choose to play in one of our tournaments. There is nothing more annoying than someone quoting the laws of F2F bridge to us all the time in situations where online bridge can not be treated like F2F bridge.

One last (I hope ) comment:

You do me a disservice when you assume that I would argue with a TD in the middle of a game. I don't do that. TD makes his ruling, I accept it and move on, or if I feel it's warranted, I appeal. In online bridge, I can't think of a situation where I would feel an appeal is warranted, particularly if it were a case of "online bridge isn't f2f bridge". Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if appeals are not possible online. Even so, my point stands.

As for never choosing to play in one of your tournaments, I don't go where I'm not welcome. I am coming around to the idea of trying online bridge again, and BBO is likely the place where I'll do that, but I'll try to remember I'm not welcome in your tournaments.

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on Feb 21 2007, 07:05 PM, said:

When I woke up this morning, it came to my mind that perhaps this question should be submitted to the WBFLC. The Online Laws were first promulgated in 2001. The Preface to those Laws contains the following

Quote

The Committee has agreed that during the early years of its existence this Code of Laws shall be reviewed annually and all Game Providers in particular, and others interested also, are invited to let the Committee have their comments when sufficient time has elapsed for experience to be gained of its effects and associated problems.

Game Providers will note the powers given to them to regulate temporary changes of the provisions where these are necessitated by the limitations of the software. The WBF anticipates that developments in software configuration will eliminate any such requirement in due course.

I think its very useful that you brought attention to this specific quote... In my mind, it demonstrates a fundamental tension that is going to cause a lot of problems down the pike.

The WBF Laws Committee is operating under the assumption that the differences between online bridge and F2F bridge can be solved by more code. If the programers have enough time to implement appropriate features/functions the F2F game and the electronic game will converge.

I argue that the two playing environments are fundamentally different. In part, this is a function of the medium, however, the demographic base is also enormously different. I don't expect the two forms of the game to converge; indeed I expect that the they are going to deviate more and more.

The WBF rather stubborn refusal to come to grips with this issue is only going to exacerbate matters. From what I can tell, very little of the WBFLC members have any direct experience with the online game. (The experience that they do have is largely limited to online Vugraphes. They don't actually play the game). Hell, I don't think that more than a handful of the members of the Bridge laws Mailing list have any significant experience playing online bridge.

I think that its dramatically premature for the WBFLC to make any serious revisions to the Laws of Online Bridge. However, I very much believe that the Laws Commision needs to go out of its way to ensure that its members have practical working experience with the electronic version of the game.

[inquiry]

blackshoe, on Feb 21 2007, 11:38 AM, said:

As for never choosing to play in one of your tournaments, I don't go where I'm not welcome. I am coming around to the idea of trying online bridge again, and BBO is likely the place where I'll do that, but I'll try to remember I'm not welcome in your tournaments.

Just so you realize, "my tournaments" is not BBO tourmanents in particular. Each TD and sponsoring organization runs their own tournaments, so the dis-invite was for ones I run and/or start rather than the thousands of those on the BBO I am not associated with.

In addition, I hope you understand the smiley face takes away some of the harshness of my comments..,.. suggesting it is meant more as being humous than serious. The real problem on line is tourmanent leavers and extremely rude people. Small tounaments have the director issue such a ruling at most once or twice per event, and most often not at all. So this is hardly something I would really lose sleep over. In addition, unlike many other tournaments, we spell out in writting how we apply WBF rules (including the part about "obvious" results). We also try to go to unfinshed tables BEFORE the round is over to get a flavor for the play.

[uday]

Thanks all, esp. Ed, for this discussion.

I'll follow up directly with the WBF and see if that route is more productive. I'll post back here if I learn anything.

Uday

[hotShot]

From: http://homepage.mac....ary/GlossO.html

Quote

Fast Open Pairs
The Fast Open Pairs, which requires players to finish their two-board rounds in 11 minutes, is a permanent national event that is played on the last two days of the Summer NABC, or North American Bridge Championship. The event, introduced in 2000, consists of two qualifying sessions and two final sessions.

    Previous Winners:
    2000  Chris Willenken, Aaron Silverstein
    2001  Jim Robison, Mark Itabashi
    2002  Alan Kleist, Leo LaSota
    2003  Joel Wooldridge, John Hurd
    2004  Peter Welden, Richard Zucker

    According to the ACBL Codification
    Chapter VIII - North American Bridge Championships
    D. Events / Schedules

    NABC Speedball Championship (003-121)

    B. The NABC Fast Open Pairs is approved for 2001 and 2002 on a trial basis.
    From the:  Minutes
    ACBL Board of Directors
    Hilton Suites
    Phoenix, Arizona
    November 22 - 26, 2002
   
    Item 023-116: NABC Fast Open Pairs Championship (003-121)
   
    The National Fast Open Pairs is approved as a permanent National Event scheduled to be played the last two days of the Summer NABC. There will be a scheduled review by the ACBL Board of Directors at the 2005 Fall meeting. Carried without dissent.

Does anyone here have access to the CoC of this event, or can remember then?

[inquiry]

hotShot, on Feb 21 2007, 01:02 PM, said:

From: http://homepage.mac....ary/GlossO.html

Quote

Fast Open Pairs
The Fast Open Pairs, which requires players to finish their two-board rounds in 11 minutes, is a permanent national event that is played on the last two days of the Summer NABC, or North American Bridge Championship. The event, introduced in 2000, consists of two qualifying sessions and two final sessions.

    Previous Winners:
    2000  Chris Willenken, Aaron Silverstein
    2001  Jim Robison, Mark Itabashi
    2002  Alan Kleist, Leo LaSota
    2003  Joel Wooldridge, John Hurd
    2004  Peter Welden, Richard Zucker

    According to the ACBL Codification
    Chapter VIII - North American Bridge Championships
    D. Events / Schedules

    NABC Speedball Championship (003-121)

    B. The NABC Fast Open Pairs is approved for 2001 and 2002 on a trial basis.
    From the:  Minutes
    ACBL Board of Directors
    Hilton Suites
    Phoenix, Arizona
    November 22 - 26, 2002
    
     Item 023-116: NABC Fast Open Pairs Championship (003-121)
    
     The National Fast Open Pairs is approved as a permanent National Event scheduled to be played the last two days of the Summer NABC. There will be a scheduled review by the ACBL Board of Directors at the 2005 Fall meeting. Carried without dissent.

Does anyone here have access to the CoC of this event, or can remember then?

PDF CoC ACBL Fast Open Pairs two pages long

[hotShot]

Thank you! That was fast !

They seem to work with penalties only.

[inquiry]

hotShot, on Feb 21 2007, 01:32 PM, said:

Thank you! That was fast !

They seem to work with penalties only.

google is a magic thing....

[jillybean]

Just for fun I asked a real live certified director at the club yesterday about this issue and his reply..
“Oh we do it all the time, if a table is slow and we can see even the last 6 tricks are theirs we will say ok, 4S makes, move on please” The way he said it made me think it’s standard practice, perhaps its not just an online phenomenon

Ed you are welcome to play in my tournaments, my rules are simple.

Rule 1: don't argue with the director.
Rule 2: when the director is wrong, see rule 1.