[pigpenz]

Received an email today about a slow play penalty at the local club game.
After searching on Bridge Winners all I could find is slow play penalties
in championship events mostly by Brad Moss referring to KO's.

Ruling at club: TD gave slow players a penalty

they appealed and had it changed to no penalty.

My Question is I always thought that a slow play penalty was a procedural penalty that is not appealable?

just looking for guidance here

thanks

[ggwhiz]

 pigpenz, on 2016-June-11, 11:35, said:

My Question is I always thought that a slow play penalty was a procedural penalty that is not appealable?
thanks

Me too. Maybe the CoC requires a warning (that was not given) before a penalty is imposed?

[blackshoe]

Any ruling by a director can be appealed. An Appeals Committee cannot overturn a ruling on a matter of law, or a disciplinary penalty. It can overturn rulings involving a procedural penalty. See Laws 90 (procedural penalty), 91 (disciplinary penalty), 92 (right to appeal), and 93 (appeal procedures).

Slow play, once in a while, should engender no penalty at all, save perhaps a warning. However, an egregious slow play problem, particularly if a warning has already been given, should receive a procedural penalty — and a committee should be reluctant to overturn it.

I would be interested in hearing the director's reason for the penalty, and the committee's reason for overturning it.

[pigpenz]

thanks for the ideas...having stayed away from acbl live games for 20 yrs.....the spin on what happens changes all the times.
The person who emailed me and from the letter I felt that most of the players and committee felt like the TD was out of line.
Previous questions I believe about what Directors should do about slow play had resulted in boards(clubs) not really taking a firm line
on slow play....but then again local clubs tend to mostly get novices to serve on the board, not really sure but feel that may be some
of the reason for taking away the penalty even though the club is not private.

[blackshoe]

 pigpenz, on 2016-June-11, 17:40, said:

from the letter I felt that most of the players and committee felt like the TD was out of line.

From the sound of it, if I were the TD in question, that club and I would be parting ways.

[pigpenz]

Law 93-3b

3. in adjudicating appeals the committee may exercise all powers assigned by these Laws to the director, except that the committee may not overrule the director on a point of law or regulations or on exercise of his Law 91 disciplinary powers. (the committee may recommend to the director that he change such a ruling.)

It would seem that the penalty would follow under law 91 for the TD, in his efforts to maintain order of the game.


Blackshoe: there seems to be an issue with this club in controlling the TD. Majority of board is novices, TD can't matchpoint across the field with 2 8 table section, until they reach 17 tables. So as far as TD goes, if they need the money then they put up with it.

[blackshoe]

The TD has to specify whether he's issuing a disciplinary penalty or a procedural penalty, as well as the reason for the penalty. If he says it's for violating a law or regulation, but doesn't say anything more, then it's a procedural penalty.

I'm not sure what you mean by "TD can't matchpoint across the field". Does he not know how, or is the board telling him he's not allowed to do so?

[pigpenz]

 blackshoe, on 2016-June-12, 12:40, said:

The TD has to specify whether he's issuing a disciplinary penalty or a procedural penalty, as well as the reason for the penalty. If he says it's for violating a law or regulation, but doesn't say anything more, then it's a procedural penalty.

I'm not sure what you mean by "TD can't matchpoint across the field". Does he not know how, or is the board telling him he's not allowed to do so?

On the across the field issue, a couple of months ago there was charity or championship game with 16 tables, instead of having 2 8 table sections the game was run as one 16 table section. They have duplimates for the dealing of the hands. When I asked about the sections they said the board wont let them have 2 sections until they get to 17 tables.So they have a one section field where all the pairs play a whole bunch of boards that other pairs don't play.

[robert2734]

You can run a web movement with 16 tables. Everyone plays the same 26 boards. You only play 13 of the 16 pairs but that can't be helped.

[blackshoe]

I wonder where they came up with that silly rule?

A movement should be crafted so as to meet as best as possible the goal that everyone should play against everyone else (okay, in a Mitchell, all the EWs play all the NSs) and everyone should play all the boards. Arbitrary rules like this club's throw a monkey wrench into things.

[robdixon87]

Not sure how useful this is, but there here is some documented evidence of an appeal against a slow play penalty:

http://www.ebu.co.uk...ppeals-2012.pdf

It is appeal number 12.048, on page 44.

[barmar]

 robdixon87, on 2016-June-13, 08:23, said:

Not sure how useful this is, but there here is some documented evidence of an appeal against a slow play penalty:

http://www.ebu.co.uk...ppeals-2012.pdf

It is appeal number 12.048, on page 44.

They seemed to be appealing on a point of fact, not law -- they disputed the TD's finding that NS were at fault for the slow play.

[blackshoe]

 barmar, on 2016-June-13, 10:57, said:

They seemed to be appealing on a point of fact, not law -- they disputed the TD's finding that NS were at fault for the slow play.

Did they introduce any evidence in support of their position, or did they just "it wasn't our fault"?

[pigpenz]

even in Golf you get put on the clock after a warning or two. I don't think there is an
appeal process in golf.

[pigpenz]

Yes N/S got off easy not losing deposit and getting 50% instead of 40%

[TylerE]

 blackshoe, on 2016-June-12, 19:15, said:

I wonder where they came up with that silly rule?

At least around here, if they run multiple sections the director has to be non-playing.

[barmar]

 TylerE, on 2016-June-13, 22:00, said:

At least around here, if they run multiple sections the director has to be non-playing.

Does that really need to be a rule? We often have a playing director in our 8-table club game, and it's feasible, but I can't imagine trying to do it with twice as many tables.

[blackshoe]

If I'm not mistaken, the ACBL sets the limit for playing directors at 16 tables.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2016-June-13, 15:00, said:

Did they introduce any evidence in support of their position, or did they just "it wasn't our fault"?

You know everything I do, which is what's in the appeal writeup linked above. It just says "Basis of appeal: NS felt not to blame".

Lamford was on the committee, maybe he can fill in the details (or is that against the rules for appeals committees?). Several of the committee members thought that they should have kept the deposit.

[jeffford76]

 blackshoe, on 2016-June-14, 09:03, said:

If I'm not mistaken, the ACBL sets the limit for playing directors at 16 tables.

Depends on the event. For a regular club game you can have a playing director with as many tables as you want. But for STACs, you have to have a non-playing director if you have more than 16 tables.

At the club where I regularly direct large games, when there is a half table there is a definite preference to have me play to fill in the movement (calling someone in as a partner) rather than to have a sit-out. I think the biggest one I've played in was around 21 tables.