[AL78]

Yesterday evening partner and I came up against the slowest player in the room and as usual, the hands went their way on the first two boards. On the second board, the bid painfully slowly after a 1NT opening to 6♣, and by painfully slowly I mean both of them spent 20-30 seconds in the tank on every bid, then declarer took an age to play it. The result was the director called the move before we had started the final board and told us to enter it as not played. I pointed out that the delay was not our fault but that didn't change the director's decision. In such a situation, am I correct in thinking that the non-offending side can or ought to receive an average plus as a penalty for the slow play and as compensation for being denied the opportunity to get a good score? The slow player in question is notorious for slow play but in this case, his partner ended up getting in on the act as well, as though they didn't really know where they were going in the slam auction. They are both experienced players.

[michel444]

As far as I Know in Top Bottom tournament if a hand was not played because of Time all side get 50%
so having 1 less should not affect you negatively , you may even gain from it...
Michel

[AL78]

michel444, on 2022-October-07, 14:08, said:

As far as I Know in Top Bottom tournament if a hand was not played because of Time all side get 50%
so having 1 less should not affect you negatively , you may even gain from it...
Michel

In this case the board wasn't played and no score was assigned for us, so the overall score was calculated over 20 boards instead of 21 boards. In the event it made no difference as we won.

[Vampyr]

The board should have been entered as A+/A-. Scoring the board as “not played” is illegal.

[Vampyr]

AL78, on 2022-October-07, 14:30, said:

In this case the board wasn't played and no score was assigned for us, so the overall score was calculated over 20 boards instead of 21 boards. In the event it made no difference as we won.

Well, the computer can handle boards played a different number of times. You did not actually get the raw score from 20 boards.

[pescetom]

Vampyr, on 2022-October-07, 19:52, said:

The board should have been entered as A+/A-. Scoring the board as “not played” is illegal.

Or as A=/A= if the Director thinks both sides were equally at fault (or is simply incompetent, as your account suggests).

[barmar]

michel444, on 2022-October-07, 14:08, said:

As far as I Know in Top Bottom tournament if a hand was not played because of Time all side get 50%
so having 1 less should not affect you negatively , you may even gain from it...
Michel

What is a Top Bottom tournament? Is that the same as Board-a-Match (called Point-a-Board in the UK)?

[pescetom]

AL78, on 2022-October-07, 11:08, said:

Yesterday evening partner and I came up against the slowest player in the room and as usual, the hands went their way on the first two boards. On the second board, the bid painfully slowly after a 1NT opening to 6♣, and by painfully slowly I mean both of them spent 20-30 seconds in the tank on every bid, then declarer took an age to play it. The result was the director called the move before we had started the final board and told us to enter it as not played. I pointed out that the delay was not our fault but that didn't change the director's decision. In such a situation, am I correct in thinking that the non-offending side can or ought to receive an average plus as a penalty for the slow play and as compensation for being denied the opportunity to get a good score? The slow player in question is notorious for slow play but in this case, his partner ended up getting in on the act as well, as though they didn't really know where they were going in the slam auction. They are both experienced players.

In case nobody was explicit enough above, from what you say you do deserve AVE+ for the unplayed board. But everyone was at fault here, from the opponents who played too slowly to you who did not advise the director in time and (above all) the director who apparently did not notice that you were running an entire board behind, let alone who was causing the problem.
The fact that her pilatesque verdict was expressed as 'not played' rather than AVE= indicates that she does not know the laws either, although I have sympathy with her instinct given that 'not played' would arguably be a fairer start point for any artificial score: the laws were written when manual scoring was a real issue.

[AL78]

pescetom, on 2022-October-10, 12:51, said:

In case nobody was explicit enough above, from what you say you do deserve AVE+ for the unplayed board. But everyone was at fault here, from the opponents who played too slowly to you who did not advise the director in time and (above all) the director who apparently did not notice that you were running an entire board behind, let alone who was causing the problem.
The fact that her pilatesque verdict was expressed as 'not played' rather than AVE= indicates that she does not know the laws either, although I have sympathy with her instinct given that 'not played' would arguably be a fairer start point for any artificial score: the laws were written when manual scoring was a real issue.

It complicates things somewhat when it is a playing director and to alert him to the slow play means stopping play, getting up, going to his table and advising him, or calling him and waiting for him to come over which adds even more delay. It would be ironic if alerting the director in advance to the slow play pushes us past the point where we could play the last board. This is why in the past I used to be a non-playing director so I could clamp down on slow play.

[pescetom]

AL78, on 2022-October-10, 23:54, said:

It complicates things somewhat when it is a playing director and to alert him to the slow play means stopping play, getting up, going to his table and advising him, or calling him and waiting for him to come over which adds even more delay. It would be ironic if alerting the director in advance to the slow play pushes us past the point where we could play the last board. This is why in the past I used to be a non-playing director so I could clamp down on slow play.

OK, you didn't mention a playing director. That makes things both different and difficult: I imagine there are some clubs where a skilled director can both play and keep the ball rolling on time and fairly, not mine nor yours either it would seem. We run our informal friday night game with a playing (and unqualified) director and it is generally understood that this is more fun than bridge: nobody would dream of alerting the director about slow play, or most infractions either.