Originally posted by Mark Brown:
I'd find it unusual for them to be able to wait more than a couple of minutes at a PTQ or higher event without a judge asking for them to submit a result entry slip.
Originally posted by Cris Plyler:So you guys are ok with the situation if there is enough time remaining in the round to watch other tables and look their results?Mark Brown
I'd find it unusual for them to be able to wait more than a couple of minutes at a PTQ or higher event without a judge asking for them to submit a result entry slip.
Not nessessarily. If time has expired this would certainly be true, but if they finish early there is no reason they couldn't wait to fill it out. As long as it's done within the time remaining in the round I wouldn't have a problem.
If time has expired then I'd instruct them to fill the slip out.
MTR 2.4 Conceding or Intentionally Drawing Games or Matches
If a game or match is not completed, players may concede or mutually agree to a draw in that game or match. A match is considered complete once the result slip is filled out or, if match slips are not being used, a player leaves the table after game play is finished. Until that point, either player may concede to or draw with the other, though if the conceding player won a game in the match, the match must be reported as 2-1. Intentional draws are always reported as 0-0-3.
5.2 Collusion and Bribery
…
Players may not reach an agreement in conjunction with other matches. Players can make use of information regarding match or game scores of other tables. However, players are not allowed to leave their seats during their match or go to great lengths to obtain this information.
…
Edited Milan Majerčík (Feb. 26, 2014 07:19:55 PM)
Originally posted by Fabrício Gomes:
So, what is the difference in a big tournament and a small one? In small tournaments like GPT you easily can get information from another tables. But I don't think, unless we have a unexpected scenario ( like 2 or 3 other tables receiving ID) , the players would have a real advantage here. Maybe in a huge tournament but they would have to go search for others tables matches. So I wouldn't give DQ because I think it wasn't manipulation from results.
Originally posted by John McCarthy:Fabrício Gomes
So, what is the difference in a big tournament and a small one? In small tournaments like GPT you easily can get information from another tables. But I don't think, unless we have a unexpected scenario ( like 2 or 3 other tables receiving ID) , the players would have a real advantage here. Maybe in a huge tournament but they would have to go search for others tables matches. So I wouldn't give DQ because I think it wasn't manipulation from results.
Vaguely related to this: I recall hearing a while back that it was a best practice to randomize table order for the final round or two of Swiss at a GPT/IQ-level event to reduce the chance of bribery/collusion/slow play. I tried to do this last time I judged a GPT, but couldn't successfully assign tables randomly in WER (even after reviewing the documentation). Anyone know how to do this, or is it not possible in the current version (or is the best practice apocryphal?)?
Originally posted by Thomas Ralph:
When you create the new round there should be a dropdown box with options Standing and Random. Change this to Random if you want to do random tables.
Originally posted by Tom Wyliehart:
Players are allowed to sit at their tables, without filling out their slip, so long as time is left in the round. Once time is up, they need to fill out the slips.
You must be registered in order to post to this forum.