Withdrawn Contestant
A pair had to leave a 22-board session after completing board 16 due to a medical emergency, meaning they played over 70% of the boards. According to the White Book: "The most obvious acceptable reason is withdrawal because of illness. In this case, the contestant will usually receive AVE− for the unplayed boards, but the Tournament Director (TD) has discretion to remove them from the ranking list instead if they prefer."
There are two main considerations:
• Since the word "usually" is used, does assigning AVE− fall under the TD's discretion?
• Should the pair be asked if they want to be removed from the ranking list, or is that decision also up to the director?
As an inexperienced director, my initial thought was to score AVE+ for the non-offending side and AVE− for the withdrawn pair, as per the White Book. After consulting other directors, one suggested AVE/AVE since the reason was acceptable, another recommended AVE+/AVE− but acknowledged some flexibility. Given that the withdrawal was unavoidable, I decided to score it as AVE+ for the non-offending pair and AVE for the withdrawn pair, considering the fact that the withdrawn pair had averaged over 50% until the incident.
What is the correct procedure?
Comments
Correct procedures is to follow the White Book, and use what flexibility it offers.
The non-offending side should get AVE+.
The scores do not need to balance - so you could award AVE=/AVE+.
We regard medical emergencies as still being the individual's responsibility (if not their fault) and would award AVE- to the missing pair. But some boards/rounds at AVE= and some at AVE- would be a compromise.
If the pair ask to be removed from the ranking list, then the director can consider this - but the onus is on the pair to ask. A consideration is if the medical condition adversely affect the pairs performance on the boards they did play.
This comes up quite regularly (face-to-face and online) and the club should take a uniform approach, which can be established by the club TDs coming to a consensus.