Co-event numbers rounds adjudication policy

[Phil Stanton]

Having seen a few numbers rounds disputes at Co-Events over the years, I think it would be a good idea to have FOCAL policy/guidelines around this, particularly in relation to Bristol-style events. This could be publicised and announced by the event host in advance, so that everyone is aware.

Some basic thoughts ...

If you have not written down your solution, or only written it down partially:

• there should be a strict time limit on hesitations, say, 2 seconds. If you pause or um and ah for longer than that, tough, you're timed out.

• If you mis-speak, that's a forfeit. e.g. if you say plus when you meant minus, try to correct yourself, say "obviously I meant ...", etc., then that's too bad, you don't get the points.

• In Bristol-style events, your opponent's decision is final. The onus is on you to explain your solution correctly, clearly, and without hesitation.

• In Lincoln-style events, the table host's decision is final.

Clearly the event host can be called over to assist with adjudication if there is a dispute, but the problem with that is that they're seeing things after the fact; they won't have seen the incident occur in real time, so they'd have to make a judgement call based just on the version of events given by the players (and the table host if Lincoln-style).


There's probably more to add/refine on this, although it should be kept as simple as possible.

[Graeme Cole]

Having seen a few numbers rounds disputes at Co-Events over the years, I think it would be a good idea to have FOCAL policy/guidelines around this, particularly in relation to Bristol-style events. This could be publicised and announced by the event host in advance, so that everyone is aware.

Some basic thoughts ...

If you have not written down your solution, or only written it down partially:

• there should be a strict time limit on hesitations, say, 2 seconds. If you pause or um and ah for longer than that, tough, you're timed out.

I don't think this is something we can put a specific number of seconds on, is it? Nobody times players' hesitations, but we do have a feel for what is "too long".

• If you mis-speak, that's a forfeit. e.g. if you say plus when you meant minus, try to correct yourself, say "obviously I meant ...", etc., then that's too bad, you don't get the points.

Don't like this. I think you should always be able to correct a mis-spoken operator or number as long as you do it immediately. Going back to change what you did two or three operations ago when you haven't got it written down is another matter, but on the show they've always allowed a quick "plus 4 - minus 4 I mean... then times 10".

• In Bristol-style events, your opponent's decision is final. The onus is on you to explain your solution correctly, clearly, and without hesitation.

• In Lincoln-style events, the table host's decision is final.

Clearly the event host can be called over to assist with adjudication if there is a dispute, but the problem with that is that they're seeing things after the fact; they won't have seen the incident occur in real time, so they'd have to make a judgement call based just on the version of events given by the players (and the table host if Lincoln-style).

This is fair. The principle should be that the table host's decision is final on matters of what happened and in what order (who buzzed first, whether a hesitation was too long, etc), and the organiser's decision is final on stuff relating to the rules ("given these facts, this is the decision").

There's probably more to add/refine on this, although it should be kept as simple as possible.

I think it should be kept even simpler than this.

A while ago I realised that we've had many years of co-events but we don't have the rules written down anywhere. I tried to write them, and quickly discovered that if you try to over-specify everything, you end up making a rod for your own back. To borrow terms from lexicography, the rules document, if anyone cares to write it, should be descriptive rather than prescriptive. It should simply describe how games are played at co-events.

It's one thing to introduce clear rules related to "what to do if these are the facts" - for example, "always replay a conundrum if the answer isn't valid or isn't an anagram of the scramble, but never replay a conundrum just because it has two solutions" - there isn't any grey area with that. But when we're talking about to what extent hesitations or correction of verbal slips are acceptable, that's hard to legislate for in advance. Trying to put a strict number of seconds on hesitations, or codifying in the rules which specific corrections are acceptable and which aren't, could end up with us having to make rulings which, in context, seem quite harsh.

[JackHurst]

These rules create more problems than they solve.

Adding potential stress and penalties for everybody in reaction to a very small amount of players (one player) having poor sportsmanship seems like an overreaction.

[Fiona T]

My approach going forward if my opponent if nwd, is going to be to write it down as they say it (which I already do) but tell them I am doing that and make sure they are looking at what I'm writing (they are saying) and if they disagree with it to say at the time! But yeah it is tricky especially in Bristol, but agree rules aren't probably going to cause more arguments than they solve.

Perhaps the only other thing would be to allow a few seconds to write down the solution without hesitation (much as you do when both are nwd)

[JackHurst]

My approach going forward if my opponent if nwd, is going to be to write it down as they say it (which I already do) but tell them I am doing that and make sure they are looking at what I'm writing (they are saying) and if they disagree with it to say at the time! But yeah it is tricky especially in Bristol, but agree rules aren't probably going to cause more arguments than they solve.

Perhaps the only other thing would be to allow a few seconds to write down the solution without hesitation (much as you do when both are nwd)

So what if they have it bang on, NWD and you have 1 away, also NWD. After transcribing their working and realizing they had made a mistake, it's your turn to suddenly remember what you did. You've context switched to another solution for 20s or so while adjudicating, and now you've got to recall what you had before without hesitation?

[Adam S Latchford]

My approach going forward if my opponent if nwd, is going to be to write it down as they say it (which I already do) but tell them I am doing that and make sure they are looking at what I'm writing (they are saying) and if they disagree with it to say at the time! But yeah it is tricky especially in Bristol, but agree rules aren't probably going to cause more arguments than they solve.

Perhaps the only other thing would be to allow a few seconds to write down the solution without hesitation (much as you do when both are nwd)

So what if they have it bang on, NWD and you have 1 away, also NWD. After transcribing their working and realizing they had made a mistake, it's your turn to suddenly remember what you did. You've context switched to another solution for 20s or so while adjudicating, and now you've got to recall what you had before without hesitation?

Exact scenario happened with me vs dexter (twice)

First time, i had made a mistake and then he had mostly forgotten, allowed plenty of time for him to regather his thoughts.

Second time, both NWD me closer again, I told him to write his down whilst I said mine to the host. I was right this time so it didn't matter regardless, but would have avoided the repeat issue, Had it been bristol, i guess just both write them instantly and then say solution (can be written very quickly)

Would advise second issue for that scenario

[Gavin Chipper]

Yeah I think it can be more of a problem with Bristol style. I agree it's probably best for both to immediately write their solutions even if one is further away. With Lincoln the further away person can at least ignore the other solution.

[Phil Stanton]

Thanks for all the great feedback, really good insights.

I think the summary is that the decision of the host (Lincoln) or opponent (Bristol) is final, and that if both players are NWD, regardless of who is nearer, they should both quickly write down their solutions, to avoid potential issues.

Fiona's suggestion of writing down the opponent's NWD solve as they say it seems like a good idea as well.

Should be easy enough to announce all this as a "rule", particularly at Bristol events. (Now watch me forget to do that when I host London in 6 months from now!)

[Marc Meakin]

Make numbers rounds 35 seconds to remove the doubt of NWD
Simples

[Adam Dexter]

Exact scenario happened with me vs dexter (twice)

First time, i had made a mistake and then he had mostly forgotten, allowed plenty of time for him to regather his thoughts.

Second time, both NWD me closer again, I told him to write his down whilst I said mine to the host. I was right this time so it didn't matter regardless, but would have avoided the repeat issue.

Yep this was great sportsmanship. I think it's a common occurrence with the trickier selections as often you just don't have time to write it down, or what you wrote is garbage.

To solve this issue in the future I'll just get it spot on so I can declare first

[David Harrison]

• In Bristol-style events, your opponent's decision is final. The onus is on you to explain your solution correctly, clearly, and without hesitation.

Surely your opponent would be too bias to make such a call? I’m not saying that countdowners cheat, but we’re all guilty of unconscious bias and our judgement would be unquestionably clouded.

[Phil Stanton]

• In Bristol-style events, your opponent's decision is final. The onus is on you to explain your solution correctly, clearly, and without hesitation.

Surely your opponent would be too bias to make such a call? I’m not saying that countdowners cheat, but we’re all guilty of unconscious bias and our judgement would be unquestionably clouded.

If you're able to say your solution clearly and without hesitation, then your opponent won't really have any grounds to argue.
If you're significantly uhm-ing and ah-ing and appear to be trying to work stuff out as you go, or are struggling to remember what you did because you didn't write it down, then they are at liberty to say no, you're taking too long, and not accept your solution.

Most Countdowners are pretty sporting and understanding, but when an issue does arise, this really is the only viable solution.
The event host can always be called over to give an adjudication/opinion, but that will be after the fact, so their options will be quite limited.

As long as this is made clear at the start of a Bristol-style event, I don't think it will be an issue.
If someone has a physical impairment which makes writing things down difficult/impossible, then that can be raised and discussed before the event, so that necessary adjustments can be made.