[lamford]

Last night my partner and I could not play a board, and we were awarded 40%, which was -2 IMPs as it was cross-imps. The boards were handed to us wrongly by another table, and we did not check the bridge-mates, and a round of bidding occurred. This was different when we came to play it so the board could not be played. It may well have been the same auction when our opponents came to play it, but I am not privy to this.

I presume North-South are the only pair that are ever fined for this infraction but I was interested as to which law is used to impose the average minus. And if the boards were wrongly moved by the TD would it make any difference?

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2017-September-30, 05:32, said:

I was interested as to which law is used to impose the average minus.

12C2(a), following the link from 15B3. But you already knew that.

If your actual question is as to the law that allows the director to conclude that NS are "directly at fault", I believe it's implicit in Laws 81, 82 and 85.

Quote

And if the boards were wrongly moved by the TD would it make any difference?

Not to the legal position. It might make a difference to the director's conclusion about responsibility for the error.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2017-September-30, 07:31

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2017-September-30, 07:30, said:

12C2(a), following the link from 15B3. But you already knew that.

If your actual question is as to the law that allows the director to conclude that NS are "directly at fault", I believe it's implicit in Laws 81, 82 and 85.

I did already know what happens once someone was assessed as being to blame. However, this was round 2 and the situation was:

"if none of the four players have previously played the board the Director shall require the auction and play to be completed. He allows the score to stand and may require both pairs to play the correct board against one another later."

The director required us to play the correct board and stated that we should call him back if the auction was different when we came to play the board later. This is what I have seen normally done, but it seems that we should just have continued with the wrong board. I agree that 82B1 gives the TD power to award an adjusted score for an error of procedure, but nowhere in the Laws does it say that North-South should check that the right boards have been placed on the table. Do you think that is implicit as well?

[blackshoe]

Quote

Law 7D: Any contestant remaining at a table throughout a session is primarily responsible for maintaining proper conditions of play at the table.

I suppose we could debate what "proper conditions of play" means, but I think it includes making sure the correct board is placed in the middle of the table (see Law 7A).

Interestingly, in a Howell, at most tables no one is "primarily responsible" as specified in this law, since most tables will not have a stationary pair. There are of course other movements where this occurs.

If I'm reading this correctly the facts are:

1. The table concerned received the wrong boards from another table.
2. No one checked to ensure these were the correct boards.
3. The board in question was started.
4. After one round of bidding, the director somehow got involved.
5. The director stopped the play of the board in question.
6. The director required the table to play the correct board.
7. Later, when it came time to play the board in question, the auction differed from the original (partial) auction.
8. The director cancelled the play of the board and awarded an ArtAS.

1. The responsible entity in item one is the North play at the table from which the boards came (Law 8A2). It doesn't matter if some other player (for example a moving playing) moved the boards, North is still responsible.
2. The responsible entity in item 2 is the North-South pair (Law 7D).
3. It seems to me that once a board is started, the director must let the auction and play continue to completion (Law 15B2) unless one of the contestants involved has already played the board. The latter question is not answered in the facts available. I'm assuming for the sake of argument that this was not the case.
5, 6. IMO, stopping the board and requiring the players to play the correct board at this point is director error. (unless, as I said above, somebody had already played it.)
7. It isn't really clear, but I think Law 15A is intended to apply to situations where at least one player has taken his hand from the correct board, while one or more other players have taken their hands from a wrong board. If I'm right, there is no provision in law about differing auctions in this case (where the director erroneously stopped play in the middle of the auction).

I conclude that the director's action in stopping the original board was director error and thus he should treat both sides as non-offending in adjusting the score (Law 82C).

I would also say, in answer to Paul's question, that if the director moved the boards to the wrong table, this too is director error, and both sides should be treated as non-offending.

In the actual case, I would have ruled that North at the table from which the wrong boards came is directly at fault for the problem. Per Law 90A, I would issue a PP to that player, probably in the form of a warning, and subsequently I'd keep an eye on him - if he does it again, he gets a PP in points (MPs or IMPs as appropriate). I might also admonish (PP{W}) the player who actually moved the boards, if he did so unilaterally.

I would have let the players complete the "wrong" board and retain the score obtained on it. Later I would apply Law 15B3 and award an ArtAS to both contestants who will have been "deprived of the opportunity to earn a valid score". This would be average plus, which is apparently +2 IMPs at cross-imps (Law 12C2).

In the actual case involving director error, or in the alternative case where the director's error was in giving the table the wrong boards, I would award an ArtAS of average plus to both sides.

Should the NS pair, or both pairs, at the table where the wrong board was played receive a PP? IMO, yes, and both pairs. This might be, probably should be, a warning for a first offense. See Law 90B7.

tl;dr: director error. Award an ArtAS of average plus to both sides on the "wrong" board, and average plus to both pairs who were deprived of the chance to play this board. PP{W} to both NS and EW at the table concerned, and to NS (specifically N) at the table from which the boards came. Answering Paul's question, I would rule the same if the director had moved the boards, except that I would not issue a PP{W or otherwise} to NS at the table from which the boards came.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2017-September-30, 13:04, said:

I suppose we could debate what "proper conditions of play" means, but I think it includes making sure the correct board is placed in the middle of the table (see Law 7A).

Interestingly, in a Howell, at most tables no one is "primarily responsible" as specified in this law, since most tables will not have a stationary pair. There are of course other movements where this occurs.

If I'm reading this correctly the facts are:

1. The table concerned received the wrong boards from another table.
2. No one checked to ensure these were the correct boards.
3. The board in question was started.
4. After one round of bidding, the director somehow got involved.
5. The director stopped the play of the board in question.
6. The director required the table to play the correct board.
7. Later, when it came time to play the board in question, the auction differed from the original (partial) auction.
8. The director cancelled the play of the board and awarded an ArtAS.

1. The responsible entity in item one is the North play at the table from which the boards came (Law 8A2). It doesn't matter if some other player (for example a moving playing) moved the boards, North is still responsible.
2. The responsible entity in item 2 is the North-South pair (Law 7D).
3. It seems to me that once a board is started, the director must let the auction and play continue to completion (Law 15B2) unless one of the contestants involved has already played the board. The latter question is not answered in the facts available. I'm assuming for the sake of argument that this was not the case.
5, 6. IMO, stopping the board and requiring the players to play the correct board at this point is director error. (unless, as I said above, somebody had already played it.)
7. It isn't really clear, but I think Law 15A is intended to apply to situations where at least one player has taken his hand from the correct board, while one or more other players have taken their hands from a wrong board. If I'm right, there is no provision in law about differing auctions in this case (where the director erroneously stopped play in the middle of the auction).

I conclude that the director's action in stopping the original board was director error and thus he should treat both sides as non-offending in adjusting the score (Law 82C).

I would also say, in answer to Paul's question, that if the director moved the boards to the wrong table, this too is director error, and both sides should be treated as non-offending.

In the actual case, I would have ruled that North at the table from which the wrong boards came is directly at fault for the problem. Per Law 90A, I would issue a PP to that player, probably in the form of a warning, and subsequently I'd keep an eye on him - if he does it again, he gets a PP in points (MPs or IMPs as appropriate). I might also admonish (PP{W}) the player who actually moved the boards, if he did so unilaterally.

I would have let the players complete the "wrong" board and retain the score obtained on it. Later I would apply Law 15B3 and award an ArtAS to both contestants who will have been "deprived of the opportunity to earn a valid score". This would be average plus, which is apparently +2 IMPs at cross-imps (Law 12C2).

In the actual case involving director error, or in the alternative case where the director's error was in giving the table the wrong boards, I would award an ArtAS of average plus to both sides.

Should the NS pair, or both pairs, at the table where the wrong board was played receive a PP? IMO, yes, and both pairs. This might be, probably should be, a warning for a first offense. See Law 90B7.

tl;dr: director error. Award an ArtAS of average plus to both sides on the "wrong" board, and average plus to both pairs who were deprived of the chance to play this board. PP{W} to both NS and EW at the table concerned, and to NS (specifically N) at the table from which the boards came. Answering Paul's question, I would rule the same if the director had moved the boards, except that I would not issue a PP{W or otherwise} to NS at the table from which the boards came.

There is a curious situation here:
Boards are usually passed from one table to another as soon as they have been played at the "sending" table", and unless these boards are scheduled to be played immediately in the following round at the "receiving" table they should be placed at the bottom of a pile of boards at the "receiving" table. This of course is the case when boards are scheduled to wait (at least) one round at a table.

Now in the described scenario the "receiving" table must either have taken the wrong board from their pile of boards, or if there was no such pile at their table they must have received the wrong boards from the "sending" table. In this latter case we must assume that the "sending" table (also) played the wrong boards.

There is an inconsistency here which needs to be sorted out before any responsibility for the irregularity can be determined.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2017-September-30, 14:02, said:

There is a curious situation here:
Boards are usually passed from one table to another as soon as they have been played at the "sending" table", and unless these boards are scheduled to be played immediately in the following round at the "receiving" table they should be placed at the bottom of a pile of boards at the "receiving" table. This of course is the case when boards are scheduled to wait (at least) one round at a table.

Now in the described scenario the "receiving" table must either have taken the wrong board from their pile of boards, or if there was no such pile at their table they must have received the wrong boards from the "sending" table. In this latter case we must assume that the "sending" table (also) played the wrong boards.

There is an inconsistency here which needs to be sorted out before any responsibility for the irregularity can be determined.

Here, boards are sometimes passed when the round is called, and sometimes before the round is called, and sometimes, when a board is still in play when the round is called, after that event. The second case used to be rare, but is becoming more prevalent. I believe that is unfortunate. In fact, I have always understood that proper procedure in passing the boards is to do so when the round is called, and not before*. If a board is still in play when the round is called, it would of course be passed later — properly, when it is completed. Also, except for web movements, which here are a recent innovation, there would only be a "pile of boards" on an assembly table, i.e., a table where no pairs are or will be playing, usually in a Howell movement. Perhaps it's different in Norway, I'm not all that familiar with Barometer movements.

I do not think we "must assume" anything.

I would expect that if there was in fact a pile of boards from which the receiving table was supposed to get its boards, the OP would have mentioned that fact.

* It is true that the current laws do not say that.

Quote

Law 8A2: Unless the Director instructs otherwise, the North player at each table is responsible for moving the boards just completed at his table to the proper table for the following round.

This is the pertinent law. It does not specify when the boards are to be moved, although it implies they are to be moved after they are completed and, presumably, before the next round begins. It is ambiguous whether each board should be moved as it is completed, or all the boards for the round should be moved as a unit. So yes, that's an omission that should be resolved. It might be hoped that the WBFLC and/or the ACBLLC would clarify what is intended, or that until they do the various RAs around the world publish clarifying regulation, but until one or the other of those things happens, interpretation of the law devolves on the individual TD. See Law 81B1.

[lamford]

Just to clarify. Only two boards were on the table at any one time, and only one set of boards were in use. I think there was more than one pair of boards moved to the wrong table, I do not know by whom, and the (playing) director, who was standing in as both the club manager and former club manager had to leave (!), then moved the boards to their correct tables. I pointed out that we had had a round of bidding, and he said to call him when we came to play it later if the auction was different. It was round two, so nobody had played any of the wrong boards before.

The bridgemates show the boards that are due to be played so we could have avoided this. I don't think any other table had a round of bidding but I was not privy to this. I am not sure that those who moved the boards wrongly did much wrong, and our table just started the boards that arrived without checking them. We accepted the -2 IMPs with good grace, although Blackshoe's quote of Law 8A2 suggests that the official blame rests with the North from the other table who moved them to the wrong table, whether they were moved by North or not.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2017-September-30, 15:19, said:

Also, except for web movements, which here are a recent innovation, there would only be a "pile of boards" on an assembly table, i.e., a table where no pairs are or will be playing, usually in a Howell movement. Perhaps it's different in Norway, I'm not all that familiar with Barometer movements.

Well, Swiss Teams and Swiss Pairs, and sometime Multiple Pairs, are like a barometer movement really, since the same boards are played at all tables in the same round. Still, you would not have a pile of boards, unless you were really slow and the boards were piling up on the floor behind you, but of course they would be scattered and not in an actual pile.

In any case I think it is harsh to fine E/W, since they will not usually have had the opportunity to check which boards they are playing before playing them. Yes they should be able to tell, but for all they know it is a web movement or a double-weave Mitchell, and the boards will not be the ones they expect.

[blackshoe]

When I am East or West, and the boards are not the ones I expect, I ask "are these the right boards?" It's not hard, doesn't take much time, and if North or South says "yes" we haven't lost. If they say "no", we (the table, I mean) have gained, since the error is caught before it becomes a problem.

[sanst]

In my opinion it's essentially wrong to make one player responsible for the correct procedure. Every player at the table should check whether the right board is played in the right direction and both pairs should be penalized if something went wrong. Now a (stationary) NS pair is at a disadvantage. Besides, what can you do if a pair adamantly refuses to sit NS because of this?
Anyway, I would never penalize one pair in a case like this, just issue a warning to all players.

[Vampyr]

sanst, on 2017-October-01, 02:56, said:

In my opinion it's essentially wrong to make one player responsible for the correct procedure. Every player at the table should check whether the right board is played in the right direction and both pairs should be penalized if something went wrong. Now a (stationary) NS pair is at a disadvantage. Besides, what can you do if a pair adamantly refuses to sit NS because of this?

I don't forsee a shortage of pairs wanting to sit N/S.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2017-September-30, 15:19, said:

Here, boards are sometimes passed when the round is called, and sometimes before the round is called, and sometimes, when a board is still in play when the round is called, after that event. The second case used to be rare, but is becoming more prevalent. I believe that is unfortunate. In fact, I have always understood that proper procedure in passing the boards is to do so when the round is called, and not before*. If a board is still in play when the round is called, it would of course be passed later — properly, when it is completed. Also, except for web movements, which here are a recent innovation, there would only be a "pile of boards" on an assembly table, i.e., a table where no pairs are or will be playing, usually in a Howell movement. Perhaps it's different in Norway, I'm not all that familiar with Barometer movements.

With Barometer all the tables play the same boards during the same round and the boards for each round (a sufficient number of copies) are stacked at a (central) "exchange table" where players fetch and deliver the boards.
"Exchange tables" are also commonly used with Howell movements in order to avoid peeking, but if boards are passed directly from table to table the set of boards for a round is usually passed when the round is called. I suppose similar routines are followed with Mitchell movements, but Mitchell is so scarce in Norway that I don't really know.

Playing a wrong board is almost unheard of because our players are used to type in the board number on Bridgemate (commonly used here) before any cards are removed from the board.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2017-October-01, 03:33, said:

With Barometer all the tables play the same boards during the same round and the boards for each round (a sufficient number of copies) are stacked at a (central) "exchange table" where players fetch and deliver the boards.
"Exchange tables" are also commonly used with Howell movements in order to avoid peeking, but if boards are passed directly from table to table the set of boards for a round is usually passed when the round is called. I suppose similar routines are followed with Mitchell movements, but Mitchell is so scarce in Norway that I don't really know.

Playing a wrong board is almost unheard of because our players are used to type in the board number on Bridgemate (commonly used here) before any cards are removed from the board.

Wow, that seems like a lot of to-ing and fro-ing.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2017-October-01, 03:12, said:

I don't forsee a shortage of pairs wanting to sit N/S.

Nor do I. But if that happened, I would ask the putative EW pairs in the room for a volunteer to sit NS. If I didn't get one, well, I can work around that. The real problem occurs when more than half the pairs insist they have to be stationary.

[Vampyr]

A variation... suppose the east-west pair are too cool to remember their pair number and too busy to write it on their scorecard, so a board may be started against the wrong opponents. What responsibilities do North-South bear in this situation?

[blackshoe]

Depends. Is this EW pair at the right table for this round?

Editadd: we started here with Bridgepads, and recently switched to Bridgemates. A useful feature of the latter is the display, at the start of the round, of all four players at the table. Unless some )!(*_)!( East or West has advanced the device beyond that point in accepting the score for the last board, I generally check it to be sure I have the right EW. Unless of course I'm not North.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2017-September-30, 19:15, said:

When I am East or West, and the boards are not the ones I expect, I ask "are these the right boards?" It's not hard, doesn't take much time, and if North or South says "yes" we haven't lost. If they say "no", we (the table, I mean) have gained, since the error is caught before it becomes a problem.

You're unusual among players in knowing which boards you expect to play when sitting EW. When I'm EW I'll often fill out my private score with the tables I expect to play each board at, and people have asked me how I'm able to do this. It seems like the vast majority of players are not aware of the siomple pattern in board numbers they encounter (every other set of N, where N is the boards/round), although skip rounds and bye-stands throw a wrinkle into the pattern (I'll bet 90% of players couldn't tell you what playing conditions necessitate these special movements). I've had numerous players tell me that they don't understand bridge movements, as if Howell must have been some kind of genius to figure his movements out, they just go where the TD tells them.

BTW, I don't try to pre-fill it in a Howell movement. And in a web, I don't know offhand when we'll switch directions of boards.

[StevenG]

Don't people have table cards?

[pran]

barmar, on 2017-October-01, 15:15, said:

BTW, I don't try to pre-fill it in a Howell movement.

No wonder, because possible (preferably optimal) solutions for Howell always come in pairs: Pair 1 following pair 2 and pair 2 following pair 1. Within a couple these are always equally well balanced.

In addition you will for most number of tables find that there are more than one such optimal movement couple, all of which are equally well balanced.

So you must know the particular solution used by your tournament organizer in order to successfully prepare your Howell map.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2017-October-01, 15:15, said:

You're unusual among players in knowing which boards you expect to play when sitting EW. When I'm EW I'll often fill out my private score with the tables I expect to play each board at, and people have asked me how I'm able to do this. It seems like the vast majority of players are not aware of the siomple pattern in board numbers they encounter (every other set of N, where N is the boards/round), although skip rounds and bye-stands throw a wrinkle into the pattern (I'll bet 90% of players couldn't tell you what playing conditions necessitate these special movements). I've had numerous players tell me that they don't understand bridge movements, as if Howell must have been some kind of genius to figure his movements out, they just go where the TD tells them.

BTW, I don't try to pre-fill it in a Howell movement. And in a web, I don't know offhand when we'll switch directions of boards.

Well, today we had a movement where we were stationary at an appendix table, table 13. The E/W Pairs went to Table 12, then came to us, then went back to table 12 and played N/S there. So just skipping every other set might not have worked. I am not positive though!

StevenG, on 2017-October-01, 15:57, said:

Don't people have table cards?

You mean like a sheet that tells who plays at the table each round? It doesn't help if a moving pair has not bothered to learn their pair number.

by the way, I am obviously assuming that the names are not available on the Bridgemates.