[pilun]

When using bridgemates, we allow them to see scores at other tables. I realise this is frowned upon in some quarters but they are used to it and like it, plus gives them a chance to pick up suspicious scores at other tables. (Okay, we can do that too via BCS)

Well, you know what happens .....
South puts Bd 23 on the table, then scores it as Bd 24. East sees that the score is right and accepts. Then they see scores from other tables and realise what they have done. 12.2a suggests N-S get 40% on Board 24. Is that usual? Do E-W get 40, 50 or 60?

[jhenrikj]

Swedish regulations says 40% to the side entering the score. 50% to the side accepting the score.

[pran]

 pilun, on 2019-December-27, 02:41, said:

When using bridgemates, we allow them to see scores at other tables. I realise this is frowned upon in some quarters but they are used to it and like it, plus gives them a chance to pick up suspicious scores at other tables. (Okay, we can do that too via BCS)

Well, you know what happens .....
South puts Bd 23 on the table, then scores it as Bd 24. East sees that the score is right and accepts. Then they see scores from other tables and realise what they have done. 12.2a suggests N-S get 40% on Board 24. Is that usual? Do E-W get 40, 50 or 60?

This clearly shows why we not only frown, but definitely recommend against this possibility.

Without it you would have had a simple case of just rectifying the affected results in Bridgemate Control once the error eventually was discovered, and there would have been no need for any artificial score at all.

In your situation I would either rule that allowing this feature is an administration error and probably give both sides 50% (only partially at fault) or rule that (as this feature is allowed) both sides are equally and fully responsible for entering and confirming the correct results and give them 40%.

I see no reason for treating the side entering the scores and the side confirming the entries differently.

[pescetom]

Italian regulations say 40% - 60%. But they were written with travellers in mind, and I would be inclined to award 40% - 50% if at the moment of confirmation the board number was clearly displayed.
Was lead registration enabled? That should catch most such errors in time.

[ahydra]

At the clubs I direct in both NS and EW are held equally liable for checking all details of the score, and both get 40%. I don't see this as unduly harsh, though when I directed in the UK we awarded 40-50.

ahydra

[PeterAlan]

The EBU regulation is 40% / 40% in most cases:

EBU White Book 2019 said:

3.3.10 Board unplayable by scoring against the wrong board number

Making a board unplayable by scoring on the electronic scorer (e.g. Bridgemate) against the wrong board number and seeing the results from a board not yet played is scored AVE−/AVE− – assuming both pairs had the chance to stop the error (N/S when scoring, E/W when agreeing the score).

Lead registration is the norm at most EBU tournaments, and as pescetom says this should catch most cases in time.

My preference is to enter an adjusted score of this form at the table's Bridgemate rather than in the Bridgemate Control software (or elsewhere), to have it correct at all steps of the scoring chain.

[weejonnie]

Certainly in the EBu it is 40-40.

At the club I load in the hand details and insist on the opening lead being entered. (We've decided not to show the hands to speed the game up.) This reduces the probability of the score being entered into the bridgemate by 75%.

[ahydra]

Do you mean "entered incorrectly"? I assume more than a quarter of scores actually get entered!

ahydra

[sanst]

As I’ve written before, I find it essentially wrong to make N (NS for that matter) more responsible than EW. E has to check, which means he or she should give as much attention as N. Actually, I think E should make sure all players agree to the data being entered. If that carries a lesser responsibility, I would demand to sit always EW and be happy to let NS take the flak for input mistakes.
Law 7D should be changed so that all players are made “responsible for maintaining proper conditions of play at the table”.

[pran]

 sanst, on 2019-December-28, 02:56, said:

As I’ve written before, I find it essentially wrong to make N (NS for that matter) more responsible than EW. E has to check, which means he or she should give as much attention as N. Actually, I think E should make sure all players agree to the data being entered. If that carries a lesser responsibility, I would demand to sit always EW and be happy to let NS take the flak for input mistakes.
Law 7D should be changed so that all players are made “responsible for maintaining proper conditions of play at the table”.

D. Responsibility for Procedures said:

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

The heading for each law is not itself actually part of that law, so Law 7D does not concern responsibility for obeying the procedures as such.

"Conditions of play" does not include the contestants' conduct. Each contestant is still responsible for his own conduct at the table.

[pescetom]

 pran, on 2019-December-28, 06:43, said:

"Conditions of play" does not include the contestants' conduct. Each contestant is still responsible for his own conduct at the table.

That is clear.

 pran, on 2019-December-28, 06:43, said:

The heading for each law is not itself actually part of that law, so Law 7D does not concern responsibility for obeying the procedures as such.

This is not, at least to me.
You are saying that the headings "LAW 7 - CONTROL OF BOARD AND CARDS" and "D. Responsibility for Procedures" do not imply that the body of 7D "Any contestant remaining at a table throughout a session is primarily responsible for maintaining proper conditions of play at the table." concerns and defines the responsibility for obeying the procedures related to control of board and cards?
Probably I miss your point.

[pran]

 pran, on 2019-December-28, 06:43, said:

"Conditions of play" does not include the contestants' conduct. Each contestant is still responsible for his own conduct at the table.

 pescetom, on 2019-December-28, 07:45, said:

That is clear.

 pran, on 2019-December-28, 06:43, said:

The heading for each law is not itself actually part of that law, so Law 7D does not concern responsibility for obeying the procedures as such.

 pescetom, on 2019-December-28, 07:45, said:

This is not, at least to me.
You are saying that the headings "LAW 7 - CONTROL OF BOARD AND CARDS" and "D. Responsibility for Procedures" do not imply that the body of 7D "Any contestant remaining at a table throughout a session is primarily responsible for maintaining proper conditions of play at the table." concerns and defines the responsibility for obeying the procedures related to control of board and cards?
Probably I miss your point.

Preface to the 1987 Laws said:

.......
The hundreds of headings and sub-headings can help a Director find the section of a law that is applicable to the facts of a case (these headings are for convenience of reference only; headings are not considered to be part of the Laws).
......

(my enhancement.)

There was a major cleanup of headings and sub-headings in the laws at that time and I assume that this is the reason why this note has later been removed from the preface of the laws (as being superfluous).
I have in fact been unable to find any other law where an alleged discrepancy between a header or sub-header and the law text might cause any misunderstanding; I feel that a better heading to Law 7D might be: Responsibility for Conditions at a table

[sanst]

 pran, on 2019-December-28, 06:43, said:

The heading for each law is not itself actually part of that law, so Law 7D does not concern responsibility for obeying the procedures as such.

"Conditions of play" does not include the contestants' conduct. Each contestant is still responsible for his own conduct at the table.

I’m sorry, but I don’t understand what this has to do with my post. Nowhere I refer to the header or it’s text, and “conditions of play” are part of the text of 7D. More importantly, my main problem is the “Any contestant remaining at a table throughout a session” (my emphasis) and I want that part changed to “All contestants”, making all in equal measure responsible.

[pran]

 sanst, on 2019-December-29, 06:26, said:

I’m sorry, but I don’t understand what this has to do with my post. Nowhere I refer to the header or it’s text, and “conditions of play” are part of the text of 7D. More importantly, my main problem is the “Any contestant remaining at a table throughout a session” (my emphasis) and I want that part changed to “All contestants”, making all in equal measure responsible.

"Conditions" include such things as a proper table setup with the players correctly seated, a correct board being available for play and so on.
"Procedures" include (in addition) the actions taken by each player.

Law 7 D Header said:

D. Responsibility for Procedures

while

Law 7 D said:

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

So the only part of the laws that can be understood to make all four players at a table jointly responsible for correct procedures being followed is the heading in Law 7D.
But as no heading is part of a law this would be a misunderstanding; no player can be held responsible for another player's failure to follow correct procedure, including the procedure when confirming a result.

[sanst]

 pran, on 2019-December-29, 07:12, said:

"Conditions" include such things as a proper table setup with the players correctly seated, a correct board being available for play and so on.
"Procedures" include (in addition) the actions taken by each player.
while

So the only part of the laws that can be understood to make all four players at a table jointly responsible for correct procedures being followed is the heading in Law 7D.
But as no heading is part of a law this would be a misunderstanding; no player can be held responsible for another player's failure to follow correct procedure, including the procedure when confirming a result.

That’s exactly the problem. I didn’t refer to the header, I gave the text which makes one pair more responsible than the other. I find that unacceptable especially since there’s no other ‘reason’ than the fact that they are stationary, which is the effect of the movement used. For me, the lesser responsibility is no reason to give anything else than A-/A- in the situation as described in the OP.

[pescetom]

 sanst, on 2019-December-29, 12:19, said:

That’s exactly the problem. I didn’t refer to the header, I gave the text which makes one pair more responsible than the other. I find that unacceptable especially since there’s no other ‘reason’ than the fact that they are stationary, which is the effect of the movement used. For me, the lesser responsibility is no reason to give anything else than A-/A- in the situation as described in the OP.

I imagine the most obvious 'reason' is that making all four players equally responsible is a potential recipe for confusion, as each might feel entitled to take procedural actions such as selecting a board, placing it on table, changing it's position, selecting a traveller or opening it, and so on - or alternatively feel obliged to seek agreement before doing anything. There have also been cheating scandals involving things like the position of the board on the table, so the less people who can intervene in such things the better I would think.

Nothing stops the mobile players questioning the actions of the stationary players, should they seem to be in error. I agree that they should be held equally to blame for some blatant errors that should be equally evident to both sides, such as playing the wrong board. I wouldn't extend that to the stationary side selecting the wrong board in a Bridgemate, though - I see the mobile side as only partially to blame here, and only if the board number was clearly shown.

[pran]

 sanst, on 2019-December-29, 12:19, said:

That’s exactly the problem. I didn’t refer to the header, I gave the text which makes one pair more responsible than the other. I find that unacceptable especially since there’s no other ‘reason’ than the fact that they are stationary, which is the effect of the movement used. For me, the lesser responsibility is no reason to give anything else than A-/A- in the situation as described in the OP.

Had it been an improper condition at the table - yes.

But OP describes an improper action by one or more contestants, not an improper condition at the table. (There is a difference!)

Don't you find it reasonable that a contestant who remains stationary at the same table during an entire session shall be responsible (at least more responsible than a contestant who just visits that table for a single round) for maintaining proper conditions of play at that table during the session?

[gordontd]

 pran, on 2019-December-29, 07:12, said:

as no heading is part of a law

This was last stated to be the case in the 1997 laws. In the 2007 laws all that was said was:

"Many headings present in the 1997 Laws have been removed in the interests of streamlining their appearance. Where headings remain they do not limit the application of any law, nor indeed does the omission of a cross-reference." I don't think this says quite the same thing.

[sanst]

 pran, on 2019-December-29, 14:23, said:

Don't you find it reasonable that a contestant who remains stationary at the same table during an entire session shall be responsible (at least more responsible than a contestant who just visits that table for a single round) for maintaining proper conditions of play at that table during the session?

No, most certainly not. What would be the reason? That you can sit on the same chair during the session? And what exactly means that responsibility? That you are awarded A- as a bonus if there’s an irregularity like the one described in the OP, where your opponents only get A= or A+? Are bridge laws based on Orwell’s Animal Farm: “All players are equal, but some are more equal than the others”?
Maybe even more important: what are proper conditions of play and how can you be responsible for it, since that includes the behaviour of the other contestants at the table. Does dat not include the auction, since the play only starts once the auction is over. So you can’t be responsible for putting the right board on the table; that’s done before the auction starts.
The laws should give the RA the liberty to proscribe the procedure, but also make all players responsible for maintaining it.

[Tramticket]

 pran, on 2019-December-29, 14:23, said:

Don't you find it reasonable that a contestant who remains stationary at the same table during an entire session shall be responsible (at least more responsible than a contestant who just visits that table for a single round) for maintaining proper conditions of play at that table during the session?

How do I get to sit east/West when you are directing? There must be a queue!