[par31]

Matchpoint Pairs

In the last round of tonight's duplicate at the club, one of the players noticed that two of the three boards in the round had not been shuffled and dealt (he remembered playing them the previous week). It was clearly too late to redeal them at that point and have everyone play them again. How should the boards in question be scored?

6D2 and 12C2(a) suggest to me that everyone who playeds these board should be awarded Ave+ on them (all but one pair as there was a sit-out). But it feels strange to give everyone Ave+ on a board so I wondered if this was the usual practice or if it was more normal to do something else instead, e.g. simply not score the boards at all.

[blackshoe]

Well, you're right in referring to 6D2 and 12C2(a): no result on these boards can be allowed to stand, they can't be corrected at this point, and so every pair who played these boards should get average plus. Yes, it feels strange - so strange that you're not the only one who'd look for another way to deal with this. But the laws here are clear, and the director is bound to follow the laws. So I would just do that.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2014-November-27, 21:26, said:

they can't be corrected at this point,

No, but if anyone else is still to play these boards (on another occasion) they must be redealt.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2014-November-27, 21:35, said:

No, but if anyone else is still to play these boards (on another occasion) they must be redealt.

Of course.

[RMB1]

The table that was supposed to deal these boards should get AVE-/AVE-

[Aardv]

Suppose there were time for the last table to deal and play one or more of the boards. What score should the players there get? They could get results on the redealt boards, but there would be no comparisons.

[blackshoe]

Generally speaking when there is no one else with whom to compare results, you award an artificial adjusted score. In this case that would be A+ to both sides, but they're getting that anyway, so redealing for the last table seems pointless.

[gnasher]

It seems very unlikely that anyone recognised the boards and then used the knowledge instead of telling the director about it. For bridge purposes an unshuffled board that the players don't recognise is no different from a freshly dealt board. And nobody goes to their bridge club in order to collect average pluses.

Hence I'd do something illegal but practical: the people who played it keep their score; the people who noticed it, and their opponents, get average plus; the people who omitted to deal it get fined.

I realise, of course, that this post doesn't belong in a Laws forum.

[aguahombre]

gnasher, on 2014-November-28, 10:32, said:

It seems very unlikely that anyone recognised the boards and then used the knowledge instead of telling the director about it. For bridge purposes an unshuffled board that the players don't recognise is no different from a freshly dealt board. And nobody goes to their bridge club in order to collect average pluses.

Hence I'd do something illegal but practical: the people who played it keep their score; the people who noticed it, and their opponents, get average plus; the people who omitted to deal it get fined.

I realise, of course, that this post doesn't belong in a Laws forum.

It seems appropriate for "simple rulings" I would probably be simple and do it, too.

[pran]

gnasher, on 2014-November-28, 10:32, said:

It seems very unlikely that anyone recognised the boards and then used the knowledge instead of telling the director about it. For bridge purposes an unshuffled board that the players don't recognise is no different from a freshly dealt board. And nobody goes to their bridge club in order to collect average pluses.

Hence I'd do something illegal but practical: the people who played it keep their score; the people who noticed it, and their opponents, get average plus; the people who omitted to deal it get fined.

I realise, of course, that this post doesn't belong in a Laws forum.

Law 6D2 said:

Unless the purpose of the tournament is the replay of past deals no result may stand if the cards are dealt without shuffle from a sorted deck* or if the deal has been imported from a different session. (These provisions shall not prevent arrangements, where desired, for exchange of boards between tables.)

and is pretty clear: It doesn't matter if anybody can recognize any cards, no result may stand.

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2014-November-28, 10:32, said:

[I realise, of course, that this post doesn't belong in a Laws forum.

aguahombre, on 2014-November-28, 10:55, said:

It seems appropriate for "simple rulings" I would probably be simple and do it, too.

pran, on 2014-November-28, 11:10, said:

[Law 6D2] is pretty clear: It doesn't matter if anybody can recognize any cards, no result may stand.

Sven is right. Both gnasher and agua would fail in their duty to follow the laws (Law 81B2, Law 82A).

[Aardv]

Quote

Sven is right. Both gnasher and agua would fail in their duty to follow the laws (Law 81B2, Law 82A)

What's worse, it's quite likely that some pairs will have gained an advantage by being familiar with the hands, even if they didn't consciously recognize them.

What troubles me about the popular solution is that it has the effect of handicapping the pair who sat the boards out, relative to the rest of the field. My favourite law, 84D, tells me that I have to adjust the score in favour of a non-offending side which has been damaged by an irregularity for which the Laws otherwise offer no rectification. So I'm obliged to make it up to this pair somehow.

I doubt the scoring program will allow me to give them matchpoints for a board they sat out. The only way I can think of to get round this is to throw the boards out. And add a PP to the offending pair to restore its disadvantage.

[pran]

Aardv, on 2014-November-28, 12:26, said:

What's worse, it's quite likely that some pairs will have gained an advantage by being familiar with the hands, even if they didn't consciously recognize them.

What troubles me about the popular solution is that it has the effect of handicapping the pair who sat the boards out, relative to the rest of the field. My favourite law, 84D, tells me that I have to adjust the score in favour of a non-offending side which has been damaged by an irregularity for which the Laws otherwise offer no rectification. So I'm obliged to make it up to this pair somehow.

I doubt the scoring program will allow me to give them matchpoints for a board they sat out. The only way I can think of to get round this is to throw the boards out. And add a PP to the offending pair to restore its disadvantage.

I don't understand what you are really saying here, but what is clear is that no result may stand at any table on such boards. However, the Director should award PP to any contestant who is proven guilty of an irregularity resulting in such cancellation of board(s).

[blackshoe]

I'm not sure what Aardv is saying either, but I don't see how the laws, even 84D, suggest that the pair who sat out, or any other pair, should "get something" because they're adversely affected by rulings at other tables.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2014-November-28, 11:35, said:

Sven is right. Both gnasher and agua would fail in their duty to follow the laws (Law 81B2, Law 82A).

I think we both knew that.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2014-November-28, 13:53, said:

I think we both knew that.

But Dick Jones, who just got his director's card yesterday, and is reading this thread, doesn't.

[Vampyr]

Aardv, on 2014-November-28, 12:26, said:

I doubt the scoring program will allow me to give them matchpoints for a board they sat out. The only way I can think of to get round this is to throw the boards out. And add a PP to the offending pair to restore its disadvantage.

If you really wanted to give them something, you could find a board on which they scored close to their session score and change their score to A+. This is not legal, of course.

But it's not something to worry too much about at a club game anyway. What are the prizes, something like $20-30 divided between four pairs? That is all that is at stake, unless this session is part of a series, eg a ladder.

Now what would you do if the sit-out pair were one of the pairs that dealt the board before the tables were counted and they became a rover, or whatever?

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2014-November-28, 14:03, said:

But Dick Jones, who just got his director's card yesterday, and is reading this thread, doesn't.

You mean he got his director's card without being able to read? I did day that my "ruling" was illegal and didn't belong in this forum. How much clearer should I have made it?

[blackshoe]

"Illegal, but practical" you called it. Mr. Jones isn't very familiar with his law book yet. In particular, while he read them, he hasn't assimilated Laws 81 and 82.

I know some very experienced TDs who think they can make any ruling they want. In fact, some years ago I had one tell me that in just those words. We don't want to give the impression here that that is a valid approach.