[dickiegera]

In a recent club game we started with pair 4 NS. We were 4 EW.

We were to play boards 13-16. We played BD's 13 & 14 with no problems.

We bid BD 15 and the final contract was 4♠ in the North. East makes lead, South puts down dummy and after 10-15 seconds
North discovers that she has cards from wrong BD. She had cards from BD 16.

Director says to mark score as NP ["not played"]
I don't believe we should have been punished for North's mistake.
The boards were pre dealt with hand records so reshuffle was not possible.

What is correct here? [BD 15]

Also on following BD # 16 I [east] was 5-5-3-0 distribution and believe South had and used UI in defending my 4 ♥ contract.

He knew South had 5 spades in her hand plus other values & was silent during auction.

What is correct on BD #16?

Thank you

[pran]

I am not aware of any law that directly addresses this situation* and my immediate reaction is to rule that North picks up the thirteen cards she is supposed to have and play out Board 15 in the 4♠ contract with the cards she now has at her disposal.

Such a ruling is absolutely questionable although there is some basis (by analogy in the laws) for it, and the alternative is to just cancel the board with artificial adjusted scores of AVE- to North/South and Ave+ to East/West.

Board 16 cannot be played because too much information is already available to South from the calls made by North on board 15 (holding her cards from board 16). Consequently that board must be cancelled with artificial adjusted scores of AVE- to North/South and Ave+ to East/West.

PS: There is some justification for imposing a PP (in addition to the AAS) on North taking cards from the wrong board

*chrism is correct in referring to Law 17D2 - it is the applicable law
The fact that we no longer are within the auction period simply means that the last clause in this law takes effect: The offender's partner must of course have called subsequent to the offender's first call in that auction.

[ggwhiz]

I'm not sure but wonder if it is appropriate that E/W get avg+ OR their percentage on boards played, whichever is higher.

Definitely avg- for N/S on both boards as the auction on 15 makes 16 unplayable.

[chrism]

17D2 does not apply directly to Board 15 since we are no longer in the auction period, but its spirit may guide us:

After looking at the correct hand the offender calls again and the auction continues normally from that point. If offender’s LHO has called over the cancelled call the Director shall award artificial adjusted scores when offender’s substituted call differs* from his cancelled call (offender’s LHO must repeat the previous call) or if the offender’s partner has subsequently called over the cancelled call.

Once we are past the point of no return, the director shall award an AAS (in this case Ave+/Ave- would be appropriate). Clearly whatever the auction was, South must have made at least one call subsequent to at least one bid made by North, since North is declarer and the auction is over.

As noted by others, Board 16 is unplayable and is also scored Ave+/Ave-

[mycroft]

It is tradition (not regulation or Law) that N-S controls switching the boards. I strongly approve of this tradition; this is why.

Almost always when this happens, one of E-W has swapped the boards and taken out cards while North is scoring, and then North swaps the boards again (because he always does that) and pulls his cards. And then, as Pran says above, two boards get irredeemably destroyed.

Now the other issue is that there are creatures (I call them the Lords of the Table, even though they're probably 65% Ladies) who always sit North, because they must be in control of the game - the scoring, the boards, where things are on the table,... They will get very annoyed if you switch boards on them, but they'll only do it when *they're* finished with the last board (having rescued their scorecard from wherever it was stored, carefully written in their score, put it away again, pulled out the 'Mate or traveller, put in *that* score, checked the other results for their amusement and partner's edification, complained about what their partner did on the hand, taken their drink of coffee, and I'm probably missing one or two steps). And since they are in control, they will only notice the board's been switched when they catch someone trying to Do Their Job (otherwise known as trying to get out of the round less than 5 minutes late). When they don't catch it...this happens.

There are pairs in my area who will *always* state as E-W that they are switching the boards, to avoid any lapse in concentration (and they only do that if the boards aren't switched in reasonable time, for whatever reason). I approve of that as well.

I would find out (as best I could) what happened. Even though only one player has the wrong cards, it could very easily be that both sides are partially at fault. It could very easily be that only North is at fault.

[pran]

ggwhiz, on 2016-June-09, 09:59, said:

I'm not sure but wonder if it is appropriate that E/W get avg+ OR their percentage on boards played, whichever is higher.

Definitely avg- for N/S on both boards as the auction on 15 makes 16 unplayable.

Law 12C2c2 said:

The foregoing is modified for a non-offending contestant that obtains a session score exceeding 60% of the available matchpoints or for an offending contestant that obtains a session score that is less than 40% of the available matchpoints (or the equivalent in imps). Such contestants are awarded the percentage obtained (or the equivalent in imps) on the other boards of that session.

They do, but be aware that the average is over the session in which the irregularity occurred, not an entire multisession event.

[pran]

mycroft, on 2016-June-09, 10:14, said:

It is tradition (not regulation or Law) that N-S controls switching the boards. I strongly approve of this tradition; this is why.

Almost always when this happens, one of E-W has swapped the boards and taken out cards while North is scoring, and then North swaps the boards again (because he always does that) and pulls his cards. And then, as Pran says above, two boards get irredeemably destroyed.

Now the other issue is that there are creatures (I call them the Lords of the Table, even though they're probably 65% Ladies) who always sit North, because they must be in control of the game - the scoring, the boards, where things are on the table,... They will get very annoyed if you switch boards on them, but they'll only do it when *they're* finished with the last board (having rescued their scorecard from wherever it was stored, carefully written in their score, put it away again, pulled out the 'Mate or traveller, put in *that* score, checked the other results for their amusement and partner's edification, complained about what their partner did on the hand, taken their drink of coffee, and I'm probably missing one or two steps). And since they are in control, they will only notice the board's been switched when they catch someone trying to Do Their Job (otherwise known as trying to get out of the round less than 5 minutes late). When they don't catch it...this happens.

There are pairs in my area who will *always* state as E-W that they are switching the boards, to avoid any lapse in concentration (and they only do that if the boards aren't switched in reasonable time, for whatever reason). I approve of that as well.

I would find out (as best I could) what happened. Even though only one player has the wrong cards, it could very easily be that both sides are partially at fault. It could very easily be that only North is at fault.

As North was the only player holding cards from board 16 I think we must assume that the other three players took their cards from board 15 and that North for whatever reason took hers from board 16.

Whether she was pre-occupied with other activities and then (more or less automatically) switched the boards (again) or there is some other explanation for what happened is in my opinion irrelevant. The only excuse for North is if her pocket in board 15 actually did contain North's cards for board 16, but nothing in OP suggests this.

The other three players all had correct cards so neither of them appears to be blamed.

[pran]

chrism, on 2016-June-09, 10:13, said:

17D2 does not apply directly to Board 15 since we are no longer in the auction period, but its spirit may guide us:

After looking at the correct hand the offender calls again and the auction continues normally from that point. If offender’s LHO has called over the cancelled call the Director shall award artificial adjusted scores when offender’s substituted call differs* from his cancelled call (offender’s LHO must repeat the previous call) or if the offender’s partner has subsequently called over the cancelled call.

Once we are past the point of no return, the director shall award an AAS (in this case Ave+/Ave- would be appropriate). Clearly whatever the auction was, South must have made at least one call subsequent to at least one bid made by North, since North is declarer and the auction is over.

As noted by others, Board 16 is unplayable and is also scored Ave+/Ave-

Thanks, I stand corrected: L17D2 does indeed apply!
The fact that we no longer are within the auction period simply means that the last clause in this law takes effect: The offender's partner must of course have called subsequent to the offender's first call in that auction.

[blackshoe]

mycroft, on 2016-June-09, 10:14, said:

I would find out (as best I could) what happened. Even though only one player has the wrong cards, it could very easily be that both sides are partially at fault. It could very easily be that only North is at fault.

pran, on 2016-June-09, 10:47, said:

As North was the only player holding cards from board 16 I think we must assume that the other three players took their cards from board 15 and that North for whatever reason took hers from board 16.

Whether she was pre-occupied with other activities and then (more or less automatically) switched the boards (again) or there is some other explanation for what happened is in my opinion irrelevant. The only excuse for North is if her pocket in board 15 actually did contain North's cards for board 16, but nothing in OP suggests this.

The other three players all had correct cards so neither of them appears to be blamed.

Sven, I think your logic is flawed. In my opinion, and in my experience, Mycroft's scenario is entirely too possible. So.

Quote

Law 81B: To rectify an error in procedure the Director may:
1. award an adjusted score as permitted by these Laws.
2. require, postpone or cancel the play of a board.
3. exercise any other power given to him in these Laws.

Quote

Law 12A2: The Director awards an artificial adjusted score if no rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board (see C2 below).

Quote

Law 12C2:
(a) When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained (and see C1(d) above), the Director awards an artificial adjusted score according to responsibility for the irregularity: average minus (at most 40% of the available matchpoints in pairs) to a contestant directly at fault, average (50% in pairs) to a contestant only partly at fault, and average plus (at least 60% in pairs) to a contestant in no way at fault.
(b) When the Director awards an artificial adjusted score of average plus or minus at international matchpoints, that score is normally plus or minus 3 IMPs, but this may be varied as Law 86A allows.
(c.) The foregoing is modified for a non-offending contestant who obtains a session score exceeding 60% of the available matchpoints or for an offending contestant who obtains a session score that is less than 40% of the available matchpoints (or the equivalent in IMPs). Such contestants are awarded the percentage obtained (or the equivalent in IMPs) on the other boards of that session.*

* In ACBL sanctioned events, when there is a non-offending and an offending contestant, the non-offending contestant receives the score specified by 12C2(c.) above. Their opponents shall receive the difference between that score and 100%, regardless of their score on the other boards of that session. For example, if the non-offending contestant receives 64% on the adjusted deal, the offending contestant receives 36%.

The emphasis in this law is mine. It means that the director has a duty to determine the responsibility for the irregularity. If it's all on North, then A- to NS and A+ to EW. If EW were partly at fault, then A to both sides.

I agree with Sven that Board 16 is also unplayable, so the same ruling applies to that board.

I don't think we need 17D.

[mycroft]

I would argue that a ruling that "since north was the only person who has cards from the wrong board, north is the only player at fault" isn't wrong.
I would argue that a ruling that "since everyone is responsible for the boards, and everybody *should have been* paying attention, the fact that North ended up with cards from the wrong board is everyone's fault" isn't wrong, either.

How would I rule? Well, I would first investigate and see if I can figure out where most "naturally" the fault lies. A two-board sitout is enough of a penalty in most games even without any A- rulings - but we do have to as well determine fault.

So, let's posit the converse (and oh, has *this* happened) where East flips the board in the middle of a huge discussion between North and West (with South trying not to eyeroll too hard) and pulls her cards, then North flips the board (again) and the other three pull out their cards. Is East solely at fault for having cards from the wrong board, or are the rest at fault for playing the boards in the wrong order? Is that even an infraction with a proscribed penalty?

[dickiegera]

blackshoe, on 2016-June-09, 17:17, said:

Sven, I think your logic is flawed. In my opinion, and in my experience, Mycroft's scenario is entirely too possible. So.




The emphasis in this law is mine. It means that the director has a duty to determine the responsibility for the irregularity. If it's all on North, then A- to NS and A+ to EW. If EW were partly at fault, then A to both sides.

I agree with Sven that Board 16 is also unplayable, so the same ruling applies to that board.

I don't think we need 17D.

My partner [West] nor I [East] had nothing to do about touching or turning the boards. I never turn boards and I always sit East.
It was either North or South turning the boards.

Thank you for your input

[blackshoe]

mycroft, on 2016-June-09, 17:40, said:

I would argue that a ruling that "since north was the only person who has cards from the wrong board, north is the only player at fault" isn't wrong.
I would argue that a ruling that "since everyone is responsible for the boards, and everybody *should have been* paying attention, the fact that North ended up with cards from the wrong board is everyone's fault" isn't wrong, either.

How would I rule? Well, I would first investigate and see if I can figure out where most "naturally" the fault lies. A two-board sitout is enough of a penalty in most games even without any A- rulings - but we do have to as well determine fault.

So, let's posit the converse (and oh, has *this* happened) where East flips the board in the middle of a huge discussion between North and West (with South trying not to eyeroll too hard) and pulls her cards, then North flips the board (again) and the other three pull out their cards. Is East solely at fault for having cards from the wrong board, or are the rest at fault for playing the boards in the wrong order? Is that even an infraction with a proscribed penalty?

The director is tasked to investigate what happened, determine the facts as best he can, and make a ruling on those facts. Making a ruling on the basis that "north was the only person who had cards from the wrong board" or "everyone is responsible for the boards", which is nonsense, is a dereliction of the director's duty.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2016-June-09, 17:17, said:

I don't think we need 17D.

Oh yes, we do!

Law 17D said:

1. A call is cancelled if it is made by a player on cards that he has picked up from a wrong board.

2. After looking at the correct hand the offender calls again and the auction continues normally from that point. If offender’s LHO has called over the cancelled call the Director shall award artificial adjusted scores when offender’s substituted call differs* from his cancelled call (offender’s LHO must repeat the previous call) or if the offender’s partner has subsequently called over the cancelled call.

Law 17D1 does not cease to apply once the auction period is ended and it is the only law that addresses a player picking up cards from a wrong board. (Quote from "Introduction": Where headings remain they do not limit the application of any law).

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2016-June-09, 17:17, said:

I agree with Sven that Board 16 is also unplayable, so the same ruling applies to that board.

Also? Are you implying that 15 is unplayable?

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2016-June-10, 10:00, said:

Also? Are you implying that 15 is unplayable?

I take it he concluded that board 15 was unplayable.

However, as I have pointed out:

- North has taken cards from board 16 instead of board 15 and made a call, so Law 17D1 applies.

- South has subsequently called in that same auction, so Law 17D2 applies.

And Law 17D2 leaves the Director no option other than to award artificial adjusted scores on board 15, effectively cancelling that board.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2016-June-10, 13:19, said:

I take it he concluded that board 15 was unplayable.

However, as I have pointed out:

- North has taken cards from board 16 instead of board 15 and made a call, so Law 17D1 applies.

- South has subsequently called in that same auction, so Law 17D2 applies.

And Law 17D2 leaves the Director no option other than to award artificial adjusted scores on board 15, effectively cancelling that board.

I see. I don't have my lawbook to hand. I was under the impression that the correct hand could be substituted any time before a card has been played or even after the opening lead.

[blackshoe]

I suppose we could read "the play period begins irrevocably" In Law 41C, tell declarer to get his proper hand and put the other one back where it belongs, and then have declarer play it out whatever hand he finally gets. If that's not an option, then yeah, the board is unplayable.

It occurs to me that if Edgar Kaplan rose from his grave to tell me that 17D2 applies here, I'd still say no.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2016-June-10, 14:14, said:

I see. I don't have my lawbook to hand. I was under the impression that the correct hand could be substituted any time before a card has been played or even after the opening lead.

Technically this was possible until 1997.

1987 Law 17D said:

If a player who has inadvertently picked up the cards from the wrong board makes a call, the Director may cancel the board, and must do so if any player of the non-offending side so requests (for penalty, see Law 90).