[VixTD]

lamford, on 2018-February-22, 17:16, said:

If Law 12B is not a law, why does it not go in the glossary or definitions? There is no mention of "being empowered by the laws to award an adjusted score". Law 12B says when damage exists. Damage exists here. Therefore the TD (or AC) adjusts.

It's not worded as a directive or instruction, so cannot be used as such. I could equally well ask why the law doesn't say "if a player is damaged as a result of an opponent's irregularity the director shall adjust the score to remove the damage", but it doesn't.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2018-February-22, 17:13, said:

So what would you say was meant by "not permitting normal play of the board?"

There are some specific examples, like 15B2, where you're playing the wrong board and one of the players has already played that board. I can't find the law number at the moment, but I think there's another one where a pair is at the wrong table, they start bidding the hand, and the error is discovered, so the play is cancelled. When the correct pair is seated, we start the hand over, but if any of the calls are different we cancel it and award an adjusted score.

The general idea is that a board is unplayable when there's so much extraneous information that it would be ridiculous to try to play it. But if the Laws provide a rectification that doesn't include cancelling the board, that is the normal play of the board after the irregularity.

[axman]

lamford, on 2018-February-22, 17:13, said:

So what would you say was meant by "not permitting normal play of the board?"

my understanding of normal play is that the board proceeds via bidding/play to scoring in accordance with law. iow when an infraction occurs where no remedy in law permits the playing of cards to proceed, the board can no longer be played normally.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2018-February-23, 10:07, said:

I can't find the law number at the moment, but I think there's another one where a pair is at the wrong table, they start bidding the hand, and the error is discovered, so the play is cancelled. When the correct pair is seated, we start the hand over, but if any of the calls are different we cancel it and award an adjusted score.

I can't find it either. I thought it was part of Law 17 in the 2007 laws, but no. Perhaps you're thinking of the old 15C:

Quote

If, during the auction period, the Director discovers that a contestant is playing a board not designated for him to play in the current round, he shall cancel the auction, ensure that the correct contestants are seated and that they are informed of their rights both now and at future rounds. A second auction begins. Players must repeat the calls they made previously. If any call differs in any way from the corresponding call in the first auction the Director shall cancel the board. Otherwise the auction and play continue normally. The Director may award a procedural penalty (and an adjusted score) if of the opinion that there has been a purposeful attempt by either side to preclude normal play of the board.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2018-February-23, 14:05, said:

I can't find it either. I thought it was part of Law 17 in the 2007 laws, but no. Perhaps you're thinking of the old 15C:

Law 15 B

[lamford]

axman, on 2018-February-23, 11:15, said:

my understanding of normal play is that the board proceeds via bidding/play to scoring in accordance with law. iow when an infraction occurs where no remedy in law permits the playing of cards to proceed, the board can no longer be played normally.

In the example quoted by axman and barmar where a pair has had a different auction on the first attempt to play the hand, the board can be played and scored normally, with the old auction being UI to the pair that heard it. However, as Pran says, Law 15B states that the board is cancelled for both sides. I am sure practice by TDs is to cancel the board once one call is different, but I cannot find that in the Laws. Can anyone else?

I also note: 12C1b The Director in awarding an assigned adjusted score should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the infraction not occurred. So, in this example, the score of +800 was not possible without the infraction so does not meet this clause either.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2018-February-23, 16:40, said:

Law 15 B

Perhaps. It looks like old 15C was moved into 15B, but there seemed to me to be some differences when I looked at it.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2018-February-23, 21:14, said:

Perhaps. It looks like old 15C was moved into 15B, but there seemed to me to be some differences when I looked at it.

The old 15C stated explicitly that the auction in progress should be cancelled, the players be (re-)seated correctly and that a new auction be started.
Then if any call during the new auction differed in any way from the corresponding call during the first (now cancelled) auction then the board must be cancelled.

The old 15B simply stated that a second play of a board that has already been played (incorrectly) by some player(s) must be cancelled for both sides.

[lamford]

pran, on 2018-February-24, 01:49, said:

The old 15C stated explicitly that the auction in progress should be cancelled, the players be (re-)seated correctly and that a new auction be started.
Then if any call during the new auction differed in any way from the corresponding call during the first (now cancelled) auction then the board must be cancelled.

The old 15B simply stated that a second play of a board that has already been played (incorrectly) by some player(s) must be cancelled for both sides.

Now it seems to say that if the board has been played before, the second attempt will be cancelled regardless!

[pran]

lamford, on 2018-February-24, 07:55, said:

Now it seems to say that if the board has been played before, the second attempt will be cancelled regardless!

Precisesly! (The provisions in Law 15 are only relevant if the irregularity is discovered before play is completed.)

Law 15B1 said:

if one or more players at the table have previously played the board, with the correct opponents or otherwise, the board is cancelled for both his side and his opponents.

Also be aware that Law 15B only applies to pair and individual events – see Law 86B for team events.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2018-February-23, 14:05, said:

I can't find it either. I thought it was part of Law 17 in the 2007 laws, but no. Perhaps you're thinking of the old 15C:

Yes, that's what I was thinking of. I didn't realize that they got rid of it. Maybe they felt that even if the auction is repeated, there are too many inferences from the different styles of the different pairs. But many of the changes in 2017 tried to provide more ways to get a normal bridge result after irregularities instead of assigning scores, while this seems to go the other way. There's arguably more problems from "comparable calls" than were ever likely from these repeated auctions.