[ahydra]

Matchpoints, club game. In one round NS 6 are playing against EW 10. They are meant to play boards 1 and 2, but instead play 1 and 3*. This is only discovered when they enter the result for board 3 (under board 2) and see the results / hand record for board 2 which don't match their hands.

Per club policy I awarded 40% to both sides for board 2, as the board could not be played with them having seen the hand record. However, board 3 is where the fun begins. It turns out EW 10 had already played the board in the very first round, against NS 10, and achieved a normal bridge result.** NS 6 had not yet played board 3.

NS 6 is easy to deal with - board 3 is scored as 40% to them and 60% to the opponents they would otherwise correctly play board 3 against. But this results in the offending NS getting two 40% boards while the offending EW get only one.

Law 15B1 says:

Quote

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.

This isn't 100% clear - to which "opponents" does the cancellation apply? That is, does it apply to the normal result achieved by EW 10 against NS 10? That would at least make the number of 40% awards equal between the two offending pairs, but an award of 60% might be unduly harsh or generous on NS 10, and it doesn't feel necessary to cancel a result already obtained through normal play.

Any thoughts on this?

Thanks,

ahydra

* 2-board rounds; table 6 had feed-in boards which explains why board 3 was there.
** I don't know how they failed to spot this!

[pescetom]

I agree it's hard to understand the Law here, but it seems logical to interpret it as cancel board 3 definitively for NS 6 and cancel this second score for EW10. More difficult is what to score to assign NS 6: I think 50% is reasonable (I can't see why they merit a second 40%, but nor do they deserve 60%).

[pran]

 ahydra, on 2019-June-18, 05:22, said:

Matchpoints, club game. In one round NS 6 are playing against EW 10. They are meant to play boards 1 and 2, but instead play 1 and 3*. This is only discovered when they enter the result for board 3 (under board 2) and see the results / hand record for board 2 which don't match their hands.

Per club policy I awarded 40% to both sides for board 2, as the board could not be played with them having seen the hand record. However, board 3 is where the fun begins. It turns out EW 10 had already played the board in the very first round, against NS 10, and achieved a normal bridge result.** NS 6 had not yet played board 3.

NS 6 is easy to deal with - board 3 is scored as 40% to them and 60% to the opponents they would otherwise correctly play board 3 against. But this results in the offending NS getting two 40% boards while the offending EW get only one.

Law 15B1 says:
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.


This isn't 100% clear - to which "opponents" does the cancellation apply? That is, does it apply to the normal result achieved by EW 10 against NS 10? That would at least make the number of 40% awards equal between the two offending pairs, but an award of 60% might be unduly harsh or generous on NS 10, and it doesn't feel necessary to cancel a result already obtained through normal play.

Any thoughts on this?

Thanks,

ahydra

* 2-board rounds; table 6 had feed-in boards which explains why board 3 was there.
** I don't know how they failed to spot this!

You use the wrong law on board 3 played by 10 against 6

Law 15 B 2 said:

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.

So the first result on a board obtained by two sides neither of which has already played that board shall stand as obtained whether or not they were scheduled to play that board.

Cancellation of a board under Law 15B1 applies to both sides when at least one of them has already played the board (scheduled or not)

[VixTD]

What you have when the dust has settled is:

.................NS6.......NS10......EW10.......NS6 opps

Board 1......TS........................TS

Board 2.....40%......................40%

Board 3.....40%........TS...........TS............60%

(TS = table score)

NS6 played board 1 legitimately against EW10, but couldn't play board 2 because they inadvertently saw the scores when they tried to enter the score from board 3. Both sides should have noticed the wrong number, so both are offending and get 40%.

NS10 and EW10 played board 3 against each other in an earlier round when they were scheduled to play the board, so they keep that score. EW10 later played the same board against NS6 when they shouldn't have, so that score is cancelled. NS6 were responsible for picking up the wrong board, and their scheduled opponents in no way at fault for being unable to play the board, so it's scored 40% / 60%.

I don't see anything unfair in this allocation of scores. It looks as if EW10 have dodged a penalty for not noticing that they were playing the wrong board, and maybe they have, but if NS were the ones who moved the boards (it does seem to be a Mitchell movement) maybe you would have judged EW to have been only partially at fault and given them 50% anyway.

[Vampyr]

 pran, on 2019-June-18, 07:38, said:

You use the wrong law on board 3 played by 10 against 6

So the first result on a board obtained by two sides neither of which has already played that board shall stand as obtained whether or not they were scheduled to play that board.

Cancellation of a board under Law 15B1 applies to both sides when at least one of them has already played the board (scheduled or not)

This happened, so how was the wrong law used?

[blackshoe]

Quote

Law 12C2{a}: When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained [see also C1(d)], 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.

Ruling 40% to both sides is ruling that both sides were directly at fault. Not sure I understand the logic.

[pran]

 Vampyr, on 2019-June-18, 14:37, said:

This happened, so how was the wrong law used?

Incorrect board:
Law 15B1 applies when either side has already played the board in question
Law 15B2 applies when neither side has already played the board

OP quoted Law 15B1 but should have used Law 15B2 in the situation causing him problem with the scoring.

[blackshoe]

It seems pretty obvious to me that the opponents referred to in Law 15B1 are the opponents at the table where the problem occurred of the pair who has already played the board. So the result on board 3 at table six is cancelled for both NS pair 6 and EW pair 10. NS 6 get an artificial adjusted score, and EW 10 get to keep the score they got when they played the board the first time.

For board 2, start with Law 16D2{d}: award an artificial adjusted score to both NS pair 6 and EW pair 10. Now 12C2{a} speaks to responsibility for the irregularity. Law 7D says "Any contestant remaining at a table throughout a session is primarily responsible for maintaining proper conditions of play at the table." In this case, that would be NS. It seems clear that they should get average minus. Whether EW should also get average minus is not so clear. Are they "directly at fault" for this problem, or only partly at fault? (See Law 12C2{a} quoted in my previous post).

I understand that the club has a policy, but I don't think the policy can override the laws. See Law 80B2{f}.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2019-June-18, 15:35, said:

Ruling 40% to both sides is ruling that both sides were directly at fault. Not sure I understand the logic.

Depends on the relevant CoC.

In older Laws North (alone) was responsible for correct procedures at the table, but now we have:

Law 7D said:

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

Note that "primarily responsible" does not exempt the other side from such (at least partial) responsibility.

And when neither contestant remains stationary at a table throughout an entire session then both sides should be considered equally (and fully) responsible for correct procedures at the table.

[ahydra]

@pran: in regards to board 3, one pair (EW10) had already played the board. Hence my applying 15B1 rather than 15B2.

@blackshoe: From a political point of view, having only directed at this club for a couple months, I don't think I should break with the policy . And to be honest, I do regard EW to be at direct fault here. Before displaying any hand records or the like, the bridgetab asks EW to confirm the result (and with a PIN number too to be extra-sure it's EW checking and not NS skipping over the check), and it's their duty to check that every detail of the result is correct, including the board number. Hence I think the policy of 40%/40% is actually quite reasonable. I agree with pran when he says

Quote

Note that "primarily responsible" does not exempt the other side from such (at least partial) responsibility.

From the responses here, it does at least seem that I had ruled correctly in regard to which ArtASs to assign on which boards, which is a relief. This was just one highlight of a busy evening, ending with a complex defective trick ruling which I unfortunately did muck up.

ahydra

[blackshoe]

 pran, on 2019-June-18, 16:10, said:

Note that "primarily responsible" does not exempt the other side from such (at least partial) responsibility.

And when neither contestant remains stationary at a table throughout an entire session then both sides should be considered equally (and fully) responsible for correct procedures at the table.

Agree with the first sentence. Do not agree with the second. The law doesn’t say that, it says that if nobody is stationary at a table nobody is primarily responsible for conditions at that table. As for “fully”, I don’t know where you pulled that from.

 ahydra, on 2019-June-18, 22:15, said:

@black shoe: From a political point of view, having only directed at this club for a couple months, I don't think I should break with the policy . And to be honest, I do regard EW to be at direct fault here. Before displaying any hand records or the like, the bridgetab asks EW to confirm the result (and with a PIN number too to be extra-sure it's EW checking and not NS skipping over the check), and it's their duty to check that every detail of the result is correct, including the board number. Hence I think the policy of 40%/40% is actually quite reasonable.

Fair enough.

[pran]

 ahydra, on 2019-June-18, 22:15, said:

@pran: in regards to board 3, one pair (EW10) had already played the board. Hence my applying 15B1 rather than 15B2.

I may have misunderstood, but I read OP to ask if not also the very first (incorrect) play of board 3 should be cancelled, hence 15B2 on that play.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2019-June-18, 23:02, said:

Do not agree with the second. The law doesn’t say that, it says that if nobody is stationary at a table nobody is primarily responsible for conditions at that table.

To what degree do you consider the contestants at a table where there is no stationary pair to be at fault when they play a board not designated for them to play at the current round?

This question is essential for awarding AVE-, AVE or AVE+ on affected boards in this or other rounds.

[sanst]

 blackshoe, on 2019-June-18, 23:02, said:

Agree with the first sentence. Do not agree with the second. The law doesn’t say that, it says that if nobody is stationary at a table nobody is primarily responsible for conditions at that table. As for “fully”, I don’t know where you pulled that from.

I just don’t like Law 7D. IMNSHO all players should be responsible. Everyone can see which board is placed on the table and in which direction, and every player should pay sufficient attention to the game (Law 74B1). Not paying enough attention, because somebody else should, is a gross violation of proper conduct. You’re there with four and you’re equals, or at least should be. As I’ve written before, what if a pair refuses to be stationary during the session because they don’t want the responsibility and the more severe penalties?
In Holland in pairs it’s usual that the boards remain at the table and all players go to other tables, so the problem doesn’t arise here most of the time. But that situation is not explicitly covered by the Laws.

[blackshoe]

 pran, on 2019-June-19, 02:08, said:

To what degree do you consider the contestants at a table where there is no stationary pair to be at fault when they play a board not designated for them to play at the current round?

This question is essential for awarding AVE-, AVE or AVE+ on affected boards in this or other rounds.

Of course. I consider both partly at fault.

[blackshoe]

 sanst, on 2019-June-19, 04:30, said:

I just don’t like Law 7D. IMNSHO all players should be responsible. Everyone can see which board is placed on the table and in which direction, and every player should pay sufficient attention to the game (Law 74B1). Not paying enough attention, because somebody else should, is a gross violation of proper conduct. You’re there with four and you’re equals, or at least should be. As I’ve written before, what if a pair refuses to be stationary during the session because they don’t want the responsibility and the more severe penalties?
In Holland in pairs it’s usual that the boards remain at the table and all players go to other tables, so the problem doesn’t arise here most of the time. But that situation is not explicitly covered by the Laws.

Whether anybody likes or dislikes a law is irrelevant, it seems to me.

They're equals, yes. All four are partly responsible if something goes awry in the manner under discussion.

If a pair refuses for that reason to sit where the director tells them to sit, they can go home.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2019-June-19, 06:50, said:

Of course. I consider both partly at fault.

So you let them (both) get away with AVE rather than AVE- then?

Frankly I don't like AVE to a contestant that has (more or less) actively contributed to a violation of correct procedures.

[blackshoe]

Actively is an overbid.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2019-June-19, 06:57, said:

If a pair refuses for that reason to sit where the director tells them to sit, they can go home.

But directors should generally accomodate reasonable requests when feasible. You obviously can't give everyone a stationary seat, and you often want to balance the NS and EW fields. But a small number of requests can almost always be handled easily.

I've never heard of the Dutch movement where the boards are stationary and all players move. I assume in small games you actually have more physical tables than tables in play, which is analogous to the bye-stand tables that are used in Howell movements.

[pescetom]

 blackshoe, on 2019-June-18, 15:52, said:

It seems pretty obvious to me that the opponents referred to in Law 15B1 are the opponents at the table where the problem occurred of the pair who has already played the board. So the result on board 3 at table six is cancelled for both NS pair 6 and EW pair 10. NS 6 get an artificial adjusted score, and EW 10 get to keep the score they got when they played the board the first time.

I agree fully with that. So what artificial adjusted score should NS 6 get, 50%?

 blackshoe, on 2019-June-18, 15:52, said:

For board 2, start with Law 16D2{d}: award an artificial adjusted score to both NS pair 6 and EW pair 10. Now 12C2{a} speaks to responsibility for the irregularity. Law 7D says "Any contestant remaining at a table throughout a session is primarily responsible for maintaining proper conditions of play at the table." In this case, that would be NS. It seems clear that they should get average minus. Whether EW should also get average minus is not so clear. Are they "directly at fault" for this problem, or only partly at fault? (See Law 12C2{a} quoted in my previous post).

I understand that the club has a policy, but I don't think the policy can override the laws. See Law 80B2{f}.

Our national regulations (Italy, not the same RA as OP) are very clear that when this occurs in a local tournament 40%-40% should be awarded. That begs the question of why they can't say the same for a national tournament, but so it is.