malcolmb

Let us be realistic, my club does not have the resources to print out full movement cards for all possible movements. If I did they would soon be lost within the couple of crates we use to hold the club. We do have a card at table 7 telling pairs where they go. I cannot consider players to be at fault for not checking opponents, however I can consider them at fault if they considered there might be a movement where you progress EW5 EW6 EW7 followed by a further 2 rounds on table 7. It is not a popular option to settle for a 7 table Mitchell, 21 boards and lots of pairs get a 3 board sitout to boot.

Thanks all for the very useful replies. To pick up a few points - 1) Yes, I will play ghost pairs as non-moving in future. I do not consider myself at fault for a "bad movement", it has always proved perfectly playable in the past. However the more possibilities for error can be eliminated, the better. 2) I think no one can be penalised in this case for failing to spot wrong opponents, there are no assignment cards on tables and we have never found the need for them. No bridgemates either. So, my view, is that N/S at table one and table 2 should be considered for AV+ on the boards they have missed. 3) Sorry to put Blackshoe to the trouble of constructing the movement. Yes, pair 11 was the ghost. I will work through your suggested scoring with a large sheet of paper tomorrow (out to bridge tonight, no surprise there). 4) Board set 4: 12 vs 10, score stands. Pair 4 gets AV+ on all three boards. - Not sure how I implement that in Scorebridge (probably same issue in other programs or even manually on paper). The problem is I don't have valid hands on which to score these AV+s, 4 is scheduled against 12 and 12 has already played.

I was caught with scoring the following unplayed boards caused by a pair on a 7 table, hesitation mitchell. The EBU white book looks unneccesarily draconian about how scores should be assigned. I would appreciate other views and guidance. 12 E/W started at table 5, then 6, then 7, playing correctly each time. Next round they are scheduled for phantom/sitout pair, no problem there. Next round they decided to stay at table 7 N/S, wrongly play the boards against the arriving EW. Pair 12 have been playing bridge for 10+ years, they should have realised there is no bridge movement where you move a few rounds, then play 3 sets at the same table in various directions. This is despite not finding the hesitation directions "hidden" under a bidding box. Now the fun, they move to Table 1 EW (mine as director) and realise after a while that they have played the boards. I tell them to move to Table 2 which will have their correct boards. Unfortunately NS thinking they have a sitout have looked through the boards. So, I at Table 1 have 3 unplayed boards, through no fault of mine (the previous set, rather than the current set) and and pair 2 also have 3 unplayed boards (it is customary for sitouts to look at unplayed boards at our club). Giving myself and Pair 2 three lots of AV+ seems far too generous and 6 lots of AV- to pair 12 far too draconian (there may be other views here :rolleyes: ). My feeling is that it would be equitable to give myself and Pair 2 only one set of AV+, give pair 12 either one or 2 boards of AV-. Score the residue AV. There is a final consequence, Pair 12 continue to Table 4 and find that they have also played the boards there. I cannot see how to recompense NS4 for the unplayed boards as there is no match as such. However, I think this situation is analogous to a pair playing a wrong board or opponents (played score stands, the correct opponents never get to play the board).