Chris L

[hv=pc=n&s=sa9764hak543dqt9c&n=sj85hjt87dj2caj52&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=p1n2cp2hp3hp4h]266|200|2C showed the majors. 1NT was 12-14. 2H (which showed values and H support, with a 2D negative available, was slow[/hv] At the table EW called the TD when 4H was made. He allowed the 3H bid and an appeal panel upheld the decision. Were the TD and appeal panel right? (This hand came up in a recent "A" team inter-county game in England)

I took a call from someone directing at a local club last night. The evening had been underway for 20 minutes or so. On the first round, with cards dealt at the table, one member of the NS pair at a particular table had 14 cards and the other 12. Each member of the partnership faithfully recorded the cards they had on the relevant curtain card and proceeded to bid and play the hand, with no one at the table noticing the irregularity, and arrive at a result. The error was discovered at the next table, when NS counted their cards (without looking at them). NS at the first table were asked to correct the misboarding but said they couldn't as the hands were exactly as played. Without having a law book to hand and not wanting to hold up their evening, I said that the result on the first round should be cancelled, with NS getting 40% and EW 60% and then someone at the first table should be asked to select a card at random from the 14 card hand to add to the 12 card hand, with new curtain cards provided, and the board could then be played normally for the rest of the evening. It occurred to me afterwards that maybe the board should have been re-dealt instead.

I could certainly amend the rules of the particular county league to cover the point - thank you. I am now wondering what the legal basis is for the use of multiple sets of pre-duplimated boards in EBU events; in the case of knock-out matches played privately there is this specific provision: "16. Boards must be shuffled and dealt at the table at the commencement of each set. A player of each side must be present at the dealing of every board. Any player in doubt may require a board to be re-dealt before it is first played. Alternatively, team captains may agree to an alternative means of board dealing (e.g. via a "Duplimate" machine) subject to proper security arrangements being maintained at all times." But what about congresses or events like the Tollemache Cup? Law 6 E.3. permits the Director to "have his assistants or other appointed agents perform the shuffle and deal in advance" - but with a Duplimate machine there is no "shuffle" as such. Is a computer plus a machine which can read bar codes capable of being an "other appointed agent" of the Director? This is only a semi-serious observation - I am not thinking of pitching up at Brighton next weekend and giving Max Baxin a hard time!

I'm hoping someone can point me to some relevant guidance on this. Duplimated boards are rapidly becoming the norm in England - and not just for Simultaneous Pairs events, where there are specific regulations about the preparation of the boards and their transportation to the venue. Law 6 is silent on the specific point, as is the 2011 White Book. My county participates in the Eastern Counties League with seven others. All of us now produce two or more identical sets of 32 boards with accompanying hand records. Sometimes they are brought to/left at the venue by someone who has "duplimated" them but who isn't playing, but sometimes not. No one (in the dozens of matches I have played) has ever raised Law 6 C (representatives of both pairs to be present etc). What is the position under the Laws if they do? The TD at such matches is invariably a member of the home side, playing in the match. There was a challenge in a recent county teams of four match where a representative of the home team had duplimated about half the 24 boards on the home club's machine before the first of the oppo arrived - and the oppo captain then objected and they ended up dealing all 24 by hand in the "old" way. No doubt the oppo were within their rights; possibly not within the "spirit" of the Laws (cf the admirable decision of Mr Dhoni at Trent Bridge last weekend).

Quite. One of the four players at the table was our captain. I think their captain was playing in my room - had he also been in the room, the "captains [might have agreed] on a ruling" without realising it. :)

Ooops; I had forgotten that 2♠ was no longer alertable. I'll go back to sleep.

[hv=d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1c1nd2hp2sd3hppp]133|100[/hv] This hand came up in a teams of 4 match of high quality played in EBU land. I wasn't involved either as a player or in a TD capacity but was asked for my view subsequently by South. I don't have the full hand details. The 1NT overcall was 15-17. Both doubles were for penalty. The 2♥ bid was alerted, 2♠ wasn't. EW are a very regular partnership. E had a 2722 shape, W 4♠ and 2♥. E thought they were playing "system off" after the double, W that they were playing "system on". (You might think that this fairly basic bit of system is not something that a very regular partnership would forget and I would agree with you - but they are and they did). W explained 2♥ as showing 5+♠ and 3♥ as natural. He justified his pass of 3♥ on the basis (in the light of the double of 2♠) that the only explanation for the auction was that E had just ♥ and that one of them had forgotten the system. It would seem that both E and W were in possession of UI. Do you allow the pass of 3♥?

To the best of my knowledge, all four players in the room where the board was due to be played the second time agreed that it should be cancelled - whether one or more of them were more or less happy about that I don't know; I can only assume that all four thought that was the only option available - so there was no question in their minds of the captains having to agree a ruling (which is indeed what the conditions of contest provide). There was no further discussion about it as we joined our team-mates in that room to score up. After we had scored up and arrived at a win by 6 IMPs we thought that was the end of the matter until one of the oppo suggested that it wasn't.

Absolutely; I always carry one (and the Orange Book) when I am captain. I wasn't captain on Wednesday night; as we were playing in our captain's house, I made the (mistaken) assumption that he would have one and didn't bother to take my copy. On this particular occasion, I don't think the presence of a law book would have prevented the taking of the law into their own hands by the players concerned, though it might have meant that we wouldn't have needed to trouble the panel TD at almost 11pm.

No - I read your reply rather too quickly and misunderstood it. :) Give my regards to Shireen

As to the first, at the table the board was first played, 12 and 14 cards were put back in the East and South hands respectively. Whether one player (either East or South) was responsible for this or two I have no idea. We are using "passed" in two different senses; I thought Gnasher was referring to the "call" not in fact made by East before he counted his cards on the second occasion the board was played. No - before either East or South could call, East discovered he was a card short.

No player passed the wrong number of cards. Two players with the right number bid; then the player with 12 cards finally got round to counting his cards and declared that he had only 12.

Not the least of the many sources of amusement generated by this forum is the noise of hobby horses being ridden, closely followed by the utterly cynical willingness of some contributors to believe (on no evidence at all) the worst of fellow bridge players. Did I say anything about "speed bidding" in the OP? I think not. What I wrote was that East had been a bit slow to count his cards - and this in the context of being third in hand. As to the possible explanations for the original misboard, we were playing with old-style rigid Fleming boards, with impenetrable divisions between the individual pockets.

Thank you all for the comments so far. Law 13 D 2 (b) would certainly have been relevant had the "director" been called immediately. Certainly South was at fault. This incident is a good example of why players shouldn't make their own rulings; had anyone from my room been summoned as soon as the incorrect number of cards in the S and E hands had been identified, it might have been possible for the board to have been played - we never discovered which card it was that was in South's hand rather than East's. The TD may well have considered Law 86D; he was called by our captain and I didn't hear the whole of the conversation nor the whole of the reply. 5♦ was a fairly normal result which I am reasonably sure would have been reached by our NS pair, who are not shy in the bidding. At worst they would have taken 300 from 4♥X. It was certainly the case (or so it appeared to me) that all four players in the room in which the board was not played concurred in the decision to void the board. There was certainly no suggestion at that stage that the board should be replayed. Maybe EW thought they had a good enough card not to worry; we were 3 IMPs up after 12 boards and they had bid and made a very thin game and team-mates had missed a 50% slam (which proved to be worth 21 IMPs). Unfortunately their team-mates had gone two off in a pretty ludicrous 6♣ when our pair played in a normal 3NT and their EW pair had let through a no play vulnerable 3NT on a hand on which we held 2♣ to 8 tricks.

[hv=d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1h1s2h3d4h5dppp]133|100[/hv] This board, played privately last night, was the last of a 24 board teams of 4 match in the EBU's NICKO Plate (a "consolation" event for those unfortunate or incompetent enough to get knocked out in the first round of their popular National Inter-Club KO competition - needless to say, I wasn't playing for our team when that happened :) and nor was my partner). You may find it hard to believe when you read what follows but all eight players were experienced tournament players. The bidding in my room, where the board was the last of the six played after the compulsory change of opponents after 12 boards, was as shown. There was no defence to 5D and that was 400 to the oppo. We then played boards 13-18 and knocked on the door of the other room to see how they were getting on. "Two to play" was the reply (ie boards 23 & 24). After quite a short time, they emerged from the room. I said "that was quick for two boards" and someone said something like "we couldn't play board 24 as it was misboarded in your room so we've agreed that board is void". We then scored up and my team, ignoring board 24, had won by 6 IMPs. At this point the oppo said they thought that board 24 ought to be re-dealt and played. I was fairly sure that was no longer possible but no one had a Laws book. The conditions of contest provided that in those circumstances, if we were unable to agree on an outcome, we should telephone one of the EBU Panel of TD's for a ruling. The problem was that, after the board had been played in our room, one of East's (my partner's) cards somehow found its way into declarer's hand: I still can't think how. When the board was replayed, South counted her cards face down and arrived at 13; she then looked at them. The bidding then started 1♥-1♠, as in our room. At this point East, who had been a bit slow to count his cards, counted them face down and said "I've only got 12 cards". Everyone else recounted theirs and South found a 14th card in her hand. Because she had looked at her hand, the players came to the (possibly erroneous - see Law 13A) conclusion that it was no longer possible to play the hand and at that point agreed that the board should be void. Nothing was said at that stage about dealing and playing a replacement. There would seem to have been breaches of Laws 7 B 2 & 3. Law 13 B would seem to be in point; Law 86 C precludes the play of a substitute board. The TD we consulted came to the same conclusion and ruled that any procedural penalties of 3 IMPs would cancel one another out as both sides were at fault (not that an "unbalanced" 3 IMPs would have made any difference). I agree with the TD but then I would, wouldn't I. Anyone think he got it wrong?