Unplayed board

[jdonn]

This was in the ACBL but I'm curious about other jurisdictions too.

 

We played a swiss team yesterday. In one round one opponent was very slow and we didn't get the last board in. It turned out our teammates had a huge result (the opponents at the other table bid a no-play grand).

 

When we found that out (during the score comparison, after the other team left) we called the director and he said if the other team would admit fault we would get an automatic 3 imp penalty, but that the result at the other table didn't matter even though it was a likely 17 imp win. However I later went to ask a higher-ranking (I think) director who said that while 3 imps is the normal remedy, the director can take into account if the table that played the board had an unusual result, like a grand going down or one side going for a number, etc. He claimed that it's written somewhere (he didn't say where but I suspect he meant some ACBL policy or condititons of contest, not the laws) and he said there is even precedent including a major case (but he didn't say what).

 

I didn't actually bother going to establish fault since for 3 imps we didn't care, however for 17 I would have (it would have made 5 victory points difference instead of 1). I'm quite sure they would have admitted fault if we had bothered.

 

Does anyone know which director is right in the ACBL? Or what the ruling should be elsewhere?

[RMB1]

The law is Law 86D and is open to some interpretation and has been the subject of (withdrawn) WBF LC minutes. But the gist is that if a board is played once with an exceptional result and is not played at the other table and the exceptional result is in favour of the side that was not at fault for the board being unplayed then the adjusted score should reflect the exceptional result (by IMPing the exceptional result against an unexceptional result at the table where the board was not played).

 

So (if the OP side had not been responsible for the slow play) then they might have been due an adjustment by comparison with small slam making or 50% small slam + 50% game with overtricks.

[PeterE]

... and it's even more complicated ...

 

In San Remo at the EBL TD's Course we were told that even when the OS got an exceptional good result at the other table it should be taken into account and that in this case an assigned adjusted score should be implemented for the non-played board.

 

If - for example - the OS got a grand making - by guessing the queen of trump - the best the NOS could have got was an even board, if they bid and made the same grand. So, -3 IMP for the OS would be not fair.

[VixTD]

If - for example - the OS got a grand making - by guessing the queen of trump - the best the NOS could have got was an even board, if they bid and made the same grand. So, -3 IMP for the OS would be not fair.

I have never had to apply this law, but I've met it in training material, and the normal scenario is the sort of one Robin cites above, where for instance one side (NS) bid to a spade grand slam that no one is likely to bid and make it by guessing a crucial queen, and the board turns up at the other table with some of the East or West cards face up so that they are exposed as they are removed from the board and the board is fouled.

 

It would be normal to assign IMPs based on the likely result at the table that couldn't play it, be that 6♠= or +1, 4♠+2 or 3 or (more likely) a mixture of these.

 

Peter, are you saying that if the board arrives at the other table with the North or South cards face up, the director should calculate a similar score assignment (perhaps leaning a little in favour of EW this time in the weightings), plus perhaps a 3 IMP fine for NS?

[bluejak]

Opinions differ. Ton Kooijman said that we should adjust when the offending side have a good result, perhaps giving them less benefit than we would an offending side.

 

86.3 Law 86D: Unusual results at other table [Ton]

 

When, in team play, a board cannot be played at the table for whatever reason, while it has already been played at the other table, it is possible to deviate from the routine artificial adjusted score. To do this we need an unusual result on the played board. The TD works with a range of normal results on a board, which do not ask for the application of this law. Given the fact that the innocent side will receive some imps anyway (average plus), a couple of undoubled overtricks are not considered to create an unusual result.

 

When the innocent side received a very good score and the board is made unplayable at this table (by the other side), it is mandatory to give an assigned adjusted score with full weight to this result. Assume that the team that got a good score at one table caused the board to be cancelled at the other; if the TD gives an assigned adjusted score the weight of the good result needs to be small; 30% sounds reasonable.

 

If the board has to be cancelled because of a mistake at the second table, and the innocent side received a very good result at the first table, it should get full weight. If the offenders received a very good score the weight can be less (50% looks

reasonable). And if no side is responsible the weight could be somewhat higher (let us say 60%).

 

Note It is not clear that this necessarily follows the interpretations by the WBFLC. However the WBFLC minutes have been changed so the position is unclear.

It is not at all clear how you justify giving 50% of a good score under the Law.

 

The EBU has not really decided how to go because of Ton's comments, the wording of the Law, a WBFLC minute, the decision to withdraw it and so forth. So they say:

 

86.1 Unusual result

 

If a board is cancelled when it has been played at the other table in a team game then, rather than give an artificial adjusted score, the TD can assign a score if the result at the other table was very unusual, for example if a slam made on very minimum values or missing two aces. Normally this will only be done when the non-offending side has the good score.

 

Of course there will be times when both sides are non-offending. Such an assigned score should still be given, though a split score is possible, since both sides will be treated as non-offending.

 

The Law permits such an assignment when the good score is obtained by a side that are partly or completely at fault. At time of writing the method of dealing with this is unclear [see the advice in #86.3]. A TD or AC who only applies this Law to benefit a non-offending side cannot be criticised.

The word 'Normally' in the second sentence is important. The EBU thinks it should normally only be done for non-offending sides, but accepts there may be exceptions. If the offending side have a score that cannot possibly get less than +6 imps, this Law suggests they should get 6 imps [and perhaps a PP].

 

But the idea of giving them 50% of a good score because they are offending seems to be Ton's own, and not necessarily based on a legal backing.

 

I believe that case Law in the EBU may lead to a revision of #86.1, and there may be future WBFLC minutes to be added to the White book in this matter.

[PeterE]

Peter, are you saying that if the board arrives at the other table with the North or South cards face up, the director should calculate a similar score assignment (perhaps leaning a little in favour of EW this time in the weightings), plus perhaps a 3 IMP fine for NS?

Yes, "exactly" - where "exactly" is not to be used in its literal meaning :P

 

The reasoning behind that is

 

first, when the result is so favourable that it hardly could be equalized, the OS is bound to a good score; and

 

second, it would not be the first time that the "NOS" after having some very expensive desaster inadvertantly mixed up the cards of their "offending" opponents ... <_<

[jdonn]

Appreciate the info. I pointed out 86 d to the director and he appreciated it and was nice about the whole thing.