cards from wrong board

[kvar]

Another one from the Delaware Regional last week. During the Sunday Swiss Teams, you're called to a table, where you see that North's hand is on the table as dummy and West has just made the opening lead of the ♣J. Unfortunately, dummy also has a ♣J.

 

East, South, and West all have hands from board 24, while North took her hand from board 25. Both of these boards have been played at the other table, but neither have been played here. Board 25 is sitting on the table on the top of a stack of boards with three hands still in it. The players had a competitive auction starting with a Pass from North, as North is the dealer on board 25. North passed throughout, however.

 

What do you do about this? Do you apply any penalties if:

 

A. No one at the table knows how this happened; or

B. East says only North touched the boards, and North doesn't dispute this.

[axman]

Another one from the Delaware Regional last week. During the Sunday Swiss Teams, you're called to a table, where you see that North's hand is on the table as dummy and West has just made the opening lead of the ♣J. Unfortunately, dummy also has a ♣J.

 

East, South, and West all have hands from board 24, while North took her hand from board 25. Both of these boards have been played at the other table, but neither have been played here. Board 25 is sitting on the table on the top of a stack of boards with three hands still in it. The players had a competitive auction starting with a Pass from North, as North is the dealer on board 25. North passed throughout, however.

 

What do you do about this? Do you apply any penalties if:

 

A. No one at the table knows how this happened; or

B. East says only North touched the boards, and North doesn't dispute this.

In regards to this case the law is an absurdity.

[dburn]

Another one from the Delaware Regional last week.  During the Sunday Swiss Teams, you're called to a table, where you see that North's hand is on the table as dummy and West has just made the opening lead of the ♣J.  Unfortunately, dummy also has a ♣J.

 

East, South, and West all have hands from board 24, while North took her hand from board 25.  Both of these boards have been played at the other table, but neither have been played here.  Board 25 is sitting on the table on the top of a stack of boards with three hands still in it.  The players had a competitive auction starting with a Pass from North, as North is the dealer on board 25.  North passed throughout, however.

 

What do you do about this?  Do you apply any penalties if:

 

A. No one at the table knows how this happened; or

B. East says only North touched the boards, and North doesn't dispute this.

In regards to this case the law is an absurdity.

Is it? The relevant Law says this:

 

Law 17D. Cards from Wrong Board

 

1. A call is cancelled if it is made by a player on cards that he has picked up from a wrong board.

 

2. After looking at the correct hand the offender calls again and the auction continues normally from that point. If offender’s LHO has called over the cancelled call the Director shall award artificial adjusted scores when offender’s substituted call differs4 from his cancelled call (offender’s LHO must repeat the previous call) or if the offender’s partner has subsequently called over the cancelled call.

 

3. If the offender subsequently repeats his call on the board from which he mistakenly drew his cards the Director may allow that board to be played normally, but the Director shall award artificial adjusted scores when offender’s call differs from his original cancelled call.

 

4. A procedural penalty (Law 90) may be assessed in addition to rectifications under 2 and 3 above.

Now, there seems here to have been not just one call from the player with the wrong cards, but several calls. Moreover, those wrong cards have been exposed as dummy, rendering the play of both this board and the next impossible.

 

The Director may adjust the score and award penalties at his discretion according to his allocation of fault - absent any other considerations, North-South should receive -3 IMPs for each of the two fouled boards. However, this is a case in which the Director should exercise his powers to assign a different adjusted score if the facts warrant it. For example, if East-West have reached a cold slam missed at the other table, the adjustment should reflect this unless North would not have passed throughout with the cards from the correct board.

 

I don't think any of this is particularly absurd.

[axman]

Another one from the Delaware Regional last week.  During the Sunday Swiss Teams, you're called to a table, where you see that North's hand is on the table as dummy and West has just made the opening lead of the ♣J.  Unfortunately, dummy also has a ♣J.

 

East, South, and West all have hands from board 24, while North took her hand from board 25.  Both of these boards have been played at the other table, but neither have been played here.  Board 25 is sitting on the table on the top of a stack of boards with three hands still in it.  The players had a competitive auction starting with a Pass from North, as North is the dealer on board 25.  North passed throughout, however.

 

What do you do about this?  Do you apply any penalties if:

 

A. No one at the table knows how this happened; or

B. East says only North touched the boards, and North doesn't dispute this.

In regards to this case the law is an absurdity.

Is it? The relevant Law says this:

 

Law 17D. Cards from Wrong Board

 

1. A call is cancelled if it is made by a player on cards that he has picked up from a wrong board.

 

2. After looking at the correct hand the offender calls again and the auction continues normally from that point. If offender’s LHO has called over the cancelled call the Director shall award artificial adjusted scores when offender’s substituted call differs4 from his cancelled call (offender’s LHO must repeat the previous call) or if the offender’s partner has subsequently called over the cancelled call.

 

3. If the offender subsequently repeats his call on the board from which he mistakenly drew his cards the Director may allow that board to be played normally, but the Director shall award artificial adjusted scores when offender’s call differs from his original cancelled call.

 

4. A procedural penalty (Law 90) may be assessed in addition to rectifications under 2 and 3 above.

Now, there seems here to have been not just one call from the player with the wrong cards, but several calls. Moreover, those wrong cards have been exposed as dummy, rendering the play of both this board and the next impossible.

 

The Director may adjust the score and award penalties at his discretion according to his allocation of fault - absent any other considerations, North-South should receive -3 IMPs for each of the two fouled boards. However, this is a case in which the Director should exercise his powers to assign a different adjusted score if the facts warrant it. For example, if East-West have reached a cold slam missed at the other table, the adjustment should reflect this unless North would not have passed throughout with the cards from the correct board.

 

I don't think any of this is particularly absurd.

To demonstrate absurdity shall we presume an auction such as

 

W N E S

---P- 1C-1S

2C-P-3C-3S

P- P- P

 

has occurred?

 

The most important issue is the answer to the question 'what board is being played?'

 

L7A says that the board in play is kept on the table until compeleted.

 

Bd 25 is on the table with the dlr N; and N has started the auction. The evidence supports the conclusion that bd#25 is in play where ESW have taken cards from the wrong board upon which to base their bidding.

 

 

per L17D1 the auction becomes

 

W N E S

-- P- Q-Q

Q-P- Q-Q

Q- P-Q?-?

?

 

Q= canceled call

--= place holder

? =call required by L17D2 after which auction proceeds normally

 

presuming that the call <?> required by L17D2** is made it is absurd to me that the auction can proceed normally even though the law insists that it is normal.

 

**= L17D2 specifies the player make his call after he inspects his proper cards, which may not necessarily be in the normal rotation

 

Now if instead the lawmakers had paid attention to L21A and concluded that these silly players have done a lot of bidding at their own misunderstanding then a lot of things become abundantly clear. The auction has been over and the next question to answer is the ability of W to take the same card from his hand as when he originally led.

[pran]

The most important issue is the answer to the question 'what board is being played?'

 

L7A says that the board in play is kept on the table until compeleted.

 

Bd 25 is on the table with the dlr N; and N has started the auction. The evidence supports the conclusion that bd#25 is in play where ESW have taken cards from the wrong board upon which to base their bidding.

The fact that North alone has cards from a different board than the other players' cards suggests that North is the offender here. Most likely North has placed board 25 on top of the stack and taken her cards from it after the other three players had taken their cards from board 24 while that board was on top of the stack.

 

However, this is immaterial. The fact is that board 24 has been destroyed, probably beyond repair although Law 17D leaves a possibility for the director on certain conditions to rule that it can be played. (These conditions do not seem to be satisfied in this case.)

 

Board 25 can, however, indeed be played; notice that North already have 13 exposed cards, so North and South will be subject to law 24 from the beginning of the auction on this board! (The auction period on board 25 began for North/South at the moment North took her cards from that board.)

[axman]

The most important issue is the answer to the question 'what board is being played?'

 

L7A says that the board in play is kept on the table until compeleted.

 

Bd 25 is on the table with the dlr N; and N has started the auction.  The evidence supports the conclusion that bd#25 is in play where ESW have taken cards from the wrong board upon which  to base their bidding.

The fact that North alone has cards from a different board than the other players' cards suggests that North is the offender here. Most likely North has placed board 25 on top of the stack and taken her cards from it after the other three players had taken their cards from board 24 while that board was on top of the stack.

 

However, this is immaterial. The fact is that board 24 has been destroyed, probably beyond repair although Law 17D leaves a possibility for the director on certain conditions to rule that it can be played. (These conditions do not seem to be satisfied in this case.)

 

Board 25 can, however, indeed be played; notice that North already have 13 exposed cards, so North and South will be subject to law 24 from the beginning of the auction on this board! (The auction period on board 25 began for North/South at the moment North took her cards from that board.)

L2 contains the words ' If such board is used, however, the conditions marked on it apply for that session.'

 

If the players were playing #24 does it follow from the fact that N made the first rather than W? And that no player suggested that N BOOT, does that not suggest that the players believed that the board on top was the one in play?

 

When a player is the first one to take a hand from a board does not mean that it is that board is the one that is in play? I have seen hundreds of occasions where one or more players have grabbed hands from the middle of a stack of boards rather than from the one that is next to be played. As much as you or I or any other large number of people might be inclined to want to believe that due to the fact that 3 players took cards from one board and a fourth took his cards from a different board that such is sufficient to find that it is the one board that is in play- but it is wrong to ignore the fact that all four acted as if they believed that it was the different board was in play and it was the different board that was one top as L7A prescribed.

[pran]

L2 contains the words ' If such board is used, however, the conditions marked on it apply for that session.'

 

If the players were playing #24 does it follow from the fact that N made the first rather than W?  And that no player suggested that N BOOT, does that not suggest that the players believed that the board on top was the one in play?

 

When a player is the first one to take a hand from a board does not mean that it is that board is the one that is in play?  I have seen hundreds of occasions where one or more players have grabbed hands from the middle of a stack of boards rather than from the one that is next to be played.  As much as you or I or any other large number of people might be inclined to want to believe that due to the fact that 3 players took cards from one board and a fourth took his cards from a different board that such is sufficient to find that it is the one board that is in play- but it is wrong to ignore the fact that all four acted as if they believed that it was the different board was in play and it was the different board that was one top as L7A prescribed.

I fail completely to see any relevance in L2 with the situation under discussion.

 

If the four players at a table (for some curious reason) take their hands from four different boards all waiting to be played at that table I agree that there is a real question which board is actually the board played.

 

But when three of the players have taken their hands from the same board I see no such problem, not even if it should appear that the fourth player had taken his or her hand first.

 

One assertion I definitley do not buy is that the three other players shall have dug down in the stack of boards and taken their hands from one of the buried boards while North took her hand from the topmost board.