Cancelled board

[jallerton]

The hands are pre-duplicated so that everyone can look at hand records and post-mortem the hands together. The tables are arranged so that your team mates are half a row down from you (to avoid UI between the relevant tables), but the boards are passed down one table after playing them, repeating every 7 boards so everyone plays the same 7-board round. The board movement is for efficiency of running the tournament. This means that the same physical board is not played at the two tables in the match - which is fine unless there's a duplimate problem.

I don't really understand why this "avoids UI betwen the relevant tables". This seating arrangement only avoids UI when pre-duplicated boards are not in use. When they are in use and I hear a relevant comment about one of the hands from the pair sitting the same way as me at the next table, it is irrelevant whether they happen to be playing against my team-mates or not: either way I have unwelcome UI and have to call the TD.

[mrdct]

In the dark ages when swiss teams events didn't have pre-dealt boards, it made a lot of sense to keep tables of the same match separated and even in the "Australian" swiss movement (a term with which until this thread I was unfamiliar) the normal practice when two adjacent tables were drawn to play each other would be to switch a table number or two to maintain separation.

 

With pre-dealt boards now ubiquitous (I haven't played in any event or club that uses hand-dealt cards since 1993) you obviously have the same boards being played at every table around you so there is always a risk of picking up a stray comment like, "you could've made that by dropping the stiff ♠K offside". There are reasonably adequate laws to deal with this assuming that the players in receipt of the UI are ethical.

 

It remains good practice to keep head-to-head matches separated as, subcontiously at least, one is probably more likely to tune-in to obiter dicta emanating from your own match and you might also minimise UI that could arise from director calls and rulings at your other table.

[pran]

I am surprised because there was a change when I was not playing long, say 1966 or so.

 

I think you should have another look Sven: I think that pre-change they did not repeat, so while 1 to 16 are the same as today, later boards may not be.

This is a direct quotation:

Laws of Duplicate Bridge 1935, applicable to both Auction and Contract when played in Duplicate, were drawn up and adopted by a joint committee representing the American Bridge League and the United States Bridge Association; they have been adopted by the American Whist League and all other important Bridge assotiations and clubs who conduct or sponsor Duplicate tournaments or games. They went into effect February 1, 1933

[.......]

 

Duplicate Trays.

55 {a} One duplicate tray and one deck of cards shall be årovided for each deal.

{b} The trays shall be numbered consecutively starting with No. 1. Each tray shall be marked with an arrow or similar device to indicate the position in which it shall be placed on the table.

{c} Each tray shall be marked with the word "Dealer" beside one of the hands to indicate the first bidder for each deal. The word "Dealer" shall be so placed with reference to the arrow or indicating device that North will be dealer on tray No. 1 and each player will become dealer in proper rotation when the trays are played in numerical order.

{d} Each tray shall be plainly marked to indicate which side or sides are vulnerable if any. The trays shall be marked according to the following schedule:

Neither side vulnerable on trays 1, 8, 11, 14, 17, 24, 27, 30.

North and South vulnerable, East and West not vulnerable on trays 2, 5, 12, 15, 18, 21, 29, 31.

North and South not vulnerable, East and West vulnerable on trays 3, 6, 9, 16, 19, 22, 25, 32.

Both sides vulnerable on trays 4, 7, 10, 13, 20, 23, 26, 29.

 

Reference: The Encyclopedia of Bridge

Edited by Ely Culbertson

[.....]

Issued 1935

 

 

PS.: I found my law book from 1949, it has exactly the same schedules for the trays.

[shyams]

1. Clearly the table result that needs adjustment is the one where your side scored 4♥ making 10 tricks. The board was mismarked. Therefore, that result cannot stand.

 

What did I get wrong?

This: there is nothing in the Laws to the effect that the result on a mis-marked board cannot stand. Indeed, the Laws expressly say that such a result shall stand, with the players using the (incorrect) markings on the actual board to determine the score rather than what the (correct) markings should have been.

Therefore, if I understand correctly, the TD should have ruled something along these lines (based on TD's judgement of correct contracts)

* At bluejak's table: 4♥ = vs. a hypothetical 4♥ -1: which is + 470 (or 10 IMPs) to Bluejak

* At the other table: 3♠ +2 vs. a hypothetical 4♠ =: which is -220 (or -6 IMPs) to Bluejak's team-mates

Result for Board 8: Net +4 IMPs for bluejak's team

[bluejak]

Possible, though when assigning I always weight scores when in doubt. For example, when we made 4♥ with the opponents cold for 4♠ we might have got a weighting against +100, +170, -200 and -650. The same with team-mates but the weightings allowing for the fact that their spade game is more likely to be reached with the different dealer position.

 

But the basic problem as dburn has explained is that we are trying to apply a law which is there in the book but without sensible advice except in a specific situation that did not occur.

 

:)

 

Over the weekend in a teams-of-eight inter-County representative event, a pair sat down at the table and started to play a board. They were the wrong pair, and the right pair had a different sequence [playing Precision]. North/South said that they had asked East-West three times for their pair number and been ignored three times, so it was not their fault: I agreed. The board had already been played.

 

So with the balance of points N/S the four scores were [seen from the Cumbria team's point of view]:

 

Blue N/S: Ave+

Blue E/W: +800

Green N/S: -50

Green E/W: -420

 

Cumbria did not seen to think that -7 imps was fair.

[jallerton]

With pre-dealt boards now ubiquitous (I haven't played in any event or club that uses hand-dealt cards since 1993) you obviously have the same boards being played at every table around you so there is always a risk of picking up a stray comment like, "you could've made that by dropping the stiff ♠K offside". 

Well you might be in for a shock if you visit the U.K. in the near future. Here, many league and knockout events are played at people's homes, and although plenty of gadgets that weren't available 20 years ago have now made it into many homes, bridge duplimate machines are not among them.

 

There are reasonably adequate laws to deal with this assuming that the players in receipt of the UI are ethical.

 

Yes, but unfortunately that is, in my opinion, a rather big assumption.

[jallerton]

It is pretty clear to me that a victory-pointed team game with hands dealt at the table is not a contest of duplicate bridge.

Law 6B would suggest otherwise.

 

Do you play in any leagues? If you do, are your team-mates aware of your view?

[jallerton]

Therefore, if I understand correctly, the TD should have ruled something along these lines (based on TD's judgement of correct contracts)

* At bluejak's table: 4♥ =  vs. a hypothetical 4♥ -1: which is + 470 (or 10 IMPs) to Bluejak

* At the other table: 3♠ +2 vs. a hypothetical 4♠ =:  which is -220 (or -6 IMPs) to Bluejak's team-mates

Result for Board 8: Net +4 IMPs for bluejak's team

Well "should" is a bit strong.

 

Given the exact wording of the Law (as neither side is "the" non-offending side) it would have been perfectly legal to award both sides 3 IMPs (average plus) and leave it at that.

 

Alternatively, if the Director exercises his option of "may assign an adjusted score in IMPs or total points" then I agree with the principle of your calculation for Bluejak's team, but what about the other team? If applying Law 86D for one side, I don't see why Law 86A should apply to the other, so presumably if Bluejak gets + 4 IMPs, his opponents should get -4 IMPs (based on the TD's assessment of the results obtained).

[Vampyr]

It is pretty clear to me that a victory-pointed team game with hands dealt at the table is not a contest of duplicate bridge.

Law 6B would suggest otherwise.

 

Do you play in any leagues?

 

Yes. I think that the effect is somewhat mitigated in an event that consists of long matches, but I do, from time to time, play in Europe, where Swiss Teams played under these circumstances are quite common.

 

  If you do, are your team-mates aware of your view?

 

I have no idea.

[gnasher]

Given the "should do so" instruction, why do you state that Law 86D is "generally invoked only in cases of apparent skulduggery"?  Are you suggesting that the use of the definite article before the word "non-offending" implies that the "should do so" instruction applies only when there is only one non-offending side?

I think that this:

Finally, unless the context clearly dictates otherwise, the singular includes the plural

tells us that such an interpretation would be incorrect.

[paulg]

It is pretty clear to me that a victory-pointed team game with hands dealt at the table is not a contest of duplicate bridge.

Law 6B would suggest otherwise.

 

Do you play in any leagues?

 

Yes. I think that the effect is somewhat mitigated in an event that consists of long matches, but I do, from time to time, play in Europe, where Swiss Teams played under these circumstances are quite common.

As are all the Swiss events, including the NABC+ ones, that I've played at the Nationals.

[jallerton]

Given the "should do so" instruction, why do you state that Law 86D is "generally invoked only in cases of apparent skulduggery"?  Are you suggesting that the use of the definite article before the word "non-offending" implies that the "should do so" instruction applies only when there is only one non-offending side?

I think that this:

Finally, unless the context clearly dictates otherwise, the singular includes the plural

tells us that such an interpretation would be incorrect.

The issue with the wording of Law 86D is not the use of the singular; it is the deliberate use of the definite article which is significant.

 

Compare with Law 12C1(e)

 

((e) In its discretion the Regulating Authority may apply all or part of the following procedure in place of ©:

 

      (i)  The score assigned in place of the actual score for a non-offending side is the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred.

   

      (ii) For an offending side the score assigned is the most unfavourable result that was at all probable.

 

where the use of the indefinite article acknowledges that the clause can apply to both sides.

 

As others have observed, it seems that Law 86D may have been written to cover a very specific situation; and that cases like the one mentioned at the start of this thread had not been considered.

[pran]

Given the "should do so" instruction, why do you state that Law 86D is "generally invoked only in cases of apparent skulduggery"?  Are you suggesting that the use of the definite article before the word "non-offending" implies that the "should do so" instruction applies only when there is only one non-offending side?

I think that this:

Finally, unless the context clearly dictates otherwise, the singular includes the plural

tells us that such an interpretation would be incorrect.

The issue with the wording of Law 86D is not the use of the singular; it is the deliberate use of the definite article which is significant.

 

Compare with Law 12C1(e)

 

((e) In its discretion the Regulating Authority may apply all or part of the following procedure in place of ©:

 

       (i)  The score assigned in place of the actual score for a non-offending side is the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred.

   

       (ii) For an offending side the score assigned is the most unfavourable result that was at all probable.

 

where the use of the indefinite article acknowledges that the clause can apply to both sides.

 

As others have observed, it seems that Law 86D may have been written to cover a very specific situation; and that cases like the one mentioned at the start of this thread had not been considered.

I have a strong feeling that this must be a misunderstanding of Law 86D.

 

Law 86D is there to protect an innocent side from having their score that because of the result obtained in one room most likely would exceed +3 IMP being reduced to +3 IMP only because some irregularity for which their side is not at fault in the other room prevents a result to be obtained on that board in that room.

 

If Law 86D kicks in because of an irregularity for which neither side is at fault in one room then still only one side in the other room can have a result giving an expectation of better score than +3 IMP. Consequently in such cases while the score should never be less than +3 IMP for each side (being "innocent") it can very well be better than +3 IMP for the (innocent) side that in case has such an expectation.

 

Be aware that Law 86D does not offer such protection to a side at fault!

[mrdct]

With pre-dealt boards now ubiquitous (I haven't played in any event or club that uses hand-dealt cards since 1993) you obviously have the same boards being played at every table around you so there is always a risk of picking up a stray comment like, "you could've made that by dropping the stiff ♠K offside". 

Well you might be in for a shock if you visit the U.K. in the near future. Here, many league and knockout events are played at people's homes, and although plenty of gadgets that weren't available 20 years ago have now made it into many homes, bridge duplimate machines are not among them..

Home games at my house are played with screens and pre-dealt boards; although I just get the single set dealt as it would be a bit excessive for each table to have its own set of boards in a home game. Also, some of my home games are just a single table so we must use pre-dealt boards taken from another event to have a datum to score against.

 

Fortunately, my local bridge club is happy to deal a set of boards for me gratis as it's only a few time a year, but I can't imagine it's very expensive to get a set of boards dealt on an arm's length basis as it only takes about 10 minutes to deal a set of 32 boards.

[bluejak]

Certainly I have sets of boards at home dealt by a friend using a duplimate. He makes 12 hand copies, puts them in, seals them and signs across the seal. When I remember I take them to privately held matches and offer their use to the opponents. Few say no.

[Finch]

Home games at my house are played with screens and pre-dealt boards; although I just get the single set dealt as it would be a bit excessive for each table to have its own set of boards in a home game.  Also, some of my home games are just a single table so we must use pre-dealt boards taken from another event to have a datum to score against.

 

Fortunately, my local bridge club is happy to deal a set of boards for me gratis as it's only a few time a year, but I can't imagine it's very expensive to get a set of boards dealt on an arm's length basis as it only takes about 10 minutes to deal a set of 32 boards.

screens? Gosh. That all seems a bit much, there's barely space in our house to keep two bridge tables, 8 chairs, bidding boxes, score cards etc. Is floor space somewhat cheaper where you live than London suburbia? (I thought you lived in Sydney which would be a no, but I don't know why I thought that.)

 

It's also not quite as simple as you make out.

 

It's all very well organising the local club to use their duplimate machine to deal a set of boards for me (although I don't have a suitable set of boards and cards, I assume I'd have to buy one), but if the opponents turn up at my house and are presented with a set of boards that have "already been dealt" they have every right to feel somewhat unhappy about it. It puts them in the horrible position of either having to play the boards and always wonder if we might have looked at them, or of objecting and looking as if they are accusing us of cheating.

 

"home" matches played at clubs often use pre-dealt boards which the club organises and keeps secure, but that is still (I think) the exception rather than the rule.

[mrdct]

screens?  Gosh.  That all seems a bit much, there's barely space in our house to keep two bridge tables, 8 chairs, bidding boxes, score cards etc.  Is floor space somewhat cheaper where you live than London suburbia?  (I thought you lived in Sydney which would be a no, but I don't know why I thought that.)

None of my home games are part of any formal competition or league; just friends and family who prefer to play bridge the way God intended it - with screens.

 

For those who don't believe me, here is a photo of my family room:

http://www.amontay.com/Screen.gif

[blackshoe]

bridge the way God intended it - with screens.

ROFL! :) :)