Is it playable?

[bluejak]

Playing a Mitchell, a table plays boards 11 and 12. The end of the round is called, E/W move up one table, N/S are responsible for moving the boards down one table but they do not. So they play board 11 again. After three rounds of bidding, the questions at the next table as to where their boards are finally sink in and the TD is called.

 

Ok, N/S have already played board 11: no problem there: either give them a PP or just tell them to do better.

 

But how about E/W? They are due to play the board in about 90 minutes time.

[helene_t]

Maybe they should get 60% (board fouled beyond their fault) but they are partly at fault, although NS were responsible for moving the boards, EW should have noticed also. Maybe I would give them 50% as I am not sure whether to give them 40 or 60. But I suppose there is no legal basis for that. So 60% it is.

 

In any case I give 60% to the pair against whom they would have to play the board next round.

 

Now it could happen that the first three rounds of the bidding turns out identical when EW play the same board at the next table, in which case it is not fouled.

[shyams]

Isn't there an established process for this already?

 

- The director notes down the bidding at this (the wrong table), notes the directions of the E and W players (i.e. which partner sat east etc)

- The director then sends the board off to the next table. Play continues as normal

- When it is East/West's turn to play board 11 at the correct table, the TD requests E/W to sit in the same seat as before. And asks the bidding to proceed as normal.

- If bidding is identical to the one at the wrong table, then board is played as normal. If the bidding is different, the actual N/S (NOS side) gets Ave+ and E/W get an adjusted score of ...? Probably Ave/Ave- if TD feels they were (partially) at fault for the previous incident.

[wank]

east-west partially at fault? you're having a laugh. ridiculous to expect east-west to have sufficient knowledge of the mitchell board movements to know which boards they're due to play.

 

as for being able to play it if the bidding's replicated, that might be the theory and fine for a club, but if i was playing a proper competition (as the north-south due to play the board against this east-west) i'd be a little irked to know my opps had had the last 90 minutes available to surruptiously discuss the board.

[campboy]

Isn't there an established process for this already?

 

- The director notes down the bidding at this (the wrong table), notes the directions of the E and W players (i.e. which partner sat east etc)

- The director then sends the board off to the next table. Play continues as normal

- When it is East/West's turn to play board 11 at the correct table, the TD requests E/W to sit in the same seat as before. And asks the bidding to proceed as normal.

- If bidding is identical to the one at the wrong table, then board is played as normal. If the bidding is different, the actual N/S (NOS side) gets Ave+ and E/W get an adjusted score of ...? Probably Ave/Ave- if TD feels they were (partially) at fault for the previous incident.

Yes (although EW should get ave+ or ave, they are certainly at most partly at fault), but don't forget

The Director may award a procedural penalty (and an adjusted score) if of the opinion that there has been a purposeful attempt by either side to preclude normal play of the board.

[ggwhiz]

How tough is it for E/W to know what boards they are supposed to play next?

 

Unless it's a novice game, I'm lining them up for ave-

 

However, I think playing the board out should be (or is?) acceptable if the next auction is SUBSTANTIALLY the same as in provides no UI to E/W as to play or defence.

[paulg]

How tough is it for E/W to know what boards they are supposed to play next?

 

Unless it's a novice game, I'm lining them up for ave-

 

However, I think playing the board out should be (or is?) acceptable if the next auction is SUBSTANTIALLY the same as in provides no UI to E/W as to play or defence.

Depends on the size of the field, number of tables in the section, number of boards in play, number of relays, etc.

 

I don't recall whether this information is announced at the start of the session, but even if it was I presume the OP does not require people to remember it.

 

However you might expect them to check on the bridgemate, assuming they can wrest it from North, who clearly did not check either.

 

So I'm not faulting E/W.

[campboy]

How tough is it for E/W to know what boards they are supposed to play next?

There is nothing to tell them which boards they are due to play next*. If it is a Mitchell with an odd number of tables then there is a very simple pattern but on an early round they may not yet have realised what. A Mitchell with an even number of tables is much more complicated.

 

*edit: unless there are bridgemates, which I hadn't considered.

[bluejak]

I am not sure which event this was, so I am not quite sure which movement was involved. It was ether a straight 13 table Mitchell or it was a Web Mitchell with everyone playing the same 26 boards and a normal pair movement but an unusual board movement.

 

No doubt most of the answers are sensible, but what are the legalities, ie if you are going to let them play the board or stop them playing the board, under which Law?

 

It was an EBU event, so of course BridgeMates were used. N/S could or should [?] have checked the boards: E/W are not expected to take the BridgeMates away from them but should they have made sure N/S checked? Under which Law?

[blackshoe]

Law 8A. Movement of Boards and Players

1. The director instructs the players as to the proper movement of boards and progression of contestants.

2. Unless the director instructs otherwise, the north player at each table is responsible for moving the boards just completed at his table to the proper table for the following round.

NS (North, in particular) are directly responsible for the boards not having been moved. I can find nothing in law that requires EW to check that they have the correct boards. As David says, a PP in MPs or a warning to NS.

 

This EW is scheduled to play board 11 in 90 minutes, according to the OP. The relevant Law is

If during the auction period the director discovers that a contestant is playing a board not designated for him to play in the current round, he shall cancel the auction, ensure that the correct contestants are seated and that all players involved are informed of their lawful obligations and rights both now and at future rounds. A second auction begins. Players who participated in the first auction must repeat the calls they made previously. If any call differs in any way from the corresponding call in the first auction, the director shall cancel the board. Otherwise the auction and play continue normally. The director may award a procedural penalty (and an adjusted score) if of the opinion that there has been a purposeful attempt by either side to preclude normal play of the board.

So the director should inform EW of their rights and obligations, and should, at the appropriate time (in 90 minutes) also inform the NS pair where the board is scheduled to be played. If a normal score can be obtained, then fine. If not, the TD awards an adjusted score. (Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that there's no "purposeful attempt… to preclude normal play…") Law 12C2 will govern if the board is canceled due to a difference in the auction.

 

Was EW "directly at fault" for the irregularity? No. Were they "partly at fault"? No. See the discussion of Law 8A above. So they get A+. The NS pair who don't get to play the board also get A+. The NS at the table where the irregularity occurred retain their original table score. Some have suggested that EW is "partly responsible", and perhaps some will argue that's just common sense, but the law does not hold them responsible, so that's the way to rule.

[bluejak]

Ok, fine so far. Now suppose one of the players says to the TD: "Before I realised we could play the board later I said something about the majors in my hand". What then?

[axman]

Playing a Mitchell, a table plays boards 11 and 12. The end of the round is called, E/W move up one table, N/S are responsible for moving the boards down one table but they do not. So they play board 11 again. After three rounds of bidding, the questions at the next table as to where their boards are finally sink in and the TD is called.

 

Ok, N/S have already played board 11: no problem there: either give them a PP or just tell them to do better.

 

But how about E/W? They are due to play the board in about 90 minutes time.

L15B specifies that in such instance that the second play be canceled and art score awarded to the EW pair and the NS that thereby can't play the board when scheduled in 90 minutes.

 

These players cannot earn a valid score because in the canceled auction the NS players had already seen all 52 cards it and in the otherwise scheduled play 90 minutes later this condition of the deal can't be duplicated

[pran]

Playing a Mitchell, a table plays boards 11 and 12.  The end of the round is called, E/W move up one table, N/S are responsible for moving the boards down one table but they do not.  So they play board 11 again.  After three rounds of bidding, the questions at the next table as to where their boards are finally sink in and the TD is called.

 

Ok, N/S have already played board 11: no problem there: either give them a PP or just tell them to do better.

 

But how about E/W?  They are due to play the board in about 90 minutes time.

L15B specifies that in such instance that the second play be canceled and art score awarded to the EW pair and the NS that thereby can't play the board when scheduled in 90 minutes.

 

These players cannot earn a valid score because in the canceled auction the NS players had already seen all 52 cards it and in the otherwise scheduled play 90 minutes later this condition of the deal can't be duplicated

So long as the affected East and West players have not seen (or learned about) any cards except their own on the board, and the second auction eventually proceeds exactly as the first in which they participated the board is obviously playable.

 

But any discrepancy voids the board and results in A+ being awarded to both sides on the second attempt to play the board. (Note that even if the calls made by the "new" NS pair are identical to the calls made the first time such discrepancy is considered to exist if the "new" NS agreements on any call they make differs from the corresponding agreements on the calls first time)

 

This is the essence of Law 15C.

 

And BTW. As Law 7D clearly states that North and South are responsible for correct conditions at the table there is no justification for blaming EW not ascertaining that NS has fulfilled their duties.

[pran]

Ok, fine so far.  Now suppose one of the players says to the TD: "Before I realised we could play the board later I said something about the majors in my hand".  What then?

Then he is at fault for causing the board not playable.

 

If he said that during the original auction (before it was cancelled) it was a clear violation of law 24. If he said that later it was a similarly clear violation of Law 9B2.

 

Edited by SP: Corrected the reference to Law 49 - it is of course Law 24.

[blackshoe]

Law 49 has to do with defender's cards. No player is a defender during the auction. Law 49 does not apply.

 

If a player said something about the contents of his hand, and his partner could have heard it, then there is a presumption of UI and Law 16 applies. The question is whether to apply 16B or 16C. Clearly the information comes from partner, which would imply 16B. Equally clearly, the information will have been transmitted before the (second) auction begins, which would imply 16C. I think the effect is substantially the same either way — you allow them to play the board, and if you judge after the play (assuming the conditions of Law 15C allowing the auction and play to continue past the point where it was stopped in the first instance) that the UI may have affected the result, you award an adjusted score.

 

If you apply 16C, and you judge that the UI is sufficient that the board cannot be played normally, you can cancel the board and award an artificial adjusted score (Law 16C2d), in which case EW get A-, since they are directly at fault. NS at the scheduled table for this board get A+, as before.

[pran]

Law 49 has to do with defender's cards. No player is a defender during the auction. Law 49 does not apply.

 

If a player said something about the contents of his hand, and his partner could have heard it, then there is a presumption of UI and Law 16 applies. The question is whether to apply 16B or 16C. Clearly the information comes from partner, which would imply 16B. Equally clearly, the information will have been transmitted before the (second) auction begins, which would imply 16C. I think the effect is substantially the same either way — you allow them to play the board, and if you judge after the play (assuming the conditions of Law 15C allowing the auction and play to continue past the point where it was stopped in the first instance) that the UI may have affected the result, you award an adjusted score.

 

If you apply 16C, and you judge that the UI is sufficient that the board cannot be played normally, you can cancel the board and award an artificial adjusted score (Law 16C2d), in which case EW get A-, since they are directly at fault. NS at the scheduled table for this board get A+, as before.

Sorry for the error - it is of course Law 24, I have edited and corrected this typo.

 

The important point is the same: The second auction must exactly replicate the first, cancelled auction on the board (Law 15C), the difference is that if the exposure of a card by a player on the non-offending side results in the board becoming unplayable then this is the fault of EW.

 

UI considerations of course apply, but these are not the major considerations to handle.

[bluejak]

Let us assume the auction is the same. It is of course a trivially easy situation to handle if it is not. Now perhaps you could tell me why UI concerns are not major considerations.

 

With the exception of blackshoe, no-one seems interested in telling me what they would do, which I do not think that easy. Would you just tell the players to make their own ruling? If not, how would you rule?

 

:P

 

Let us repeat the situation as developed. At one table 11 and 12 were played. When the next pair came to the table they started an auction on board 11.

 

90 minutes later E/W are due to play the board. Do you allow it to be played? If not, under which Law? If so, under which Law? Are any other Laws concerned?

 

Suppose you know/suspect that E/W have said something to each other about the board after they had left the first table. Do you allow it to be played? If not, under which Law? If so, under which Law? Are any other Laws concerned?

 

And BTW. As Law 7D clearly states that North and South are responsible for correct conditions at the table there is no justification for blaming EW not ascertaining that NS has fulfilled their duties.

Law 7D does not: it contains the word 'primarily', which means E/W are not excused from making sure conditions are correct. If, for example, a board is played arrow-switched and has to be cancelled, no way do we give Ave-/Ave+.

[blackshoe]

If, for example, a board is played arrow-switched and has to be cancelled, no way do we give Ave-/Ave+.

I would think there's more to it. For example, if it's a Scrambled Mitchell, generally the TD announces the arrow switch at the time it is to occur. Presumably EW can hear this just as NS can, so it is not unreasonable to hold them partly responsible if the switch doesn't happen. That's a different situation than the one we have, though.

[dburn]

At one table 11 and 12 were played.  When the next pair came to the table they started an auction on board 11.

 

90 minutes later E/W are due to play the board. Do you allow it to be played?  If not, under which Law?  If so, under which Law?  Are any other Laws concerned?

 

Suppose you know/suspect that E/W have said something to each other about the board after they had left the first table. Do you allow it to be played?  If not, under which Law?  If so, under which Law?  Are any other Laws concerned?

I imagine that Law 16C might apply:

 

When a player accidentally receives unauthorized information about a board he [...] has yet to play, [...]  the Director should be notified forthwith

When East-West arrive at the table at which they are due to play board 11, both of them have the UI that when they started to play it at the wrong table, the auction began in a particular way.

 

The Director having been duly notified, he proceeds as follows:

 

If the Director considers that the information could interfere with normal play he may, before any call has been made:

 

[...]

 

[c] allow completion of the play of the board standing ready to award an adjusted score if he judges that unauthorized information may have affected the result; or

 

[d] award an artificial adjusted score.

This appears to me to legitimize the following decision by the Director: the play of board 11 may continue at the correct table provided that the auction begins in the same way, and provided that he is satisfied that East-West have no other extraneous information about the board. This involves what physicists would call a "time-reversed" application of Law 15C; whether or not such an application is actually legitimate is not clear to me, but as a practical matter I see no objection to it in principle.

 

If the Director knows or suspects that East-West have discussed the board in the 90 minutes before they are due to play it, this is not covered by Law 16C (because that UI has not been generated accidentally but deliberately). That is: if East-West attempt to play board 11 with foreknowledge over and above that occurring from the aborted auction at the "wrong" table, they may in the worst case be held in breach of various sections of Law 73, not excluding Law 73B2 ("the gravest possible offence").

 

As a previous correspondent remarked, if I were North-South when this East-West pair arrived to play board 11 having had 90 minutes in which they could have (not, of course, that they would have) discussed it, I would object most strongly. There appears to me to be no Law under which the Director is obliged to sustain my objection: if he is convinced that normal play of the board at my table may be possible, he may allow play to commence and to proceed to a conclusion if he finds nothing untoward.

 

I do not know of any other Laws that might be concerned. If I were a Director, I'd probably judge that if East-West had nothing that could affect whether or not North-South at the "right" table could get a good result or a bad one entirely under their own steam I would let the board play; but if East-West had anything at all that left them able to influence the result I would not. But I am not a Director, so I do not judge cases on their merits (since after all, most cases have none). I just try to work out what the Law says.

[pran]

Let us assume the auction is the same.  It is of course a trivially easy situation to handle if it is not. Now perhaps you could tell me why UI concerns are not major considerations.

 

With the exception of blackshoe, no-one seems interested in telling me what they would do, which I do not think that easy.  Would you just tell the players to make their own ruling?  If not, how would you rule?

 

:)

 

Let us repeat the situation as developed.  At one table 11 and 12 were played.  When the next pair came to the table they started an auction on board 11.

 

90 minutes later E/W are due to play the board. Do you allow it to be played?  If not, under which Law?  If so, under which Law?  Are any other Laws concerned?

 

Suppose you know/suspect that E/W have said something to each other about the board after they had left the first table. Do you allow it to be played?  If not, under which Law?  If so, under which Law?  Are any other Laws concerned?

 

And BTW. As Law 7D clearly states that North and South are responsible for correct conditions at the table there is no justification for blaming EW not ascertaining that NS has fulfilled their duties.

Law 7D does not: it contains the word 'primarily', which means E/W are not excused from making sure conditions are correct. If, for example, a board is played arrow-switched and has to be cancelled, no way do we give Ave-/Ave+.

OK

 

I have actually had this situation a couple of times during my career (although mostly with barometer, not Mitchell movements, but that should be immaterial).

 

We (and I really mean "we" in Norway this time) are instructed to proceed as follows in Law 15C situations:

1: If the board can be played by simply altering the schedule we do so. This is of course not possible in the situation described by OP where one pair is looking at their cards for the second time.

2: Make an exact record of the auction up to the point of discovery that Law 15C applies.

3: Cancel the current attempt to incorrectly play the board.

4: When each involved pair (in this case EW only) is scheduled to play the board ensure that they are seated in the same direction as they were first time, switch the positions at the (new) table if necessary, and instruct both pairs what is now going to happen.

5: Monitor the new auction (of course without any indication on what calls you "expect").

6: If there is any discrepancy between the new auction and the original auction interrupt the process and award an artificial adjusted score to both sides, otherwise let the play of the board be carried out.

 

Isn't this a plain, straight forward application of Law 15C? I think it is.

 

And if anything has happened to make this procedure not feasible it must be a different irregularity that must be handled on its own merits.

 

As for your remark that I (for one) did not tell what I would do I honestly believed that any experienced director should immediately understand my reference to Law 15C.

 

BTW. Do you always verify that a stationary pair has fulfilled all their duties when you arrive at a new table?

[bluejak]

BTW. Do you always verify that a stationary pair has fulfilled all their duties when you arrive at a new table?

No. What has that got to do with anything?

[bluejak]

So, dburn, you think Law 16C applies even to information from partner when it is infortaion before the hand commences?

[pran]

BTW. Do you always verify that a stationary pair has fulfilled all their duties when you arrive at a new table?

No. What has that got to do with anything?

If you don't find it a duty for EW to verify that NS have fulfilled their duties you cannot afterwards blame them for not having done so and award A- when the real fault is with NS.

 

You confirm that you do not exercise such verifications yourself. I certainly do not (at least not regularly) so I would not dream of awarding anything else than A+/A+ at the second table if the board must be ruled unplayable because of the error at the first table.

 

My question has everything to do with the case under discussion (unless I have completely misunderstood what you were trying to express).

[bluejak]

You made a general comment that E/W are not responsible for actions at their table. I said it is not true. You quoted part of a Law in support of your assertion. Your assertion is not generally true because of the rest of the Law.

 

Whether E/W are to be held accountable in this case is another matter entirely, but the generality is not true: we do not always excuse E/W, and your general comment is not true.

[pran]

You made a general comment that E/W are not responsible for actions at their table. I said it is not true. You quoted part of a Law in support of your assertion. Your assertion is not generally true because of the rest of the Law.

 

Whether E/W are to be held accountable in this case is another matter entirely, but the generality is not true: we do not always excuse E/W, and your general comment is not true.

My comments have all been aimed at EW action or lack of action in this specific situation and I find absolutely no legal foundation for holding EW even partly responsible for playing the wrong board at the table where NS are responsible for passing boards to the next table.

 

I am fully aware of situations where a non-stationary pair can be held at least partly responsible for irregular conditions at a table, this is certainly not one of them.