Unplayable Board ?

[One Short]

At a normal club game (UK) I was called to the table where it was explained that West had seen most of South's cards before the auction had begun.

 

East and West were late arriving at the table but in anticipation, South had removed his cards and had started to look at them. West saw the hand on his way to his seat and thought it would "not be right" to start the auction without first calling the director (me).

 

All the players were very experienced (minimum ranking 6* Premier Master) and they told me the board was unplayable and should therefore be scored as average to both sides. Being relatively inexperienced, and seeing a consensus, I agreed to score it as average. However, I can see a case in favour of playing the board as South could be said to be a victim of his own haste - I can find nothing in the Laws which refers directly to this situation but if I had been "with it" should I have acted differently?

[iviehoff]

At a normal club game (UK) I was called to the table where it was explained that West had seen most of South's cards before the auction had begun.

 

East and West were late arriving at the table but in anticipation, South had removed his cards and had started to look at them. West saw the hand on his way to his seat and thought it would "not be right" to start the auction without first calling the director (me).

 

...they told me the board was unplayable and should therefore be scored as average to both sides. ...I can find nothing in the Laws which refers directly to this situation...

Law 16C is applicable here, (and we are further reminded of this at Law 6D1).

 

1. When a player accidentally receives unauthorized information about a

board he is playing or has yet to play, as by looking at the wrong hand;

by overhearing calls, results or remarks; by seeing cards at another table;

or by seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table before

the auction begins, the Director should be notified forthwith, preferably

by the recipient of the information.

2. If the Director considers that the information could interfere with

normal play he may, before any call has been made:

(a) adjust the players’ positions at the table, if the type of contest and

scoring permit, so that the player with information about one hand

will hold that hand; or

(b) if the form of competition allows of it order the board redealt for

those contestants; or

© 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.

 

So it is clear that the board is unplayable and an artificial adjusted score awarded. South was wrong to remove cards from the board before arrival of the opponents, and I would have awarded ave+/ave- to EW's advantage, despite their gentlemanly offer of ave all round.

[pran]

[...]

So it is clear that the board is unplayable and an artificial adjusted score awarded. South was wrong to remove cards from the board before arrival of the opponents, and I would have awarded ave+/ave- to EW's advantage, despite their gentlemanly offer of ave all round.

Don't you think that EW have contributed to the irregularity (being partly at fault) by arriving late to the table?

 

IMHO ave/ave is indeed the correct assignment.

[blackshoe]

Where in law is "late arriving to the table" defined? Don't forget that the round at the previous table doesn't end until they are through playing the last board of that round (or whatever board they were playing when the round was called).

[iviehoff]

Don't you think that EW have contributed to the irregularity (being partly at fault) by arriving late to the table?

No, it was completely unnecessary to withdraw the cards from the board before the opponents arrived. The risk that they will accidentally see them in arriving is clear. Also, the law explicitly tells us that shuffling and dealing should be done in the presense of the opposition (L6C), for obvious reasons of propriety being seen to be done; and withdrawing your cards from the board out of sight has a similar issue of propriety being seen to be done. If pressed to cite a law, one could cite 74A2.

[jallerton]

Law 16C is applicable here, (and we are further reminded of this at Law 6D1).

 

1. When a player accidentally receives unauthorized information about a board he is playing or has yet to play, as by looking at the wrong hand;

by overhearing calls, results or remarks; by seeing cards at another table; or by seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table before the auction begins, the Director should be notified forthwith, preferably by the recipient of the information.

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

(a) adjust the players’ positions at the table, if the type of contest and scoring permit, so that the player with information about one hand will hold that hand; or

(b) if the form of competition allows of it order the board redealt for those contestants; or

[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.

 

So it is clear that the board is unplayable and an artificial adjusted score awarded. South was wrong to remove cards from the board before arrival of the opponents, and I would have awarded ave+/ave- to EW's advantage, despite their gentlemanly offer of ave all round.

 

The board is not necessarily unplayable. Suppose that East is the dealer, East has a normal 1NT opening in his methods and West has a 3334 13-count. Then the auction would go 1NT-Pass-3NT-All Pass and West would become dummy. So in case West has no decision to make, it would seem reasonable to adopt option [c]; the TD can always fall back on average plus/minus if necessary.

 

Whatever happens, I think that South should be given a procdedural penalty. Quite apart from all the potential problems it may cause, taking one's cards out of the board before either opponent has arrived is impolite.

[barmar]

Another possibility is that South could become dummy. The TD can judge whether seeing the hand affected West's bidding during the auction. If not, then everyone will see the hand when it's put down as dummy, and there's no more problem. If East had seen the hand, the TD would also have to judge whether it affected his opening lead.

[bluejak]

The legal answer is that it is the TD's decision and no-one else's whether the board is unplayable.

 

The practical answer is that if both sides think it unplayable, go with the flow, and decide it is unplayable.

 

Ave+/ave- seems correct. No, arriving late at the table does not make you responsible for opponents not following the rules.

[barmar]

Isn't there also a provision somewhere for finding a substitute player?

 

At the Toronto NABC, I was kibbitzing a friend in the finals of the Wernher Open Pairs. Midway through round 1, the director called out looking for kibbitzers who could fill in, as a pair had dropped out due to illness and they didn't want a half table. So I volunteered, as did a young woman who was also kibbitzing another table. But eventually we got to the boards that we each had watched, and rather than declare them unplayable, the director found someone else (who hadn't been kibbitzing at all), and she took each of our places for one board.

 

Was that substitution illegal?

[pran]

Isn't there also a provision somewhere for finding a substitute player?

 

At the Toronto NABC, I was kibbitzing a friend in the finals of the Wernher Open Pairs. Midway through round 1, the director called out looking for kibbitzers who could fill in, as a pair had dropped out due to illness and they didn't want a half table. So I volunteered, as did a young woman who was also kibbitzing another table. But eventually we got to the boards that we each had watched, and rather than declare them unplayable, the director found someone else (who hadn't been kibbitzing at all), and she took each of our places for one board.

 

Was that substitution illegal?

Certainly not when conducted by the director.

[blackshoe]

Law 4 says, in part "in pair or team events the contestants enter as pairs or teams respectively and retain the same partnerships throughout a session (except in the case of substitutions authorized by the director)". The parenthetical clause implies that the TD may authorize such substitutions, but I don't recall, or find on a quick run through the laws, a specific provision allowing it in this case. OTOH, he does have broad (and non-specific) powers under Law 81 to "ensure the orderly progress of the game". So I would say it is legal, even if there isn't a specific provision in Law 16C.

[gordontd]

Law 4 says, in part "in pair or team events the contestants enter as pairs or teams respectively and retain the same partnerships throughout a session (except in the case of substitutions authorized by the director)". The parenthetical clause implies that the TD may authorize such substitutions, but I don't recall, or find on a quick run through the laws, a specific provision allowing it in this case. OTOH, he does have broad (and non-specific) powers under Law 81 to "ensure the orderly progress of the game". So I would say it is legal, even if there isn't a specific provision in Law 16C.

There used to be in the old laws:

 

1997 L16B. Extraneous Information from Other Sources

When a player accidentally receives unauthorised information about a board

he is playing or has yet to play, as by looking at the wrong hand; by

overhearing calls, results or remarks; by seeing cards at another table; or by

seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table before the auction

begins, the Director should be notified forthwith, preferably by the recipient of

the information. If the Director considers that the information could interfere

with normal play, he may:

1. Adjust Positions

if the type of contest and scoring permit, adjust the players’ positions at

the table, so that the player with information about one hand will hold

that hand; or,

2. Appoint Substitute

with the concurrence of all four players, appoint a temporary substitute

to replace the player who received the unauthorised information; or,

[lamford]

I would have awarded ave+/ave- to EW's advantage, despite their gentlemanly offer of ave all round.

There is no evidence that E/W were male, so it should surely be their gentlepersonly offer. Although I find gentleperson in several dictionaries the adverb does not appear so we might need paulg's advice on this one. [What you mean I am drifting off-topic?]

[blackshoe]

Hm. Wonder why they took it out?

[paulg]

There is no evidence that E/W were male, so it should surely be their gentlepersonly offer. Although I find gentleperson in several dictionaries the adverb does not appear so we might need paulg's advice on this one. [What you mean I am drifting off-topic?]

Gentlemanly is an adjective. As there is no 'personly' it is no surprise that the adjectival form of gentleperson is not found. I guess the adverb would be gentlepersonally, a word of no interest to Scrabble players as it is more than 15 letters: gentlepersons is the most interesting word for them (as it would be possible to extend a six letter word already on the board using all seven tiles).

[pwg7]

Is law 7C relevant here? It specifically says:

 

. . . . Thereafter no hand shall be removed from the board unless a member of each side, or the Director, is present.

.

 

While this is written with respect to returning cards, I would assume it applies until the board is commenced (with both sides present) at the next table.

[gordontd]

Hm. Wonder why they took it out?

I'm not sure - I used to use it frequently, often being the substitute myself - but it did coincide with the new bit that allows you to let them play on and decide later whether to cancel the board.

[blackshoe]

There is no evidence that E/W were male, so it should surely be their gentlepersonly offer. Although I find gentleperson in several dictionaries the adverb does not appear so we might need paulg's advice on this one. [What you mean I am drifting off-topic?]

 

No, you're not drifting off topic. You're driving off topic at full speed. :lol:

[bluejak]

Gentlemanly is an adjective. As there is no 'personly' it is no surprise that the adjectival form of gentleperson is not found. I guess the adverb would be gentlepersonally, a word of no interest to Scrabble players as it is more than 15 letters: gentlepersons is the most interesting word for them (as it would be possible to extend a six letter word already on the board using all seven tiles).

Not knowing the Scrabble rules .....

 

Cannot one player play G E N T L E

 

then the next person add P E R S O N [if this is considered a word]

 

and the next person wish to add A L L Y [if this is considered a word] ?

[campboy]

Not knowing the Scrabble rules .....

The relevant rule is that it is played on a 15 by 15 board :)

[barmar]

There used to be in the old laws:

Glad to know I wasn't just imagining it. I wonder if the directors realized that they were obeying an obsolete law.

 

But maybe in this case it was inconsequential. We were playing as fill-ins in an event we hadn't qualified for, so we couldn't win any awards. So what difference does it make if we switch partners for a couple of hands? The only point was to ensure that the rest of the players got to play all the boards.

[ggwhiz]

Two pairs arrived at a mutually agreeable consensus as to a fair compromise that does not fault anyone.

 

Why must the "Law" inflict damage where none exists?

 

The late arriving pair accepted partial responsibility in full knowledge of the facts (as well as fessing up to having seen the cards) and we must tell them that is not allowed?

 

My ruling would be practical rather than technical.

[gordontd]

Two pairs arrived at a mutually agreeable consensus as to a fair compromise that does not fault anyone.

 

Why must the "Law" inflict damage where none exists?

There is damage, and by ruling like that we would effectively be telling South that it's ok to continue to do this, which it is not.