Bid with the cards from the previous board

[Fluffy]

Yesterday it hapened, somebody forgot to put the cards from the first board of the round back, and also didn't pull the new ones, and procceed to bid the and with the cards she had already played.

 

Unsurprisingly she reached 4♠ wich defenders promptly doubled having a lot of spades themselves. When they were going to make the opening lead they finally realiced there were cards on the board still to be picked and found out what was going on.

 

So do the offending side get to play this stupid contract and get a deserved bottoom, or a simple Av+/- is enough?

[pran]

Yesterday it hapened, somebody forgot to put the cards from the first board of the round back, and also didn't pull the new ones, and procceed to bid the and with the cards she had already played.

 

Unsurprisingly she reached 4♠ wich defenders promptly doubled having a lot of spades themselves. When they were going to make the opening lead they finally realiced there were cards on the board still to be picked and found out what was going on.

 

So do the offending side get to play this stupid contract and get a deserved bottoom, or a simple Av+/- is enough?

A+/A-

 

But unless the offending side has a very good excuse I would seriously consider adding a PP equal to 40% of a top resulting in an effective score of 60%/0%.

[blackshoe]

I have said before and say again now that I do not believe that it is appropriate (or legal) to use a PP to "adjust" a score adjustment to whatever the director feels is more appropriate than the legal adjustment. If you believe the irregularity deserves a PP, by all means award one but the severity of the PP should be tied to the severity of the offense, not an opinion that the legal score adjustment isn't good enough.

[pran]

I have said before and say again now that I do not believe that it is appropriate (or legal) to use a PP to "adjust" a score adjustment to whatever the director feels is more appropriate than the legal adjustment. If you believe the irregularity deserves a PP, by all means award one but the severity of the PP should be tied to the severity of the offense, not an opinion that the legal score adjustment isn't good enough.

OK. Then I use a PP equal to 50% of a top.

 

I consider this offense very serious and didn't suggest 40% in order to reach a bottom, but in order to make the scoring work simpler.

 

Happy with that?

[blackshoe]

I don't see how a 40% PP makes the scoring work simpler, or why you should care if it does, given that a computer is doing the scoring.

 

It would not be unusual to say "this offense is particularly bad, so I'm going to award twice the normal PP" (or three times, or whatever). If the normal PP is 25% of a top, as it is in North America, then 50% is twice normal, and that's fine. But if "normal" is 10% of a top, then 50% is five times normal, and wonder if this offense rates that much of a penalty. But if in your opinion it does, go for it.

[gordontd]

But unless the offending side has a very good excuse I would seriously consider adding a PP

What kind of excuse do you have in mind?

[Fluffy]

yeah give them a PP so the next time they will think twice before doing it again..... oh wait!

[barmar]

Sometimes this happens because they DID think twice: they thought to switch the boards, then they thought to do it again!

[pran]

What kind of excuse do you have in mind?

(Slightly) disabled, for instance from old age or some disease?

[Vampyr]

I consider this offense very serious and didn't suggest 40% in order to reach a bottom, but in order to make the scoring work simpler.

 

This was an accident, and didn't affect the play of the board at other tables. I don't think a PP would be appropriate for a first offense.

[PeterAlan]

This was an accident, and didn't affect the play of the board at other tables. I don't think a PP would be appropriate for a first offense.

This actually happened against us at Brighton a few years ago. I didn't look to see what the actual adjustment for the other side was at the end of the day, but it was just an inadvertent oversight and it certainly didn't feel to me either at the time or since as at all heinous. I'm entirely with Stefanie here.

 

On that occasion, I think we were playing with uniform cards for all boards, but in cases where the colours of the backs alternate, say between red and blue, it's in theory more likely to be picked up. It's reassuring to realise, however, that the stricture about not looking at opponents cards becomes a habit in practice, and I'm not sure that in fact this adds much to the detection rate.

[axman]

 

 

So do the offending side get to play this stupid contract and get a deserved bottoom, or a simple Av+/- is enough?

It is notable that the provisions of L17D are in direct conflict with the provisions of L21A.

[blackshoe]

Oh? How so?

[axman]

It is notable that the provisions of L17D are in direct conflict with the provisions of L21A.

 

Oh? How so?

 

For the conditions cited, L17D requires the rectification of cancelling whatever calls the player made while misunderstanding that the hand he was holding was the wrong hand.

 

From L21A:

No rectification or redress is due to a player who acts on the basis of his own misunderstanding.

[blackshoe]

I thought you might say that.

 

While I am by no means in favor of "the law doesn't mean what it says, it means this other thing, because we've always interpreted it this way" (or for whatever reason), I do not think the conflict that you propose actually exists. Law 21 is about MI, and there's no MI in the Law 17D case.

[Vampyr]

On that occasion, I think we were playing with uniform cards for all boards, but in cases where the colours of the backs alternate, say between red and blue, it's in theory more likely to be picked up.

 

I write on the feedback form at EVERY congress I attend that bridge is properly played with red cards and blue cards, not just blue ones. But to no avail.