Is Law 17D Flawed?

[blackshoe]

That's exactly what I'm saying.

[pran]

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

But the point is that in the session of this thread that we are discussing here (see post #19) the player has not picked the cards from the wrong board, some other player has placed cards from a wrong board into this board.

 

That makes Law 17 irrelevant because we have no offending player.

[gordontd]

Easy. The person sitting in your seat at the next table put the cards from board 15 into the pocket of board 16 and vice versa. You make a call, then put your cards face-down on the table. Now you notice that the backs of your cards are blue and the backs of everyone else's cards are red.

Easy? I don't think so. When was the last time you saw a player with both their hands from two different boards out at the same time?

[Zelandakh]

In that case the boards are fouled - see Law 87. Law 17D shall not apply.

I do not think you have the "and the contestants who should have had a score comparison did not play the board in identical form for such reason" clause for applying 87 at the point where 17D would apply.

[pran]

Easy. The person sitting in your seat at the next table put the cards from board 15 into the pocket of board 16 and vice versa. You make a call, then put your cards face-down on the table. Now you notice that the backs of your cards are blue and the backs of everyone else's cards are red.

Easy? I don't think so. When was the last time you saw a player with both their hands from two different boards out at the same time?

Oh - I (as TD) have had that situation more than once! (The players were of course not very happy with my reaction.)