law 15

[pigpenz]

we had a hand come up where we played it out of order, when we went to put score into wireless device

then we realized it was the wrong board.

 

TD gave us an avg- and opps avg +, since we were NS, there was a sit out table before us so we ran into this several

times later also, sit out pair giving us the wrong boards.

 

what should the proper ruling be?

from my understanding of law 15 if both pairs have not played the hand then the results should stand and I assume the results for that

board need to be factored to the correct avg.

[semeai]

If neither pair has played the board, it does look like you just score up the board. In this case, the board has likely been spoiled for EW and their future NS opponents against whom they're scheduled to play the board. The director should apply a procedural penalty I imagine.

 

Caveat: IANAL

[blackshoe]

If I have this straight, you were NS at a table where your boards come from a sit out table. Somebody, presumably from the EW who were about to sit out (or possibly the EW who just sat out), handed you some boards, and you did not check them, just started playing. If you were stationary, as seems likely from your post, you (NS) are responsible for ensuring you have the correct boards (Law 7D).

 

Per Law 15:

 

1. If neither pair who played this board at your table had played it before, the result stands. Later, when the two pairs who played it meet the pairs with whom they were supposed to play it, those pairs get A+ on the board, and the two pairs who already played it keep their table result.

 

2. If either pair at your table had already played it, the result at your table is cancelled, the pair who already played it keep their original result, and the other pair get an artificial adjusted score (Law 12C2). In this case, the "other pair" is likely to be NS, and NS are directly at fault (see my comment about Law 7D above), so NS should get Average minus. If NS are scheduled to play the board against a third pair later on, that pair gets Average plus.

 

3. It's more complicated if the error is discovered during the auction period, but that apparently did not happen here, so I won't go into it.

 

4. NS are subject to a procedural penalty (Law 90), particularly if an adjusted score must be awarded at another table. In most club games this won't happen. I think that's regrettable, but it is what it is.

 

5. The bridgepad, or whatever you're using, will tell you which boards you should have. But you have to actually look at it, which most people don't do. :P

 

6. Assuming computer scoring, the scoring program should take care of any necessary factoring. In any case, that's the TD's problem, not the players'. ;)

[RMB1]

The problem we face is this: if [you play the boards out of order and] you put the wrong board number in the scoring device for the board you have actually played, then at the end of the scoring you get to see the frequencies or "traveller" of other tables' results. These are results on a board you have not played yet and might make it impossible for these pairs to play that baord.

 

In the EBU this is covered in our regulation (when we started routinely displaying results from other tables): if North did not get the board right when entering the score and East did not check it when confirming the score, and the seeing the results makes the board unplayable AVE-/AVE-. If there was a violation of procedure and North confirmed the score: AVE-/AVE+.

[pran]

If I have this straight, you were NS at a table where your boards come from a sit out table. Somebody, presumably from the EW who were about to sit out (or possibly the EW who just sat out), handed you some boards, and you did not check them, just started playing. If you were stationary, as seems likely from your post, you (NS) are responsible for ensuring you have the correct boards (Law 7D).

 

Per Law 15:

 

1. If neither pair who played this board at your table had played it before, the result stands. Later, when the two pairs who played it meet the pairs with whom they were supposed to play it, those pairs get A+ on the board, and the two pairs who already played it keep their table result.

There will be less confusion if you emphasize: ..."keep their original table result".

 

2. If either pair at your table had already played it, the result at your table is cancelled, the pair who already played it keep their original result, and the other pair get an artificial adjusted score (Law 12C2). In this case, the "other pair" is likely to be NS, and NS are directly at fault (see my comment about Law 7D above), so NS should get Average minus. If NS are scheduled to play the board against a third pair later on, that pair gets Average plus.

Is this a typo? How can NS be (directly) at fault if they are "the other pair", i.e. EW is the pair that had already played the board? Actually I fail to see how "the other pair" can be at fault at all.

 

3. It's more complicated if the error is discovered during the auction period, but that apparently did not happen here, so I won't go into it.

 

4. NS are subject to a procedural penalty (Law 90), particularly if an adjusted score must be awarded at another table. In most club games this won't happen. I think that's regrettable, but it is what it is.

 

5. The bridgepad, or whatever you're using, will tell you which boards you should have. But you have to actually look at it, which most people don't do. :P

 

6. Assuming computer scoring, the scoring program should take care of any necessary factoring. In any case, that's the TD's problem, not the players'. ;)

[blackshoe]

The problem we face is this: if [you play the boards out of order and] you put the wrong board number in the scoring device for the board you have actually played, then at the end of the scoring you get to see the frequencies or "traveller" of other tables' results. These are results on a board you have not played yet and might make it impossible for these pairs to play that baord.

 

In the EBU this is covered in our regulation (when we started routinely displaying results from other tables): if North did not get the board right when entering the score and East did not check it when confirming the score, and the seeing the results makes the board unplayable AVE-/AVE-. If there was a violation of procedure and North confirmed the score: AVE-/AVE+.

The ACBL has not established regulations in this area. Locally, we avoid the problem by not allowing players to see the results at other tables until after the session.

[blackshoe]

2. If either pair at your table had already played it, the result at your table is cancelled, the pair who already played it keep their original result, and the other pair get an artificial adjusted score (Law 12C2). In this case, the "other pair" is likely to be NS, and NS are directly at fault (see my comment about Law 7D above), so NS should get Average minus. If NS are scheduled to play the board against a third pair later on, that pair gets Average plus.

Is this a typo? How can NS be (directly) at fault if they are "the other pair", i.e. EW is the pair that had already played the board? Actually I fail to see how "the other pair" can be at fault at all.

No, it's not a typo. If you read what I wrote carefully, you will see that I referred you to Law 7D. NS are directly at fault because they are, in accordance with that law, directly responsible for, among other things, ensuring that the proper boards are in play. Note: if neither pair was stationary, then both pairs are partly at fault.

[barmar]

If EW were keeping a private score, I'd expect them to notice the problem at the end of the auction (most players enter the contract on their score sheet at that time), if not earlier (many players fill in the "Opponents" column when they arrive at a table).

[pran]

No, it's not a typo. If you read what I wrote carefully, you will see that I referred you to Law 7D. NS are directly at fault because they are, in accordance with that law, directly responsible for, among other things, ensuring that the proper boards are in play. Note: if neither pair was stationary, then both pairs are partly at fault.

The way I read your post is that the correct board is about to be played by the correct pairs at the correct table, but that eventually one of the two pairs discover "We have already played this board".

 

How can "the other pair" ever be (even partially) at fault?

 

(IMHO it is completely irrelevant whether "the other pair" is stationary or not.)

[blackshoe]

The way I read your post is that the correct board is about to be played by the correct pairs at the correct table, but that eventually one of the two pairs discover "We have already played this board".

 

How can "the other pair" ever be (even partially) at fault?

 

(IMHO it is completely irrelevant whether "the other pair" is stationary or not.)

Well, in the scenario you propose here, you're right. The other pair, who are in the correct place at the correct time with the correct board(s), cannot be in any way at fault. But that's not the scenario I was writing about. I was writing about the scenario in the OP.

[pran]

Well, in the scenario you propose here, you're right. The other pair, who are in the correct place at the correct time with the correct board(s), cannot be in any way at fault. But that's not the scenario I was writing about. I was writing about the scenario in the OP.

In the OP neither pair had played the board before, they were seated correctly for the round but played the wrong board (which neither of them had already played).

 

Law 15 is clear and straight forward: They receive the score they made on the board when (incorrectly) played the first time, and when each of the pairs eventually gets to play the board (the second time) they receive a 10% penalty (corresponding to A- adjusted score) while their respective opponents receive A+.

 

For the pairs at fault this penalty will most often be recorded as A- on some board they were scheduled to play but could not play due to lack of time: If because of the irregularity the pairs playing the wrong board cannot play all their scheduled boards (neither on schedule nor as late play) then each pair should receive A- on the scheduled board(s) they do not play.

[Lanor Fow]

I agree law 15 seems clear (i'm reading it now), what I don't agree with is it saying anything about a 10% penalty applied to automatically. It says that artificial scores are assigned to those who have been unable to play the board, but as for those who have played the board before, it states only that the second score is cancelled.

 

Edit: It states that the director may assign a procedural penatly, but not that they have to, or always will

Edited July 27, 2012 by Lanor Fow

[blackshoe]

Procedural penalties and score adjustments are separate and distinct entities, with different reasons for being awarded. The former is a punishment, the latter a redress for damage. To conflate the two is director error.

[pigpenz]

from what my interptation of the law

1.our score on the board should have stood since neither of us had played the board

2.the EW pair if they run into the board they already have a score and their opp NS should get AVG plus

3.if NS run into the board then they already have a score and their EW opps will get avg +( which is what will happen to

NS since they got the boards a round early)

3.its up to the discretion of the TD if he needs to apply any procedural penalties

 

Procedural penalties are different than adjustments, they are usually at the discretion of the TD...and if I am correct

they are final they are not open to committee or review.

[pran]

Apparently not making my point sufficiently clear:

 

When a board is played out of turn at a table the involved players will often be unable to play all the boards they are scheduled to play because of the time they have spent on playing a wrong board.

 

So an artificial adjusted score will be needed on such unplayed boards. And as (technically) both pairs involved are at fault for the missing play I consider A- for both involved pairs reasonable?

[blackshoe]

Pigpenz: all correct except the last bit. PPs (Law 90) may be varied by an appeals committee (or director in charge, if he's not the one who made the original ruling). Disciplinary penalties (Law 91) may not be varied by a committee, although they may recommend the director change or eliminate it. Also, a committee cannot overturn a director's ruling on a point of law, only on a judgment matter, although they can recommend he change his ruling on a point of law.

 

Sven: no. The last part of Law 15B is "the director shall award an artificial adjusted score to the contestants deprived of the opportunity to earn a valid score". The contestants who already played the board already earned a valid score, so they get to keep that score. Only the contestants who don't get to play the board at all get an artificial adjusted score, which should be average-plus.

[Vampyr]

Only the contestants who don't get to play the board at all get an artificiaward an artificial adjusted score to the contestants deprived of the opportunity to earn a valid score". The contestants who already played theal adjusted score, which should be average-plus.

 

I think all Sven is saying is that if these teams should end up not being able to play a board because of the time taken to play the wrong board, they should both receive Average- on the board they didn't get to play.

[pran]

I think all Sven is saying is that if these teams should end up not being able to play a board because of the time taken to play the wrong board, they should both receive Average- on the board they didn't get to play.

Exactly!

 

Our normal schedules in Norway are usually so tight that if a table spends their 7 or 8 minutes on a board they are not supposed to play then there will be one board they are supposed to play that they never will be able to play. And even worse if they play their entire round with incorrect boards.

 

And incidentally: If you do some calculus you will find that the A- to both pairs on such boards may balance the extra A+ to those pairs that must take an artificial score on the boards their opponents have already played (out of order). So the total amount of points across the entire field in the session will be "correct"; not that this is important in any way.

[blackshoe]

I think all Sven is saying is that if these teams should end up not being able to play a board because of the time taken to play the wrong board, they should both receive Average- on the board they didn't get to play.

Ah. With that, I agree. B-)

[bluejak]

The ACBL has not established regulations in this area. Locally, we avoid the problem by not allowing players to see the results at other tables until after the session.

History tends to come into this. Traditionally, all EBU clubs and events had travelers, so not to allow other scores to be seen means the customers have lost a service.

 

In the ACBL, as I understand it, a lot of events and clubs used pickup slips, so not allowing them to see the other scores means they have lost nothing with the new arrangement.

[mycroft]

I try to turn off "travellers" in club games run by Bridgemates. I find people "would like to know" how they've been doing with traveller information, but after playing a couple of weeks without it, they find what they really prefer is the 15 minutes saved when everybody isn't trying to figure out which nutcase went for -930 on board 6.

 

I've actually always thought that knowing what happened previously on a traveller was not a beneficial service to be lost, but a harmful side-effect that was tolerated - and with wireless scoring, it no longer need be.

 

Tournaments have "always" (I mean, at least since the "so recent we can't remember all the changes" change to the Alert Chart that added NT Announcements; 1990) used pickup slips.

 

I could be wrong about my opinions...

[barmar]

Most of the ACBL club games I've played in used travelers (sometimes the director switches to pickup slips for the last 1-2 rounds, so he can start entering scores before the game finishes), and in those clubs that have switched to electronic scoring they've kept the previous score display for consistency. In my experience, glancing at the previous scores adds at most 15 seconds to most boards; maybe one or two boards a session will prompt 30-60 minutes of discussion about the "nutcase". So the total delay added to the game is probably about 5 minutes. If this is something that enhances their enjoyment of the game, is that really so bad?

 

Like mycroft, I've never seen travelers used at a tournament, and they never enable this feature on the electronic scorers.

[blackshoe]

That's pretty much it, David, although clubs used to use travellers and until the advent of Bridgepads some around here still did occasionally, particularly with a playing director.

[pran]

History tends to come into this. Traditionally, all EBU clubs and events had travelers, so not to allow other scores to be seen means the customers have lost a service.

[...]

And only because of history you find it unacceptable to remove this "service" which many players consider unfair (although interesting) as it gives different quality of information to different players?

 

Setting Bridgemate to hide this "service" puts all competitors on equal terms.

 

(And "nosing" all such extra information takes time that can better be used on playing bridge.)

[mjj29]

And only because of history you find it unacceptable to remove this "service" which many players consider unfair (although interesting) as it gives different quality of information to different players?

 

Setting Bridgemate to hide this "service" puts all competitors on equal terms.

 

(And "nosing" all such extra information takes time that can better be used on playing bridge.)

Many players may consider it unfair and for many reasons I would rather travellers were not shown. However, since (at the request of EBU members) the EBU Tournament Committee told the TDs they should start turning it on for EBU tournaments after we had been leaving them off, it's clear that many of the players _do_ want to have travellers on. At least in the EBU it seems to be what the customers want.