Two boards mixed up

[Lord Molyb]

About halfway into a club game where there are 9 rounds, 3 boards per round, one table finishes up board 25. E/W move board 25 to the bottom and remove their cards from board 26, sorting them, etc.

A few seconds later, North moves board 26 to the bottom and N/S remove their cards from board 27, sorting them, etc. On board 27, south is dealer and opens 1♣. West, holding the cards from board 26, bids 2♣, michaels, and north bids 2♦. East goes into the tank for about 30 seconds and then all the players realize at about the same time that the card backs are different colors.

 

I assume it is appropriate to call the director? Who should call the director and what should the director do?

I would put this in the simple rulings forum but there are followups depending on what happens next.

[ahydra]

I think we have to foul both boards at this point, right? Both sides have knowledge they weren't entitled to about an opponent's hand on one of the other boards.

 

Anyone can call the TD here, and they definitely should! I would issue PPs to both sides for violating Law 7D - EW because it is NS's responsibility to move the boards (assuming NS are a stationary pair), and NS because they didn't "maintain[] proper conditions of play at the table" - in particular North might have spotted there were hands missing from 26 when he moved it to the bottom, or that the next board to play was 26, not 27. Since we're fouling the boards anyway I would probably not issue an actual PP but just give 40/40 on both boards.

 

ahydra

[ggwhiz]

I can see allowing them to attempt a legitimate result in some situation but not likely here.

 

On 26 opener knows pards diamond length and minimum strength but perhaps a 1♣ opener followed by an overcall then 2♦ by north could salvage that one. Any other auction and it's gonzo.

 

27 is dead in the water. East knows both of wests suit lengths and way too much about strength after an opening bid or pass.

 

In a club game. avg- all around and a long smoke break seems right.

[blackshoe]

Clearly there has been an irregularity. Clearly everyone has noticed it. Now I would guess someone has said something about it. "Hey, wait a minute!..." So attention has been drawn to the irregularity. Now the director should (as in 'failure to do it is an infraction of law') call the director. Who should call? Anyone. See Law 9B1.

 

Now what should the director do? Well, first he should determine what happened. From the OP, EW moved the boards. But NS is responsible for that (Law 7). So EW has done something they shouldn't, but NS didn't notice. I would admonish EW to keep their hands off the boards. I would suggest to NS (North, in particular) that they make darn sure the right board is in play. Law 7A says "When a board is to be played, it is placed in the center of the table until play is completed." It doesn't say you can't put other boards there as well, and almost everyone does so. But it might be a good idea (and I would suggest it to this table) that only the board currently to be played be placed in the center of the table. Put the others somewhere else - on a side table, a chair, under North's right leg (that's often where I put them). That will avoid these problems.

 

Now what? Well, it gets complicated. In theory, Law 17D tells the TD to make sure EW have their correct hands (the 'right' board is 26, but they seem to be playing the boards out of order, and there's no problem with doing that, usually, so let's stick with board 27), and then starts the auction over. But then what? South, West, and North have bid, and 17D2 tells the director to award an artificial adjusted score in such a case. So we go to Law 12C2. Who was at fault here? Seems to me both sides were partly at fault - EW because they moved the boards when they shouldn't have, and NS for not making sure everything was okay when they moved the boards around. So I would award Average to both sides. 50% of a top, assuming it's matchpoints. That's board 27.

 

What about board 26? This one is harder, and I'm running out of steam. I'm inclined to award Average to both sides on this board too, but I'm less certain of the legal basis.

 

Average minus to both sides is possible, but only if both sides were "directly at fault". I suppose it depends on what "directly" means. :D

[kevperk]

I never understood this belief that E/W are not supposed to move the boards. My lawbook says any stationary pair is PRIMARILY responsible for maintaining proper conditions. It seems a far leap to infer that they are SOLELY responsible for moving the boards.

[pran]

♣

I never understood this belief that E/W are not supposed to move the boards. My lawbook says any stationary pair is PRIMARILY responsible for maintaining proper conditions. It seems a far leap to infer that they are SOLELY responsible for moving the boards.

Correct.

 

Now take another look at OP:

 

A few seconds later, North moves board 26 to the bottom and N/S remove their cards from board 27

 

What was the state of board 26 at this time? Both East and West pockets were empty! So the main culprit here is North who moved an incomplete board.

 

Both boards 26 and 27 have been made unplayable at this table because of this error by North. I would definitely give A- on both boards to NS, but I am in doubt whether to give A= or A+ to EW.

[blackshoe]

I never understood this belief that E/W are not supposed to move the boards. My lawbook says any stationary pair is PRIMARILY responsible for maintaining proper conditions. It seems a far leap to infer that they are SOLELY responsible for moving the boards.

 

Correct.

 

Now take another look at OP:

 

A few seconds later, North moves board 26 to the bottom and N/S remove their cards from board 27

 

What was the state of board 26 at this time? Both East and West pockets were empty! So the main culprit here is North who moved an incomplete board.

 

Both boards 26 and 27 have been made unplayable at this table because of this error by North. I would definitely give A- on both boards to NS, but I am in doubt whether to give A= or A+ to EW.

It seems to me that this is a "custom and practice" situation - and custom and practice dictate, IMO, that EW should keep their paws off the boards.

 

Perhaps we should apply Arnaud Almaric's solution. B-)

[kevperk]

It seems to me that this is a "custom and practice" situation - and custom and practice dictate, IMO, that EW should keep their paws off the boards.

 

Perhaps we should apply Arnaud Almaric's solution. B-)

 

Where I play, "custom and practice" is that EW CAN have their paws on the boards.

[Trinidad]

It seems to me that this is a "custom and practice" situation - and custom and practice dictate, IMO, that EW should keep their paws off the boards.

?!?

It is also custom and practice:

• 
   
  
• to ignore skip bid warnings
  
• to use derogatory words for people's extremities
  
• to pass by putting your bidding cards back into the box
  
• to be less forthcoming than necessary about your agreements
  
• to be less than truthful to the TD
  
• to ignore some of the alert rules
  
• to discuss the hands (or paws?) when there are still boards to be played.
  

Does that mean that -according to you- we should ignore skip bid warnings, ... and anyone suggesting that we play the next board should keep his mouth shut?

 

I suggest that we make it a "custom and practice" to follow the Law, particularly for situations as simple and non-controversial as this one. For those who do not know the relevant Law, it doesn't mention NS anywhere:

Any contestant remaining at a table throughout a session is primarily responsible for maintaining proper conditions of play at the table.

So, who are "primarily responsible for maintaining proper conditions of play at the table"?

• 
   
  
• In a Mitchell movement: NS, except when there is an arrow switch: in that round EW are primarily responsible
  
• In a Howell movement: nobody, except for the one or few stationary pair(s), with some of them sitting NS and others EW
  
• In a team game: the team that doesn't switch sides halfway in the match (usually the home team). This means NS at one table and EW at the other.

If custom and practice would rule, at my club it would be 100% clear who is responsible for the boards: The youngest player at the table. Inevitably s/he is the one who is fetching boards from the board table.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

<Sigh> I should not have appealed to custom and practice. I don't like appeals to custom and practice. Nonetheless, from time to time, people whose expertise I respect tell me that custom and practice, though it says something other than what the law says, should guide our rulings. I confess I have no <expletive deleted> idea how to determine which items of custom and practice should be treated as if they were law, and which should be tossed out with the rest of the trash.

 

I withdraw the comment. I will say that if EW moving the boards annoys North (or South) then the TD needs to consider whether the action has violated Law 74A2 - another law that is IMO entirely too vague.

 

In the case at hand, EW contributed to the problem, and I see no reason to let them entirely off the hook for that, whether I can find an infraction or irregularity in what they've done or not.

[pran]

<Sigh> I should not have appealed to custom and practice. I don't like appeals to custom and practice. Nonetheless, from time to time, people whose expertise I respect tell me that custom and practice, though it says something other than what the law says, should guide our rulings. I confess I have no <expletive deleted> idea how to determine which items of custom and practice should be treated as if they were law, and which should be tossed out with the rest of the trash.

 

I withdraw the comment. I will say that if EW moving the boards annoys North (or South) then the TD needs to consider whether the action has violated Law 74A2 - another law that is IMO entirely too vague.

 

In the case at hand, EW contributed to the problem, and I see no reason to let them entirely off the hook for that, whether I can find an infraction or irregularity in what they've done or not.

So you have no problem with North moving a board lacking two hands?

[blackshoe]

So you have no problem with North moving a board lacking two hands?

ROFL! Maybe he's a telekinetic.

[barmar]

So you have no problem with North moving a board lacking two hands?

If he can take his cards out of the board with his feet, surely he can move the board that way.

 

Note that being "responsible" for moving the boards does not mean that he has to perform the act himself. He may delegate it.

[barmar]

<Sigh> I should not have appealed to custom and practice. I don't like appeals to custom and practice. Nonetheless, from time to time, people whose expertise I respect tell me that custom and practice, though it says something other than what the law says, should guide our rulings. I confess I have no <expletive deleted> idea how to determine which items of custom and practice should be treated as if they were law, and which should be tossed out with the rest of the trash.

Sometimes "custom and practice" contradicts laws. These C&P should generally be avoided, although some have become so entrenched that they're unlikely to be eradicated (e.g. alternate forms of calling cards from dummy, picking up bidding cards to make the final pass).

 

But customs that augment the laws are not so bad. The law that says the stationary pair is primarily responsible for maintaining conditions at the table is indeed vague. The custom of North doing the scoring and moving the boards clarifies it. Would it be better if the Laws were explicit about this? Perhaps, but do we really need them to go into detail about all such minutiae? Most people are already surprised that the Laws mention the order that the cards should be laid out in dummy; they assume that putting trump on declarer's left and putting the cards in decreasing order within suit are just traditions, and I expect these traditions would be maintained without a law to that effect.

[Vampyr]

?!?

It is also custom and practice:

• 
   
  
• to ignore skip bid warnings
  
• to use derogatory words for people's extremities
  
• to pass by putting your bidding cards back into the box
  
• to be less forthcoming than necessary about your agreements
  
• to be less than truthful to the TD
  
• to ignore some of the alert rules
  
• to discuss the hands (or paws?) when there are still boards to be played.
  

 

I sometimes see the first, the third and the last. The others would seriously detract from my enjoyment of the game.

 

I don't know what the second means.

[Trinidad]

I don't know what the second [using derogatory words for people's extremities] means.

It was a, seemingly not too obvious, reference to the two previous posts:

 

EW should keep their paws off the boards.

EW CAN have their paws on the boards.

 

Rik

[barmar]

"paws" is derogatory? I agree that it's usually used in an angry or accusatory context, but it's still just slang. If you want to be derogatory, it's usually "damn paws".

[blackshoe]

I'm the one who used it, and I was neither angry nor accusing. And I think the full expression is "Keep your filthy paws off me, you damned dirty ape!" B-)

[Trinidad]

"paws" is derogatory? I agree that it's usually used in an angry or accusatory context, but it's still just slang. If you want to be derogatory, it's usually "damn paws".

I feel like Abigail Van Buren: People have hands, animals (horses excepted) have paws. Mixing up the two is as unsophisticated as mixing up two boards.

 

Rik

[pran]

I feel like Abigail Van Buren: People have hands, animals (horses excepted) have paws. Mixing up the two is as unsophisticated as mixing up two boards.

 

Rik

Hand The cards originally dealt to a player, or the remaining portion thereof.

[blackshoe]

I feel like Abigail Van Buren: People have hands, animals (horses excepted) have paws. Mixing up the two is as unsophisticated as mixing up two boards.

Who do you think is mixed up? I'm certainly not.

[barmar]

So in bridge, "hand" refers to the cards, and we need a different word to refer to the body part that holds the hand?

[pran]

So in bridge, "hand" refers to the cards, and we need a different word to refer to the body part that holds the hand?

 

No, I would expect anybody with a bit of intelligence (sufficient to read the Laws of Bridge) to know the difference from the context where it is used.

 

(We have similar "problems" in Norwegian, for instance the little word "mot" is spelled and pronounced exactly the same whether it means: (movement) "Towards", (opinion) "Against", (noun) "Courage" or (lawsuit) "Versus".)

[Trinidad]

So in bridge, "hand" refers to the cards, and we need a different word to refer to the body part that holds the hand?

Perhaps we could use "paw" for that...

 

:)

 

Rik