Bridgemate Problem

[kb49]

English Bridge Union

 

Please can you help us with the following problem that happened at our club last night.

 

During this session we were using Bridgemates. If North has taken the wrong boards then as soon as he enters the board number into the Bridgemate it will alert him that he has the wrong boards. Unfortunately a player did not enter details into the Bridgemate until they had played the board. They then discovered that they had the wrong boards. Now when the players eventually come across this board later in the evening it cannot be played. We are not sure what score is entered at the later stage?. Are North/South and East/West both responsible for this mistake and a score of 40/60 recorded or is North held responsible and East is innocent and the scores would be say 40/60 and 50/60? This has never happened before and hopefully it will not happen again.

[gordontd]

English Bridge Union

 

Please can you help us with the following problem that happened at our club last night.

 

During this session we were using Bridgemates. If North has taken the wrong boards then as soon as he enters the board number into the Bridgemate it will alert him that he has the wrong boards. Unfortunately a player did not enter details into the Bridgemate until they had played the board. They then discovered that they had the wrong boards. Now when the players eventually come across this board later in the evening it cannot be played. We are not sure what score is entered at the later stage?. Are North/South and East/West both responsible for this mistake and a score of 40/60 recorded or is North held responsible and East is innocent and the scores would be say 40/60 and 50/60? This has never happened before and hopefully it will not happen again.

How did North come to get the wrong boards? Were you playing a Mitchell or a Howell? You should be able to allow the score to stand as played if neither pair had played it before, but then you will need to give artificial scores when the pair/s come to play it again.

[PeterAlan]

You should be able to allow the score to stand as played if neither pair had played it before, but then you will need to give artificial scores when the pair/s come to play it again.

To elaborate a bit on this (the case where neither pair has played the board already, so their score stands - Law 15A1), let's suppose that the pairs who misplayed the board were A (N/S) & B (E/W), and that if the movement had gone correctly, they would later on have been playing the board against pairs X (E/W) and Y (N/S) respectively. For simplicity, I'll assume a Mitchell movement: you'll need to make the obvious adjustments if, under a Howell movement, say, either A or B was due to play the board against X/Y under a different orientation.

 

It's typically too difficult, using Bridgemates and scoring software such as Scorebridge, to score wholly at the table a board such as this where the scoring software doesn't expect it to be played by the two pairs in question (here A&B). What you have to do is to record manually the score when they play it, forget about trying to put it into the Bridgemate at the time, and move on. Their Bridgemate isn't expecting a score for that board, and you need to play (or cancel/defer) their correct boards as well.

 

In due course, one of the pairs (let's say A), get to the table/point where they were due to play the board (in this case, against X). They can't play the board (except for fun), since A has played it already, but now you enter the result (score) that applied when A played it against B.

 

Later, B will get to the point where they are due to play the board against Y. Again, it can't be played in the competition; this time enter an adjusted score of Ave+/Ave+.

 

At the end of the session, your scoring software will have:

 

Board X:

A vs X [Actual score for A vs B]

Y vs B Ave+ / Ave+

 

Your last step is to change (in the scoring software) the pair numbers to get to the result you want: you change the pair number X in the first line to B, and the pair number B in the second line to X. This results in the table score for A&B, and Ave+ for both X & Y, which generally is where you want to end up.

[weejonnie]

There are actually 3 boards in play - if we assume that time considerations preclude the playing of the third board. Then if the pairs are AB who should have played the board against XY later and the boards are 1&2 (correct) and 3 (incorrect) then (And what happened to boards 1 and 2 initially at another wrong table? If the auction had started then the Director is going to have more problems.)

 

Board 3 (played incorrectly) : Table result stands - scores will need to be entered manually.

Board 1 (was played correctly) : Table result stands

Board 2 (not played due to time restraints) : AB - both AVE -

 

 

Board 3 ( A V X ) : X gets AVE+ - A gets nothing as they already have a score

Board 3 ( Y V B ) : Y gets AVE+ - B gets nothing as they already have a score

 

Law 90B allows the director to assess a procedural penalty against A AND B as it is up to BOTH pairs to check that they are playing the correct boards at the correct table.

[blackshoe]

Law 90B allows the director to assess a procedural penalty against A AND B as it is up to BOTH pairs to check that they are playing the correct boards at the correct table.

Which law says that?

[aguahombre]

Which law says that?

?? He referred to 90B. The act of playing the wrong board is subject to procedural penalty, as stated in example 7.

[blackshoe]

?? He referred to 90B. The act of playing the wrong board is subject to procedural penalty, as stated in example 7.

I was referring to "it is up to BOTH pairs to check that they are playing the correct boards at the correct table".

[aguahombre]

I was referring to "it is up to BOTH pairs to check that they are playing the correct boards at the correct table".

Well, it seems that if playing the wrong board is subject to PP; it would naturally follow that it is up to us to make sure we don't do something which is subject to a PP.

 

But, my logic isn't always the logic of others.

[barmar]

But Law 7 says that the stationary pair is "primarily responsible for maintaining proper conditions of play at the table." I think this is usually interpreted as including confirming that they received the proper boards.

 

That's presumably why Gordon asked if it's a Mitchell or Howell: in a Mitchell, NS are primarily responsible, in a Howell it's a shared responsibility unless it's a table with a stationary pair.

[aguahombre]

O.K. one pair is primarily responsible for the right board being on the table. Playing the wrong board is still a violation. Nothing I can see in the Laws gives E/W a free pass to violate Law 90B. You could justify giving one pair a different penalty than the other; but you cannot hold E/W blameless and give them the artificial score a blameless pair would receive.

[blackshoe]

Well, it seems that if playing the wrong board is subject to PP; it would naturally follow that it is up to us to make sure we don't do something which is subject to a PP.

 

But, my logic isn't always the logic of others.

The laws do not go from "here's an example of something that could garner a PP" to "that something is against the rules". They go the other way 'round. So before you hit somebody with a PP, you need to find a law he's violated. In this case one that says everybody at the table is responsible for making sure they're at the right table and have the right boards. I'm from Missouri — show me the law.

[blackshoe]

But Law 7 says that the stationary pair is "primarily responsible for maintaining proper conditions of play at the table." I think this is usually interpreted as including confirming that they received the proper boards.

 

That's presumably why Gordon asked if it's a Mitchell or Howell: in a Mitchell, NS are primarily responsible, in a Howell it's a shared responsibility unless it's a table with a stationary pair.

Good point. You might also look at Law 8A2.

[aguahombre]

The laws do not go from "here's an example of something that could garner a PP" to "that something is against the rules". They go the other way 'round. So before you hit somebody with a PP, you need to find a law he's violated. In this case one that says everybody at the table is responsible for making sure they're at the right table and have the right boards. I'm from Missouri — show me the law.

You can find the law about paying attention to the game; you can read 90B (7), which is an example of what can happen when E/W didn't pay attention.

 

but most important: L90b addresses a PP for playing the wrong board, and perhaps the people who wrote it did so because they wanted playing the wrong board to be subject to a PP.

 

Maybe they can "show you the law".

[kb49]

Thank you for all your comments regarding the problem I submitted. We play Howell movements in our club. We do as a general rule try to avoid giving PP. This might not be a good idea but it is what we do. I was interested to read that East is not entirely innocent if they play the wrong boards as it seems to be a joint responsibility in Howell movements. I don't wish to challenge this ruling but just comment on the practical application. When both pairs arrive at a table it is North who takes responsibility. Should East ask to look at the details on the Bridgemate to ensure they are playing the correct opponents and that they have the correct boards? There is a tendency for East to trust North therefore I find it difficult to understand why East should be penalised in the event of a mistake.

[barmar]

Is the board information only on the BridgeMates? I haven't played in many Howell movements with BridgeMates, but whenever I've played Howells we've either had table mats that say what boards should be played in each round (and where the players should go after each round), or the players are all given printouts that say where they should go and which boards should be played in each round.

[aguahombre]

Is the board information only on the BridgeMates? I haven't played in many Howell movements with BridgeMates, but whenever I've played Howells we've either had table mats that say what boards should be played in each round (and where the players should go after each round), or the players are all given printouts that say where they should go and which boards should be played in each round.

Exactly. The point being, IMO, that when the wrong board is played there is no innocent side.

[blackshoe]

Exactly. The point being, IMO, that when the wrong board is played there is no innocent side.

"Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius (Kill them all. For the Lord knoweth them that are His.)" -- attributed to Abbot Arnaud Amalric, at the sack of Bèziers, ca. 1209 AD.