Played wrong boards

[woengel]

N/S at table 14, started by sitting out boards 25-26 in a normal web movement. They played 23-24 against pair 13 in round 2, but for round 3, took the lowest numbered boards from their stack, 9-10, to play against pair 12. This was not discovered until they passed the boards to table 13 at the start of round 4. As I was playing, I didn't have a lot of time to come up with a solution, so I gave the pairs that should've played 9-10 vs these two pairs Ave+, and these two pairs Ave-.

 

First, should I hold E-W as responsible as N/S? I suspect not.

 

Second, when I gave the non-offenders Ave+, I let the N/S play boards the E/W had played (for fun), rather than giving them a second sit out. I hope this isn't a repeating problem, but how should I have handled this?

 

Will Engel

Rockford, IL

[blackshoe]

So NS 14 played board 9-10 vs. EW 12, when they should have played 21-22. In round 4, if I'm reading you right, boards 21-22 went to table 13 as they should have. Neither pair who played the wrong boards had played them before. So the score obtained on these two boards (9-10) stands for these two pairs (Law 15A1). When it comes time (assuming it does) for each of these pairs to play these boards according to the schedule, you can allow them to play the boards, but any result obtained is canceled, their opponents get A+ on both boards, and they retain the score they earned in round 3 (Law 15B). As for boards 21-22, you could allow NS 14 and EW 12 to play them as a late play. If not, then you award an artificial adjusted score on these two boards to these two pairs. NS 14, being directly at fault (Law 7D, Law 8A2, Law 12C2a) get A-, and EW 12 I would say are partly at fault, so they would get Average (Law 12C2a again). If you deem EW 12 not at all at fault they would get A+ (Law 12C2a yet again) but really, if they're awake at all they should know something's not right.

 

I suppose you could issue a procedural penalty to NS 14, but unless North has made a habit of screwing this up, I wouldn't.

[gordontd]

When you say they took the lowest numbered boards from the stack, do you mean that 9 & 10 were at the bottom of the stack? If not, it would be advisable for the future to put the stack in the order in which the boards are to be played. If they still manage to mess up, I think they are a bit more culpable.

[sanst]

First, should I hold E-W as responsible as N/S? I suspect not.

All players should pay attention to those matters, like playing the right boards and sitting in the right direction. If you think that N/S are more responsible than E/W, some players, and I'm one of them, would refuse to be N/S.

[blackshoe]

"Refuse" is a little strong, I think. It could get you into trouble.

[barmar]

If you deem EW 12 not at all at fault they would get A+ (Law 12C2a yet again) but really, if they're awake at all they should know something's not right.

In my experience, most players don't understand movements -- I've heard many players say it seems like magic that only the TDs can perform. Even if you're playing a normal Mitchell movement, lots of EW pairs don't see the pattern in the boards they're playing (they play every other set in order) or understand when there's a skip or bystand/relay. They just arrive at a table and look at the numbers on the boards there. (I like to pre-fill my private score with all the table numbers we'll be playing against, I'll bet many of them can't believe I'm able to do it).

 

Web movements are more complicated -- for a while they go up like a Mitchell, then they change direction. I would never expect EW pairs to notice something is amiss.

 

All players should pay attention to those matters, like playing the right boards and sitting in the right direction. If you think that N/S are more responsible than E/W, some players, and I'm one of them, would refuse to be N/S.

7D specifically says that the stationary pair is primarily responsible for board maintenance.

[Vampyr]

"Refuse" is a little strong, I think. It could get you into trouble.

 

Directors are delighted when someone will take a permanent E/W to help with the fact that disabled players need a permanent N/S.

 

In England I find the most players are pretty good about reading the bridgemates.

[barmar]

In England I find the most players are pretty good about reading the bridgemates.

LOL, last night we had a new pair at our club. They were EW most of the night, but the movement had an arrow switch on the last round. They were a couple of older women, but they had never filled in a traveller before. We're probably the only club in the Boston area that still uses travellers (we play in an MIT classroom, and have no convenient storage space, so have to minimize the equipment we bring to the game).

[weejonnie]

Directors are delighted when someone will take a permanent E/W to help with the fact that disabled players need a permanent N/S.

 

In England I find the most players are pretty good about reading the bridgemates.

You would be surprised - one of my pet peeves is pairs leaving the table with the score for the second hand (and occasionally the first as well) prominently displayed for the next pair to see. (and then we get those EWs who just note the score and don't check that it is the right hand for the score - if anything can go wrong then it will).

[blackshoe]

Murphy was an optimist. B-)

[kevperk]

When you say they took the lowest numbered boards from the stack, do you mean that 9 & 10 were at the bottom of the stack? If not, it would be advisable for the future to put the stack in the order in which the boards are to be played. If they still manage to mess up, I think they are a bit more culpable.

My guess is table 8 brought the boards to their table, rather than put them at the bottom of the "assembly" stack. Have caught this happening many times. Even after several rounds of them doing it right.

[Vampyr]

You would be surprised - one of my pet peeves is pairs leaving the table with the score for the second hand (and occasionally the first as well) prominently displayed for the next pair to see. (and then we get those EWs who just note the score and don't check that it is the right hand for the score - if anything can go wrong then it will).

 

Yes, I just meant that people will check that they have the correct opponents and the correct boards at the start of the round.

 

But that first thing you mention, I don't think I've ever seen that.

[blackshoe]

But that first thing you mention, I don't think I've ever seen that.

We used to use bridgepads here. When EW pushes the button to acknowledge the scores, the pads would immediately display the results for all the boards in the round, but by that time whoever pushed the button has moved on to something else, like "discussing" the last hand with his partner, or gathering his stuff to move to the next table. He's paying no attention whatsoever to the pad, and frequently just leaves it somewhere in front of him instead of giving it back to North.

 

We recently switched to bridgemates, and IIRC when you accept the score you do not get a screen that displays results. I think you get instructions for the move, even in a simple Mitchell (bridgepads seem to assume players can figure that out). Players don't pay any attention to that either, but at least we don't have the scores left open for all and sundry.

[pran]

We recently switched to bridgemates, and IIRC when you accept the score you do not get a screen that displays results. I think you get instructions for the move, even in a simple Mitchell (bridgepads seem to assume players can figure that out). Players don't pay any attention to that either, but at least we don't have the scores left open for all and sundry.

These (and other) features are options you can select with Bridgemate.

 

(When I am in control of an event I never allow players to learn other results obtained on boards they have just played.)