BBO Discussion Forums: L15B1 - unequitable ruling? - BBO Discussion Forums

If one or more players at the table have previously played the board, with the correct opponents or otherwise, the board is cancelled for both his side and his opponents.

Matchpoints, club game. In one round NS 6 are playing against EW 10. They are meant to play boards 1 and 2, but instead play 1 and 3*. This is only discovered when they enter the result for board 3 (under board 2) and see the results / hand record for board 2 which don't match their hands.

Per club policy I awarded 40% to both sides for board 2, as the board could not be played with them having seen the hand record. However, board 3 is where the fun begins. It turns out EW 10 had already played the board in the very first round, against NS 10, and achieved a normal bridge result.** NS 6 had not yet played board 3.

NS 6 is easy to deal with - board 3 is scored as 40% to them and 60% to the opponents they would otherwise correctly play board 3 against. But this results in the offending NS getting two 40% boards while the offending EW get only one.

Law 15B1 says:
if one or more players at the table have previously played the board, with the correct opponents or otherwise, the board is cancelled for both his side and his opponents.


This isn't 100% clear - to which "opponents" does the cancellation apply? That is, does it apply to the normal result achieved by EW 10 against NS 10? That would at least make the number of 40% awards equal between the two offending pairs, but an award of 60% might be unduly harsh or generous on NS 10, and it doesn't feel necessary to cancel a result already obtained through normal play.

Any thoughts on this?

Thanks,

ahydra

* 2-board rounds; table 6 had feed-in boards which explains why board 3 was there.
** I don't know how they failed to spot this!

if none of the four players have previously played the board the Director shall require the auction and play to be completed. He allows the score to stand and may require both pairs to play the correct board against one another later.

You use the wrong law on board 3 played by 10 against 6

So the first result on a board obtained by two sides neither of which has already played that board shall stand as obtained whether or not they were scheduled to play that board.

Cancellation of a board under Law 15B1 applies to both sides when at least one of them has already played the board (scheduled or not)

Law 12C2{a}: When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained [see also C1(d)], the Director awards an artificial adjusted score according to responsibility for the irregularity: average minus (at most 40% of the available matchpoints in pairs) to a contestant directly at fault, average (50% in pairs) to a contestant only partly at fault, and average plus (at least 60% in pairs) to a contestant in no way at fault.

This happened, so how was the wrong law used?

Ruling 40% to both sides is ruling that both sides were directly at fault. Not sure I understand the logic.

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

Note that "primarily responsible" does not exempt the other side from such (at least partial) responsibility.

Note that "primarily responsible" does not exempt the other side from such (at least partial) responsibility.

And when neither contestant remains stationary at a table throughout an entire session then both sides should be considered equally (and fully) responsible for correct procedures at the table.

@black shoe: From a political point of view, having only directed at this club for a couple months, I don't think I should break with the policy . And to be honest, I do regard EW to be at direct fault here. Before displaying any hand records or the like, the bridgetab asks EW to confirm the result (and with a PIN number too to be extra-sure it's EW checking and not NS skipping over the check), and it's their duty to check that every detail of the result is correct, including the board number. Hence I think the policy of 40%/40% is actually quite reasonable.

@pran: in regards to board 3, one pair (EW10) had already played the board. Hence my applying 15B1 rather than 15B2.

Do not agree with the second. The law doesn’t say that, it says that if nobody is stationary at a table nobody is primarily responsible for conditions at that table.

Agree with the first sentence. Do not agree with the second. The law doesn’t say that, it says that if nobody is stationary at a table nobody is primarily responsible for conditions at that table. As for “fully”, I don’t know where you pulled that from.

To what degree do you consider the contestants at a table where there is no stationary pair to be at fault when they play a board not designated for them to play at the current round?

This question is essential for awarding AVE-, AVE or AVE+ on affected boards in this or other rounds.

I just don’t like Law 7D. IMNSHO all players should be responsible. Everyone can see which board is placed on the table and in which direction, and every player should pay sufficient attention to the game (Law 74B1). Not paying enough attention, because somebody else should, is a gross violation of proper conduct. You’re there with four and you’re equals, or at least should be. As I’ve written before, what if a pair refuses to be stationary during the session because they don’t want the responsibility and the more severe penalties?
In Holland in pairs it’s usual that the boards remain at the table and all players go to other tables, so the problem doesn’t arise here most of the time. But that situation is not explicitly covered by the Laws.

Of course. I consider both partly at fault.

If a pair refuses for that reason to sit where the director tells them to sit, they can go home.

It seems pretty obvious to me that the opponents referred to in Law 15B1 are the opponents at the table where the problem occurred of the pair who has already played the board. So the result on board 3 at table six is cancelled for both NS pair 6 and EW pair 10. NS 6 get an artificial adjusted score, and EW 10 get to keep the score they got when they played the board the first time.

For board 2, start with Law 16D2{d}: award an artificial adjusted score to both NS pair 6 and EW pair 10. Now 12C2{a} speaks to responsibility for the irregularity. Law 7D says "Any contestant remaining at a table throughout a session is primarily responsible for maintaining proper conditions of play at the table." In this case, that would be NS. It seems clear that they should get average minus. Whether EW should also get average minus is not so clear. Are they "directly at fault" for this problem, or only partly at fault? (See Law 12C2{a} quoted in my previous post).

I understand that the club has a policy, but I don't think the policy can override the laws. See Law 80B2{f}.