[bluejak]

pran, on Aug 13 2010, 07:00 AM, said:

BTW. Do you always verify that a stationary pair has fulfilled all their duties when you arrive at a new table?

No. What has that got to do with anything?

[bluejak]

So, dburn, you think Law 16C applies even to information from partner when it is infortaion before the hand commences?

[pran]

bluejak, on Aug 13 2010, 12:56 PM, said:

pran, on Aug 13 2010, 07:00 AM, said:

BTW. Do you always verify that a stationary pair has fulfilled all their duties when you arrive at a new table?

No. What has that got to do with anything?

If you don't find it a duty for EW to verify that NS have fulfilled their duties you cannot afterwards blame them for not having done so and award A- when the real fault is with NS.

You confirm that you do not exercise such verifications yourself. I certainly do not (at least not regularly) so I would not dream of awarding anything else than A+/A+ at the second table if the board must be ruled unplayable because of the error at the first table.

My question has everything to do with the case under discussion (unless I have completely misunderstood what you were trying to express).

[bluejak]

You made a general comment that E/W are not responsible for actions at their table. I said it is not true. You quoted part of a Law in support of your assertion. Your assertion is not generally true because of the rest of the Law.

Whether E/W are to be held accountable in this case is another matter entirely, but the generality is not true: we do not always excuse E/W, and your general comment is not true.

[pran]

bluejak, on Aug 13 2010, 03:00 PM, said:

You made a general comment that E/W are not responsible for actions at their table. I said it is not true. You quoted part of a Law in support of your assertion. Your assertion is not generally true because of the rest of the Law.

Whether E/W are to be held accountable in this case is another matter entirely, but the generality is not true: we do not always excuse E/W, and your general comment is not true.

My comments have all been aimed at EW action or lack of action in this specific situation and I find absolutely no legal foundation for holding EW even partly responsible for playing the wrong board at the table where NS are responsible for passing boards to the next table.

I am fully aware of situations where a non-stationary pair can be held at least partly responsible for irregular conditions at a table, this is certainly not one of them.

[dburn]

bluejak, on Aug 13 2010, 06:59 AM, said:

So, dburn, you think Law 16C applies even to information from partner when it is infortaion before the hand commences?

I am not quite sure what this question means, but I will try to clarify my earlier remarks.

Law 15C holds that:

Law 15C said:

If, during the auction period, the Director discovers that a contestant is playing a board not designated for him to play in the current round, he shall cancel the auction, ensure that the correct contestants are seated and that they are informed of their rights both now and at future rounds. A second auction begins. Players must repeat the calls they made previously. If any call differs in any way from the  corresponding call in the first auction the Director shall cancel the board. Otherwise the auction and play continue normally. The Director may award a procedural penalty (and an adjusted score) if of the opinion that there has been a purposeful attempt by either side to preclude normal play of the board.

This was (obviously) intended to cover a situation in which the wrong East-West pair sits down at a table, starts the auction, and is then displaced by the right East-West pair. That is: the "wrong" auction is nipped in the bud, the "right" pair sits down and, as long as the "wrong" auction is faithfully reproduced until the point at which the "wrong" East-West pair left the table, play is allowed to continue "normally".

But there is no particular reason that Law 15C should not apply to the circumstances in the original post (and to the situation I have quoted above, which is for practical purposes the same thing, for the "wrong" East-West pair will meet the board later in the event):

• East-West have started an auction on board 11 at a table where they are not due to play board 11;
  
• when they arrive at the table where they are due to play board 11, the Director proceeds as instructed by Law 15C;
  
• if the Director (having informed all concerned of their rights and responsibilities) deems that "normal" play of board 11 is possible in these circumstances, the result obtained as a result of that normal play will stand.

The last sentence of Law 15C was (obviously) intended to prevent Larry Cohen (who first, or at any rate first publicly, drew attention to a grievous flaw in the previous version of the Laws) from opening 7NT on a balanced four count and thereby ensuring that because the auction differed from that at the wrongly-constituted table, he would receive an average plus.

This is only peripherally relevant to the present case - I mention it chiefly for the sake of context, but it should be noted that if East-West arrived on the last round with a 65% game at the "right" table for playing board 11 and opened 7NT to ensure an average plus, a dim view of this could legally be taken.

Well, East-West have eventually arrived at the table where they are due to meet board 11. One hopes that the Director said to them before they left the "wrong" table that "you can play this board later subject to the constraints of Law 15C, so don't discuss it in the meantime".

If the Director knows or suspects that they have discussed it in the meantime, he should rule that they have and have used UI. He cannot so rule under Law 16C, because that discussion was not "accidental" (although the circumstances that gave rise to it were), but he can rule under Law 16B2 and under Law 73B; he can also apply a penalty under Law 90B8 for failure to comply with instructions of the Director.

In short:

I do not think Law 16C applies to any post facto discussion of the board by East-West - sure, it applies to the auction they had at the "wrong" table, but if that UI does not prevent normal play of the board at the "right" table, it is of no consequence (for so says Law 15C).

If East-West arrive at the "right" table 90 minutes (or 90 years) after they played board 11 at the "wrong" table, and if they have not discussed board 11 in the interim, and if the auction until the point at which East-West left the "wrong" table is identical at the "right" table from that conducted at the "wrong" one, then they can play board 11. If not, they cannot - but if they attempt to sabotage the auction in order to achieve an artificial adjusted score instead of the "normal" result, they are subject to penalty.

I still do not understand the original question. If I have not answered it, I apologise and await clarification as to its meaning in terms I can grasp.

[pran]

dburn, on Aug 16 2010, 04:44 AM, said:

bluejak, on Aug 13 2010, 06:59 AM, said:

So, dburn, you think Law 16C applies even to information from partner when it is infortaion before the hand commences?

I am not quite sure what this question means, but I will try to clarify my earlier remarks.

Law 15C holds that:

Law 15C said:

If, during the auction period, the Director discovers that a contestant is playing a board not designated for him to play in the current round, he shall cancel the auction, ensure that the correct contestants are seated and that they are informed of their rights both now and at future rounds. A second auction begins. Players must repeat the calls they made previously. If any call differs in any way from the  corresponding call in the first auction the Director shall cancel the board. Otherwise the auction and play continue normally. The Director may award a procedural penalty (and an adjusted score) if of the opinion that there has been a purposeful attempt by either side to preclude normal play of the board.

This was (obviously) intended to cover a situation in which the wrong East-West pair sits down at a table, starts the auction, and is then displaced by the right East-West pair. That is: the "wrong" auction is nipped in the bud, the "right" pair sits down and, as long as the "wrong" auction is faithfully reproduced until the point at which the "wrong" East-West pair left the table, play is allowed to continue "normally".

But there is no particular reason that Law 15C should not apply to the circumstances in the original post (and to the situation I have quoted above, which is for practical purposes the same thing, for the "wrong" East-West pair will meet the board later in the event):

• East-West have started an auction on board 11 at a table where they are not due to play board 11;
  
  
  
• when they arrive at the table where they are due to play board 11, the Director proceeds as instructed by Law 15C;
  
  
  
• if the Director (having informed all concerned of their rights and responsibilities) deems that "normal" play of board 11 is possible in these circumstances, the result obtained as a result of that normal play will stand.

The last sentence of Law 15C was (obviously) intended to prevent Larry Cohen (who first, or at any rate first publicly, drew attention to a grievous flaw in the previous version of the Laws) from opening 7NT on a balanced four count and thereby ensuring that because the auction differed from that at the wrongly-constituted table, he would receive an average plus.

This is only peripherally relevant to the present case - I mention it chiefly for the sake of context, but it should be noted that if East-West arrived on the last round with a 65% game at the "right" table for playing board 11 and opened 7NT to ensure an average plus, a dim view of this could legally be taken.

Well, East-West have eventually arrived at the table where they are due to meet board 11. One hopes that the Director said to them before they left the "wrong" table that "you can play this board later subject to the constraints of Law 15C, so don't discuss it in the meantime".

If the Director knows or suspects that they have discussed it in the meantime, he should rule that they have and have used UI. He cannot so rule under Law 16C, because that discussion was not "accidental" (although the circumstances that gave rise to it were), but he can rule under Law 16B2 and under Law 73B; he can also apply a penalty under Law 90B8 for failure to comply with instructions of the Director.

In short:

I do not think Law 16C applies to any post facto discussion of the board by East-West - sure, it applies to the auction they had at the "wrong" table, but if that UI does not prevent normal play of the board at the "right" table, it is of no consequence (for so says Law 15C).

If East-West arrive at the "right" table 90 minutes (or 90 years) after they played board 11 at the "wrong" table, and if they have not discussed board 11 in the interim, and if the auction until the point at which East-West left the "wrong" table is identical at the "right" table from that conducted at the "wrong" one, then they can play board 11. If not, they cannot - but if they attempt to sabotage the auction in order to achieve an artificial adjusted score instead of the "normal" result, they are subject to penalty.

I still do not understand the original question. If I have not answered it, I apologise and await clarification as to its meaning in terms I can grasp.

In my honest opinion (FWIW) your understanding is perfectly correct. The procedure prescribed in Law 15C applies for each pair involved in the irregularity (except of course in the case for a pair that then "played" the board for a second time) when they eventually are scheduled to play the board. It is irrelevant at what time they are so scheduled; it may be at another table in the same round or it may be at the end of the session.

Note that before 2007 any player involved in a (now) Law 15C situation had the privilege of choosinig between taking an artificial adjusted score and attempting a replay along the lines now enforced in Law 15C.

Also note that Law 15 is not particularly aimed at Mitchell movements; it applies equally to any movement possible e.g. Howell, Barometer, Swiss etc.

And if the Director is convinced that a player deliberately in any way sabotages the prescribed procedure for a replay attempt he should impose a severe procedural penalty on that player (Law 90B8)

[bluejak]

Can we forget deliberate sabotage which is clearly covered by the cited Laws and different auctions ditto. Suppose the pair have possibly unintentionally said something to each other about th board. According to dburn the board cannot be played:

Quote

..., and if they have not discussed board 11 in the interim, and if ..., then they can play board 11. If not, they cannot - but if ...

Under what Law can they not play it?

[jallerton]

Well, what about Law 12A2?

Quote

LAW 12 - DIRECTOR’S DISCRETIONARY POWERS
A. Power to Award an Adjusted Score
On the application of a player within the period established under Law 92B
or on his own initiative the Director may award an adjusted score when
these Laws empower him to do so (in team play see Law 86). This includes:
1. The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws
do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular
type of violation committed by an opponent.
2. The Director awards an artificial adjusted score if no rectification can
be made that will permit normal play of the board (see C2 below).
3. The Director may award an adjusted score if there has been an incorrect
rectification of an irregularity.

In the circumstances you outline, I do not conider "normal play" of the board to be possible.

[pran]

jallerton, on Aug 16 2010, 11:49 PM, said:

Well, what about Law 12A2?

Quote

LAW 12 - DIRECTOR’S DISCRETIONARY POWERS
A. Power to Award an Adjusted Score
On the application of a player within the period established under Law 92B
or on his own initiative the Director may award an adjusted score when
these Laws empower him to do so (in team play see Law 86). This includes:
1. The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws
do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular
type of violation committed by an opponent.
2. The Director awards an artificial adjusted score if no rectification can
be made that will permit normal play of the board (see C2 below).
3. The Director may award an adjusted score if there has been an incorrect
rectification of an irregularity.

In the circumstances you outline, I do not conider "normal play" of the board to be possible.

Neither do I.

And I consider the players who exchanged information to this effect to be at fault.

Whether they did so accidentally or deliberately does not matter once the Director had cancelled their first attempt to play the board and informed them that a replay would take place according to original schedule.

[vigfus]

Law 16C.
E/W can easily talk about their hands any time within those 90 minutes.
I am not saying they will do so, but they have an oppourtunity to do so.
That is why I rule 60% to E/W and 60% to the N/S which can not play the board against the right opp's 90 minutes later.
The sleeping N/S will not get procedural penalty.

[Zelandakh]

bluejak, on Aug 16 2010, 09:32 PM, said:

Suppose the pair have possibly unintentionally said something to each other about th board.

How can you possibly unintentionally say something to your partner about a board you have specifically been told not to discuss David?

[bluejak]

"I am looking forward to playing that board we still have to play."

"We are not allowed to talk about it, remember."

"No, you are right, I forgot."

[VixTD]

vigfus, on Aug 23 2010, 07:11 PM, said:

E/W can easily talk about their hands any time within those 90 minutes.
I am not saying they will do so, but they have an oppourtunity to do so.

There are a number of ways in which EW can affect the outcome of the board without going to the extreme of discussing it. Suppose a complex auction starts and one of the pair finds that they are uncertain of their agreements. They could consult their system notes in the meantime, and even convince themselves that it's OK to do this without informing the director because they are just preparing themselves in case a similar auction occurs on one of the other boards in the intervening 90 minutes. Even just having an extra 90 minutes to think about the hand, which no other pairs will get, could give them an unfair advantage.

[knyblad]

I cannot read law 17D in any other way than that both sides are at fault, because both sides have bid on the cards from the wrong board. This also implies that E-W should have only 40% if they are going to play the board at a later, and the bidding at the new table is different from the first bidding.

Also, some jurisdictions make have additional rules, e.g., in Denmark we must check the bridgemate that we are sitting correctly before playing.

[bluejak]

If you have such a rule, fair enough, though I bet many people do not follow it.

But you really seem a bit harsh on the E/W side. Playing a Mitchell movement, for N/S they only need to do one of the following:

• Either move the boards correctly
  
• or check they are playing the boards in order
  
• or make sure they have not just played the board in the previous round

which hardly seems onerous.

E/W have to check they are the right boards with not necessarily any idea of the pattern. It does not seem totally fair to assume they are just as much as fault.