[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2012-November-01, 18:17, said:

I think that the least destructive option is one that does not involve the possibility of cancelling the board.

Four options are given to the director. None of them is "cancel the board".

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2012-November-01, 17:38, said:

If you arrow-switch you are guaranteed a valid result, so it is a better option.

Well, we could argue about "valid", but never mind that.

If arrow-switching is always best, why are the other options in the law?

[aguahombre]

Just a question or two:

Doesn't arrow-switching such as this in a straight Mitchell movement create a variable where the pairs are not playing this hand against the other pairs with which they will be compared at the end of the session?

Do we care?

[sailoranch]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-01, 20:10, said:

Well, we could argue about "valid", but never mind that.

If arrow-switching is always best, why are the other options in the law?

Because you usually don't arrow switch at teams.

[aguahombre]

sailoranch, on 2012-November-01, 21:10, said:

Because you usually don't arrow switch at teams.

Seems as if you could do it about half the time....the half where the board hasn't been played at the other table. Reshuffling on those occasions might not be best at BAM or predupe.

[sailoranch]

aguahombre, on 2012-November-01, 21:16, said:

Seems as if you could do it about half the time....the half where the board hasn't been played at the other table. Reshuffling on those occasions might not be best at BAM or predupe.

Um, I agree?

You still usually don't arrow switch at teams.

[blackshoe]

So the other options are for team games? Why aren't they clearly labelled as such?

[gordontd]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-01, 22:11, said:

So the other options are for team games? Why aren't they clearly labelled as such?

No, the other options are for when this one isn't appropriate.

[sailoranch]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-01, 22:11, said:

So the other options are for team games? Why aren't they clearly labelled as such?

The other options would come in handy in cases where an arrow switch isn't feasible. Say the OP situation occurred at a shuffle and deal team game. If the board hadn't been played yet, the director could just order a redeal. If it was already played at the other table, you can't rotate the hands or reshuffle, so the director would have them play it out or award an artificial score.

Or maybe two players at the table saw the exposed card. Now rotating the hands wouldn't do much good, so the director chooses something else.

Quote

If arrow-switching is always best, why are the other options in the law?

Specifically in the case of one player receiving extraneous information about another player's cards, the other options are available if you're playing a form of the game that doesn't allow for rotating the board. Probably teams.

[pran]

CarlRitner, on 2012-November-01, 18:05, said:

The only player other than south (the owner) to see the Q is now dummy.
So it can (and in this case would have) worked out OK.

Queens are over-rated anyway....

You must make your ruling before the auction begins and without knowing how the auction is likely to develop.

Unless you are fairly confident that premature knowledge of an opponent's card will not interfere with normal play on the board you should apply Law 16C2{a} right away rather than having to subsequently awarding an adjusted score when you discover that the play was affected.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2012-November-01, 20:30, said:

Just a question or two:

Doesn't arrow-switching such as this in a straight Mitchell movement create a variable where the pairs are not playing this hand against the other pairs with which they will be compared at the end of the session?

Do we care?

No, because you make the comparisons with the people who did hold the same cards -- you treat it as a "real" arrow-switch.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-01, 19:22, said:

Four options are given to the director. None of them is "cancel the board".

<sigh> I thought it was clear that this was shorthand for "award an artificial adjusted score".

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2012-November-02, 07:07, said:

No, because you make the comparisons with the people who did hold the same cards -- you treat it as a "real" arrow-switch.

I know the mechanics of it. The question was about whether it is reasonable in a straight Mitchell, where no one else with whom we are being compared for placing at the conclusion of the event played this board with the arrows switched.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2012-November-02, 07:12, said:

<sigh> I thought it was clear that this was shorthand for "award an artificial adjusted score".

Sorry, I didn't realize that was probably what you meant until after I'd gone to bed. Still, that's only one of the four options.

[blackshoe]

gordontd, on 2012-November-02, 01:19, said:

No, the other options are for when this one isn't appropriate.

sailoranch, on 2012-November-02, 01:30, said:

The other options would come in handy in cases where an arrow switch isn't feasible. Say the OP situation occurred at a shuffle and deal team game. If the board hadn't been played yet, the director could just order a redeal. If it was already played at the other table, you can't rotate the hands or reshuffle, so the director would have them play it out or award an artificial score.

Or maybe two players at the table saw the exposed card. Now rotating the hands wouldn't do much good, so the director chooses something else.


Specifically in the case of one player receiving extraneous information about another player's cards, the other options are available if you're playing a form of the game that doesn't allow for rotating the board. Probably teams.

Okay, fair enough I suppose. But there's no indication, other than it's the first one in the list, that arrow switching should be preferred to the other three. Are we supposed to take the list as "first in first out", and prefer the options in the order given? If so, how are we supposed to know that?

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2012-November-02, 08:14, said:

I know the mechanics of it. The question was about whether it is reasonable in a straight Mitchell, where no one else with whom we are being compared for placing at the conclusion of the event played this board with the arrows switched.

I am not sure either, which was shy I originally said that one couldn't arrow-switch in a two-winner game. But people who have much greater knowledge of the underlying mechanics and theories of movements seem to think it is OK, so I tend to believe them.

[gnasher]

People go to a bridge club to play bridge. They want to bid a hand in the normal way, play it in the normal way, and get a score that is computed by comparing their result with the results of other contestants on the same board. Arrow-switching ensures that this is what they get. Any other solution does not.

[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2012-November-02, 09:18, said:

People go to a bridge club to play bridge. They want to bid a hand in the normal way, play it in the normal way, and get a score that is computed by comparing their result with the results of other contestants on the same board. Arrow-switching ensures that this is what they get. Any other solution does not.

This is true, and is why arrow-switching one board is the best practical solution.

Theoretically it does not stand up to scrutiny. Suppose that table (in a two-winner movement) played not one board, but all the boards arrow-switched. Now every pair is in its own distinct line. So instead of a two-winner movement, you will have an x-winner movement, where x is the number of pairs who took part.

[mycroft]

Interesting. "Of course the auction will go 1NT-AP" Well, it won't at my table - or it might not. I played 10-12, 12-14, 14-16, and 15-17 NT at a sectional (different partners, of course, except for the mixed-range Precision day). When we open 1m, the auction could be very different, and the location of the ♠Q could be more important.

We overcall strong NTs white a lot more frequently than most around here, as well - in which case the location of the ♠Q could be vital as well.

Even avoiding that, 1NT all change. Now it's a typical "I hate matchpoints, stupid game" fight for the overtrick, and knowing that part of the 15 high is the ♠Q can't be a *dis*advantage...

Knowing that it was a 3/4 Howell (or Mitchell with arrow-switch), the option to rotate the board seems automatic.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-02, 09:07, said:

Sorry, I didn't realize that was probably what you meant until after I'd gone to bed. Still, that's only one of the four options.

True, but one of the other options might end up that way anyhow. And redealing the board is only applicable if it has not been played before, and is not a very good option in clubs which provide hand records, which I am sure most do.