[kenberg]

Having belatedly explored the rules, I now see that rule 15 covers this.
At the club yesterday the following happened:I am declaring 2H. LHO led the Q of clubs, everyone followed, I won with the A, and led a heart from hand.
At this point LHO realized that he had taken his cards from the wrong board.
We summoned the director.
She had him put his hand back where it belonged and take out the correct hand.
As it happened, the correct hand for my Lho also had the club Q.
She had him lead the club Q and we went on.
As it turned out, they could have held me to 9 tricks, and there is no way to hold me to 8, whether or not the club Q was led at trick one. In fact I made ten tricks.

I assume that the above solution is not the one the laws stipulate but we were all fine with it. Especially me, since +170 was a top. All four of us at the table like to win but we also have a sense of humor.
So I am curious as to just what the law is.
PS It was a four board round and the hand he first pulled was from a hand we had already played, so there was no problem with that. Lho is a pretty decent player, he was just having a really bad day!

[helene_t]

I am not really qualified to answer this but is seems to me that, given that he actually had ♣Q, the director solved it correctly except maybe that it was UI to RHO that ♣Q is likely not to be a systematic/normal lead.

It would obviously be worse if he hadn't held ♣Q.

[PrecisionL]

As an ACBL Club Director I would not play the board and award average + to the declaring side and average - to the defending side.

Law 15: WRONG BOARD OR HAND

2. (a) If the offender's partner has subsequently called, the Director shall award an adjusted score.

[pescetom]

PrecisionL, on 2018-June-02, 07:06, said:

As an ACBL Club Director I would not play the board and award average + to the declaring side and average - to the defending side.

Law 15: WRONG BOARD OR HAND

2. (a) If the offender's partner has subsequently called, the Director shall award an adjusted score.

Can we take it for granted that the fault is only of one side?
How did it happen that LHO took his cards from the wrong board while everyone else took their cards from the right board?
Was the right board sitting on the table (as the Laws require) with his cards still in?

[kenberg]

pescetom, on 2018-June-02, 09:02, said:

Can we take it for granted that the fault is only of one side?
How did it happen that LHO took his cards from the wrong board while everyone else took their cards from the right board?
Was the right board sitting on the table (as the Laws require) with his cards still in?

Well, fortunately for me, we were EW and as W I always keep my hands off the boards. Exactly how this came about I cannot explain. If we were all paying attention, it would not have happened. The backs of the cards were a different color, so someone could have noticed.

Bridge is sort of an extension to life, and it seems that if someone takes a hand out of the wrong board then the responsibility lies with him unless there is a clear reason to place it elsewhere. Lho did not try to explain why it was not his error.

But now that I think about it: My partner, in his early 70s, was the youngest guy at the table. My rho, S, does not see very well, and so the table that pass the boards to us pre-sorts the cards in his hands. Somehow the first board (at least) had the N hand sorted instead of the S hand. Rho was struggling with this so I called the director over during this first hand and explained. She took the remaining boards and made sure of the sorting. Then the boards came back. I'm not sure, but my guess is that this prompted the confusion. I can't see exactly how, but that's my best guess.

Both Lho and Rho are quite decent players, but they aren't young anymore. Neither am I. Anyway, somehow things got screwed up.

For whatever amusement it might have, here is what happened on the first board. Rho did his own sorting while the director was getting the S hand on the other boards sorted. Rho got a club in with his spades so he thought he had five spades.My partner opened 1D, Rho overcalled 1S. I had a five card spades suit and modest values. I passed, Lho bid 1NT, rolling back to me and I put partner in 2D on my three card support. Since pard had three spades this led to us playing 2D in a 4-3 fit instead of 2S in a 5-3 fit. Oh well.

So: bad result on the first board, a top on the hand where Lho led the club Q, neither result having much to do with bridge as we think of it.
We all remain on good terms, no problem at all. I was just curious about the ruling. We were all fine with it, but I doubted it was by the book. Simple though, as long as the proper had also had the club Q.
And now that I think of it, even we might have noticed if the club Q was led and one of us had another club Q. So it sort of had to be in the missing hand.

[pescetom]

Thanks for the amusing explanation. I'm not in ACBL-land but I think that under our national regulations this would be considered the fault of all four players, resulting in AVE- / AVE-. Of course a Director would do everything possible to avoid penalising anyone considering the circumstances.

[steve2005]

pescetom, on 2018-June-02, 11:13, said:

Thanks for the amusing explanation. I'm not in ACBL-land but I think that under our national regulations this would be considered the fault of all four players, resulting in AVE- / AVE-. Of course a Director would do everything possible to avoid penalising anyone considering the circumstances.

That can't be right. Next it will be declarer's fault if defender's revoke as he should have asked "no spades opponent".

[blackshoe]

This is

Quote

Law 15A: Cards from Wrong Board
1. A call is cancelled (together with any subsequent call) if it is made by a player holding cards that he has picked up from a wrong board.
2. (a) If the offender’s partner has subsequently called, the Director shall award an adjusted score.

So the director should cancel the board. Then he should determined what happened, and who was at fault. Then if he can find a way to an assigned adjusted score, he does that. If he can't, he awards an artificial adjusted score. I'm not going to speculate on what the adjusted score should be without all the pertinent facts.

[kenberg]

Thanks for the replies. I have been thinking about this a bit. Blackshoe's thoughts seem closest to mine. If I were king, I probably would decide:

EW should not be penalized. While I do try to keep an opponent from bidding out of turn if I see his/her hand move toward the bidding box, this is not my responsibility if s/he is too quick or I don't notice. Similarly, if s/he pulls the cards from the wrong slot, that's his/her responsibility. At the table, my Lho seemed to think the same way. He had no problem accepting responsibility for his error.

EW should also not gain. The natural lead at T1 from the N hand was a spade after which they get four easy tricks. After the forced club lead they can still hold me to 9 tricks but, as it happened, the opponents clubs were 3-3, I had 4, and they cashed their clubs establishing my long club. Probably they should have seen this coming, but on an opening spade lead there would have been nothing to think about. So I got an undeserved top by doing absolutely nothing clever.

This was a 24 board session scored at mps. It seems reasonable that my percentage should be based on the other 23 boards. No reason for my top to stand, no reason for an Ave+ or an Ave, and I certainly don't see why I should get an Ave-. Just compute my score on the other 23 boards.

For NS, I imagine there should be some sort of penalty. No need to get out the whip, but he fouled a board and I imagine there should be a penalty for that. This could be a universal thing: If a player, unintentionally, fouls a board so that it cannot reasonably be played, then there should be a penalty. No need to get into details of just what the error was. Fouling a board leads to a penalty, the fact that it was clearly unintended is reason to make it a light penalty.

All four of us think of ourselves as competent, playing in an afternoon club game for the pleasure of it. But competition is competition so we need rules to cover errors. What I am suggesting, and I understand Blackshoe to be thinking similarly, seems right.

As a practical matter, I always just let the director handle it. I came to play, not to engage in a legal debate. But this was an interesting situation so I thought I would post it.

[pescetom]

We all have our wish lists, but the Laws say something about the situation and the national regulations say more.

In particular, LAW 7 - CONTROL OF BOARD AND CARDS - says:

A. Placement of Board
When a board is to be played it is placed in the centre of the table where it shall remain, correctly oriented, until play is completed.
B. Removal of Cards from Board
1. Each player takes a hand from the pocket corresponding to his compass position.

If that had been followed, then the error would probably not have happened and would in any case have been evident to all, in the form of a hand remaining in the board.

It also says:

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

Which I take to mean that he shares responsibility for any error in the control of boards with the other three at the table.
My RA interprets it the same way, ACBL maybe not.

[blackshoe]

Well, you made some assumptions I declined to make, and the director's concern in determining an assigned adjusted score is what might have happened at this table, not what happened at others.

[VixTD]

kenberg, on 2018-June-03, 06:13, said:

This was a 24 board session scored at mps. It seems reasonable that my percentage should be based on the other 23 boards. No reason for my top to stand, no reason for an Ave+ or an Ave, and I certainly don't see why I should get an Ave-. Just compute my score on the other 23 boards.

For NS, I imagine there should be some sort of penalty. No need to get out the whip, but he fouled a board and I imagine there should be a penalty for that. This could be a universal thing: If a player, unintentionally, fouls a board so that it cannot reasonably be played, then there should be a penalty. No need to get into details of just what the error was. Fouling a board leads to a penalty, the fact that it was clearly unintended is reason to make it a light penalty.

It looks as if you are angling for an ever-popular but unlawful "no play" ruling.

It would be hard to persuade me that someone playing a board with cards from the wrong board is not primarily at fault, so they should normally get Av-. The other side should get Av+ if they are non-offending. If the TD thought that the offending side were so bamboozled by other people swapping the boards around that they were only "partially at fault"*, they could award Av / Av+, or if EW had been complicit in causing the confusion (perhaps by taking a board from the people sorting the cards and placing it on the table while the other side were withdrawing their cards), Av- / Av, or Av / Av.

*To decide if someone is "partially at fault" I apply the test that if someone didn't directly cause the problem but could have avoided it by taking better care to follow the regulations or correct procedure, e.g. checking that the hands were withdrawn from the same board or noticing that the board in the middle of the table still has cards in the pocket, they are "partially at fault".

[kenberg]

VixTD, on 2018-June-04, 06:49, said:

It looks as if you are angling for an ever-popular but unlawful "no play" ruling.

It would be hard to persuade me that someone playing a board with cards from the wrong board is not primarily at fault, so they should normally get Av-. The other side should get Av+ if they are non-offending. If the TD thought that the offending side were so bamboozled by other people swapping the boards around that they were only "partially at fault"*, they could award Av / Av+, or if EW had been complicit in causing the confusion (perhaps by taking a board from the people sorting the cards and placing it on the table while the other side were withdrawing their cards), Av- / Av, or Av / Av.

*To decide if someone is "partially at fault" I apply the test that if someone didn't directly cause the problem but could have avoided it by taking better care to follow the regulations or correct procedure, e.g. checking that the hands were withdrawn from the same board or noticing that the board in the middle of the table still has cards in the pocket, they are "partially at fault".

There is always a mix of law/wishes. I had not previously encountered the problem, I doubt it happens frequently, and no doubt the fact that on the first board the cards had not been pre-sorted for the player who needed this contributed to the problem. There was some confusion, the director had taken the other boards to check if the S hands were sorted. Also the NS pair have problems that often slow things down so the round started late, we were trying to finish on time, etc etc.

So I found it interesting and I was/am curious as to just what the law is.So I posted.
After a few replies I thanked posters. But I had been thinking abut it and so I also said a few words about how I would like to see it go if someone gave me the power to write the rules as I think best. Indeed, I think computing my session result on the other 23 boards makes the most sense to me.
I recognize this is simply my preference, not a legal argument.
As to legalities. Again, I appreciate the replies. I am not certain the answer is unambiguous.

pescetom quotes one rule "Each player takes a hand from the pocket corresponding to his compass position.". Ok, I did that, my Lho did not. So far, I don't see I am legally wrong. But then there is"Any contestant remaining at a table throughout a session is primarily responsible for maintaining proper conditions of play at the table."I don't see this as clear cut as pescetom does. I am not sure what "primarily responsible", as a variant of "responsible" means. I usually think that my primary responsibility is for my own actions. Whether it is bridge or anything else in life it just seems best if our primary responsibility is for our own actions.

pescetom notes that we all have wishes, but there are laws. True enough, but I would add that there are also interpretations of laws. That's what keeps lawyers in business.
Anyway, I got a top so self-interst is just fine with that. But it was an undeserved top.

I think we so far lack a response that says "I had this occur when I was directing, I made the following ruling, the players contested my ruling, and my ruling was accepted/overturned at a high level". You and PrecisionL favor ave+/- unless there were extenuating circumstances, and my guess is that this is what would stand up to scrutiny in the ACBL. But I am not sure.

Mostly, I just saw it as a weird situation and thought I would put it up. Presumably this would not happen in the Bermuda Bowl.

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2018-June-04, 08:41, said:

But then there is"Any contestant remaining at a table throughout a session is primarily responsible for maintaining proper conditions of play at the table."I don't see this as clear cut as pescetom does. I am not sure what "primarily responsible", as a variant of "responsible" means. I usually think that my primary responsibility is for my own actions. Whether it is bridge or anything else in life it just seems best if our primary responsibility is for our own actions.

This is generally interpreted as meaning that the stationary pair is responsible for moving boards, checking that the correct opponents have arrived, ensuring that the boards are pointing in the correct direction, things like this. I've never before heard anyone suggest that they're responsible for the opponents following correct procedure.

In my experience, the most common reason for someone taking cards from the wrong board is that he assumed the boards had already been flipped to the next one, and pulled his hand out. Whenver I've seen this happen, someone notices and says "That's the board we just played", the hand is put back, the board is flipped and we go on. I can't recall it ever getting to the point of players bidding with cards from different boards, but I'm sure it happens every once in a while. If it's a moving player that commits the infraction, would you really fault the stationary pair for not flipping the board quickly enough to prevent it?

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2018-June-04, 08:52, said:

In my experience, the most common reason for someone taking cards from the wrong board is that he assumed the boards had already been flipped to the next one, and pulled his hand out. Whenver I've seen this happen, someone notices and says "That's the board we just played", the hand is put back, the board is flipped and we go on. I can't recall it ever getting to the point of players bidding with cards from different boards, but I'm sure it happens every once in a while. If it's a moving player that commits the infraction, would you really fault the stationary pair for not flipping the board quickly enough to prevent it?

The best way to prevent this, it seems to me, is for North to place only the board currently in play on the table, putting the other boards somewhere else until needed. But people (including me) rarely do that.

[axman]

kenberg, on 2018-June-02, 10:32, said:

Well, fortunately for me, we were EW and as W I always keep my hands off the boards. Exactly how this came about I cannot explain. If we were all paying attention, it would not have happened. The backs of the cards were a different color, so someone could have noticed.

Bridge is sort of an extension to life, and it seems that if someone takes a hand out of the wrong board then the responsibility lies with him unless there is a clear reason to place it elsewhere. Lho did not try to explain why it was not his error.

But now that I think about it: My partner, in his early 70s, was the youngest guy at the table. My rho, S, does not see very well, and so the table that pass the boards to us pre-sorts the cards in his hands. Somehow the first board (at least) had the N hand sorted instead of the S hand. Rho was struggling with this so I called the director over during this first hand and explained. She took the remaining boards and made sure of the sorting. Then the boards came back. I'm not sure, but my guess is that this prompted the confusion. I can't see exactly how, but that's my best guess.

Both Lho and Rho are quite decent players, but they aren't young anymore. Neither am I. Anyway, somehow things got screwed up.

For whatever amusement it might have, here is what happened on the first board. Rho did his own sorting while the director was getting the S hand on the other boards sorted. Rho got a club in with his spades so he thought he had five spades.My partner opened 1D, Rho overcalled 1S. I had a five card spades suit and modest values. I passed, Lho bid 1NT, rolling back to me and I put partner in 2D on my three card support. Since pard had three spades this led to us playing 2D in a 4-3 fit instead of 2S in a 5-3 fit. Oh well.

So: bad result on the first board, a top on the hand where Lho led the club Q, neither result having much to do with bridge as we think of it.
We all remain on good terms, no problem at all. I was just curious about the ruling. We were all fine with it, but I doubted it was by the book. Simple though, as long as the proper had also had the club Q.
And now that I think of it, even we might have noticed if the club Q was led and one of us had another club Q. So it sort of had to be in the missing hand.

Consider:

F. Hand from the Wrong Board: If it is discovered that a contestant’s hand is not from the current board the error is corrected. If he had made no call then play proceeds normally. However, if he had made a call based on the hand from the wrong board
1. No Subsequent Call: if there was no subsequent call, the director shall cancel the call and the auction shall continue normally from that point. Further, the board of the incorrect hand will be unplayable for these contestants that are scheduled to play it later.
2. Subsequent Call: and there was a subsequent call, the board of the incorrect hand will be unplayable for these contestants that are scheduled to play it later; the director shall ensure that the proper hand is in play
a. Board Playable: and provided that no card had been played from the hand, the auction and play shall continue. However, if a card had been played from the hand
1. with no subsequent play then offender contributes a card and play continues normally; (or)
2. with subsequent play not beyond the first trick, then offender plays from the correct hand (and if different from the withdrawn card the opponents may correct their play in accordance with L47E) and then play continues normally.
3. where there was play subsequent the first trick offender substitutes the same card from the correct hand for each withdrawn card and play continues normally (but if unable to do so see L13F2b).
b. Board Unplayable: and if a card from the incorrect hand had been played such that it cannot be played from the correct hand the board is unplayable for these contestants.


The subject TD's ruling comports with the F2a3 but does not comport with the WBF:


LAW 15 - WRONG BOARD OR HAND
A. Cards from Wrong Board
1. A call is cancelled (together with any subsequent call) if it is made by a player
holding cards that he has picked up from a wrong board.
2. (a) If the offender’s partner has subsequently called, the Director shall award an
adjusted score.


Where L15A1 requires that player's calls be cancelled and L15A2a an adjusted score <artificial as the board is unplayable>.

[kenberg]

Yep! Indeed the director's response seems to match exactly what F2a3 (oops, my error, I was going with the last law referenced above, and I thought there was a part 3 following the a. At any rate, I understood it as saying the director did exactly right.) says. I'm impressed. I like her both personally and as a director but I was thinking she just saw the situation as something to get through as quickly as possible and so "We will do this" was spontaneous. This is a club game and if she was not up for seeing that this was in contradiction to WBF laws I am fine with that!

[blackshoe]

F? What law is this?

[VixTD]

kenberg, on 2018-June-04, 08:41, said:

I think we so far lack a response that says "I had this occur when I was directing, I made the following ruling, the players contested my ruling, and my ruling was accepted/overturned at a high level". You and PrecisionL favor ave+/- unless there were extenuating circumstances, and my guess is that this is what would stand up to scrutiny in the ACBL. But I am not sure.

I direct a lot in the EBU, in clubs and regional and national tournaments, and this has happened a few times while I've been directing. I can assure you the correct ruling is to apply law 15A and assign Av, Av+ or Av- as the director apportions the blame. There's never been any need for appeals to a higher authority in my experience, because the law is so clear, but I suppose it will have happened somewhere.

[pescetom]

kenberg, on 2018-June-04, 08:41, said:

pescetom quotes one rule "Each player takes a hand from the pocket corresponding to his compass position.". Ok, I did that, my Lho did not. So far, I don't see I am legally wrong.

You are quoting me (and hence the Law) rather selectively here. The rule you mentioned is directly preceded by "When a board is to be played it is placed in the centre of the table where it shall remain, correctly oriented, until play is completed."
Had you followed both rules in sequence, as intended, then it would be difficult for the error to occur and easy for all four of you to notice the consequences (board at centre of table with a hand in a pocket).

kenberg, on 2018-June-04, 08:41, said:

But then there is"Any contestant remaining at a table throughout a session is primarily responsible for maintaining proper conditions of play at the table."I don't see this as clear cut as pescetom does. I am not sure what "primarily responsible", as a variant of "responsible" means. I usually think that my primary responsibility is for my own actions.

I don't see that as particularly clear cut, quite the contrary; that's why I cited the interpretation of my RA rather than my own. My RA interpreted it that way (all four players share the responsibility for mishaps even if only one line is responsible for actually handling the boards) when ruling on a case of wrong board played, but I assume it would extend to this situation too.