[Chris L]

---

This board, played privately last night, was the last of a 24 board teams of 4 match in the EBU's NICKO Plate (a "consolation" event for those unfortunate or incompetent enough to get knocked out in the first round of their popular National Inter-Club KO competition - needless to say, I wasn't playing for our team when that happened and nor was my partner). You may find it hard to believe when you read what follows but all eight players were experienced tournament players.

The bidding in my room, where the board was the last of the six played after the compulsory change of opponents after 12 boards, was as shown. There was no defence to 5D and that was 400 to the oppo. We then played boards 13-18 and knocked on the door of the other room to see how they were getting on. "Two to play" was the reply (ie boards 23 & 24). After quite a short time, they emerged from the room. I said "that was quick for two boards" and someone said something like "we couldn't play board 24 as it was misboarded in your room so we've agreed that board is void". We then scored up and my team, ignoring board 24, had won by 6 IMPs.

At this point the oppo said they thought that board 24 ought to be re-dealt and played. I was fairly sure that was no longer possible but no one had a Laws book. The conditions of contest provided that in those circumstances, if we were unable to agree on an outcome, we should telephone one of the EBU Panel of TD's for a ruling.

The problem was that, after the board had been played in our room, one of East's (my partner's) cards somehow found its way into declarer's hand: I still can't think how. When the board was replayed, South counted her cards face down and arrived at 13; she then looked at them. The bidding then started 1♥-1♠, as in our room. At this point East, who had been a bit slow to count his cards, counted them face down and said "I've only got 12 cards". Everyone else recounted theirs and South found a 14th card in her hand. Because she had looked at her hand, the players came to the (possibly erroneous - see Law 13A) conclusion that it was no longer possible to play the hand and at that point agreed that the board should be void. Nothing was said at that stage about dealing and playing a replacement.

There would seem to have been breaches of Laws 7 B 2 & 3. Law 13 B would seem to be in point; Law 86 C precludes the play of a substitute board. The TD we consulted came to the same conclusion and ruled that any procedural penalties of 3 IMPs would cancel one another out as both sides were at fault (not that an "unbalanced" 3 IMPs would have made any difference). I agree with the TD but then I would, wouldn't I. Anyone think he got it wrong?

[gordontd]

Chris L, on 2011-March-17, 02:29, said:

The TD we consulted came to the same conclusion and ruled that any procedural penalties of 3 IMPs would cancel one another out as both sides were at fault (not that an "unbalanced" 3 IMPs would have made any difference). I agree with the TD but then I would, wouldn't I. Anyone think he got it wrong?

It's usual to consider the player who failed to (accurately) count their hand as being at fault. Had South counted correctly, the board would not have been unplayable.

[PeterAlan]

If only W and N have called, isn't it Law 13D that's in point?

[gordontd]

The other law that might be relevant (depending on what the hands where, and whether 5♦ was a normal result or an exceptional one) is L86D.

[gordontd]

PeterAlan, on 2011-March-17, 03:34, said:

If only W and N have called, isn't it Law 13D that's in point?

13D2b?

[gnasher]

I think that:

(1) South in the other room was mainly at fault, and should have received a procedural penalty. See White Book 7.1.

(2) The director should have considered whether to assign a score under Law 86D. If the result in your room favoured NS, they should still get their swing.

(3) Players shouldn't make their own rulings

(4) If they do, someone should make sure that the ruling is clear and has been agreed by both sides. When "someone" said "we've agreed that board is void", the two captains should have got together to confirm that this was what they were going to do.

(5) If both sides had agreed to abandon the board and not replace it, and then the people who lost the match decided to revisit the decision, that's pretty shocking.

[Chris L]

Thank you all for the comments so far. Law 13 D 2 (b) would certainly have been relevant had the "director" been called immediately. Certainly South was at fault.

This incident is a good example of why players shouldn't make their own rulings; had anyone from my room been summoned as soon as the incorrect number of cards in the S and E hands had been identified, it might have been possible for the board to have been played - we never discovered which card it was that was in South's hand rather than East's.

The TD may well have considered Law 86D; he was called by our captain and I didn't hear the whole of the conversation nor the whole of the reply. 5♦ was a fairly normal result which I am reasonably sure would have been reached by our NS pair, who are not shy in the bidding. At worst they would have taken 300 from 4♥X.

It was certainly the case (or so it appeared to me) that all four players in the room in which the board was not played concurred in the decision to void the board. There was certainly no suggestion at that stage that the board should be replayed. Maybe EW thought they had a good enough card not to worry; we were 3 IMPs up after 12 boards and they had bid and made a very thin game and team-mates had missed a 50% slam (which proved to be worth 21 IMPs). Unfortunately their team-mates had gone two off in a pretty ludicrous 6♣ when our pair played in a normal 3NT and their EW pair had let through a no play vulnerable 3NT on a hand on which we held 2♣ to 8 tricks.

[RMB1]

gordontd, on 2011-March-17, 03:35, said:

The other law that might be relevant (depending on what the hands where, and whether 5♦ was a normal result or an exceptional one) is L86D.

The two TDs who consulted on the ruling dismissed Law 86D. We considered both sides as offending* and discussions of Law 86D last year have lead us to the conclusion that we should only try to apply it when there is one offending side (and one non-offending side).

*one side for returning the wrong cards to the board, the other side for miscounting.

[axman]

Chris L, on 2011-March-17, 02:29, said:

---

This board, played privately last night, was the last of a 24 board teams of 4 match in the EBU's NICKO Plate (a "consolation" event for those unfortunate or incompetent enough to get knocked out in the first round of their popular National Inter-Club KO competition - needless to say, I wasn't playing for our team when that happened and nor was my partner). You may find it hard to believe when you read what follows but all eight players were experienced tournament players.

The bidding in my room, where the board was the last of the six played after the compulsory change of opponents after 12 boards, was as shown. There was no defence to 5D and that was 400 to the oppo. We then played boards 13-18 and knocked on the door of the other room to see how they were getting on. "Two to play" was the reply (ie boards 23 & 24). After quite a short time, they emerged from the room. I said "that was quick for two boards" and someone said something like "we couldn't play board 24 as it was misboarded in your room so we've agreed that board is void". We then scored up and my team, ignoring board 24, had won by 6 IMPs.

At this point the oppo said they thought that board 24 ought to be re-dealt and played. I was fairly sure that was no longer possible but no one had a Laws book. The conditions of contest provided that in those circumstances, if we were unable to agree on an outcome, we should telephone one of the EBU Panel of TD's for a ruling.

The problem was that, after the board had been played in our room, one of East's (my partner's) cards somehow found its way into declarer's hand: I still can't think how. When the board was replayed, South counted her cards face down and arrived at 13; she then looked at them. The bidding then started 1♥-1♠, as in our room. At this point East, who had been a bit slow to count his cards, counted them face down and said "I've only got 12 cards". Everyone else recounted theirs and South found a 14th card in her hand. Because she had looked at her hand, the players came to the (possibly erroneous - see Law 13A) conclusion that it was no longer possible to play the hand and at that point agreed that the board should be void. Nothing was said at that stage about dealing and playing a replacement.

There would seem to have been breaches of Laws 7 B 2 & 3. Law 13 B would seem to be in point; Law 86 C precludes the play of a substitute board. The TD we consulted came to the same conclusion and ruled that any procedural penalties of 3 IMPs would cancel one another out as both sides were at fault (not that an "unbalanced" 3 IMPs would have made any difference). I agree with the TD but then I would, wouldn't I. Anyone think he got it wrong?

Speed bidding [starting and continuing an auction prior to all players being ready] is an act of stupidity. Firstly, far from saving time it usually adds a minute to a board and often quite a bit more- since it gives more things [UI] of a more difficult nature for the other players to think about before they are ready to play. Then there is what happened here- failure to call the TD for too many cards prior to inspecting cards/starting the auction. And not to be left out, speed bidding is an act [which is a breach of propriety] of intimidation.

I’ll point out that besides the inadvertent mistake of players returning incorrect cards to the board, or players intentionally putting cards into the board incorrectly, there are other reasons that explain cards in the wrong pockets- while being transported a card drops from the pocket and the conveyor is the one that does not return it to the correct pocket.

[gordontd]

RMB1, on 2011-March-17, 08:10, said:

The two TDs who consulted on the ruling dismissed Law 86D. We considered both sides as offending* and discussions of Law 86D last year have lead us to the conclusion that we should only try to apply it when there is one offending side (and one non-offending side).

*one side for returning the wrong cards to the board, the other side for miscounting.

Do you take the view that WB 7.1 is only relevant to the matter of PPs, not to artificial assigned scores?

[gnasher]

gordontd, on 2011-March-17, 09:11, said:

Do you take the view that WB 7.1 is only relevant to the matter of PPs, not to artificial assigned scores?

You didn't ask my view, but I think the answer is clear: WB 7.1 is about what penalties should be applied, not about who is non-offending. If one South misboarded and the other miscounted his cards, both are offending. Also, if both sides agreed to rule that the board was unplayable when it wasn't, both sides are offending.

There are two other relevant bits of the White Book:
- WB 12.6 gives some examples of situations where you might apply 86D. Annoyingly, none of them cover this situation, even though it's probably the most common such situation.
- WB 86.1 mentions that you can make an 86D adjustment even in favour of an offending side, but then says that it's not clear when or whether you should, so "A TD or AC who only applies this Law to benefit a non-offending side cannot be criticised."

I'm glad I'm not a TD seeking guidance.

[gordontd]

gnasher, on 2011-March-17, 09:25, said:

You didn't ask my view, but I think the answer is clear: WB 7.1 is about what penalties should be applied, not about who is non-offending.

And yet I think this is the basis for the standard practice of scoring an unplayable misboarded hand as AV+/AV-.

WB7.1 does also include the phrase "...the recipient, who is required to count his cards, and is considered at fault if he looks at them when the number is wrong", so it does seem to address the question of who is offending.

gnasher, on 2011-March-17, 09:25, said:

If one South misboarded and the other miscounted his cards, both are offending. Also, if both sides agreed to rule that the board was unplayable when it wasn't, both sides are offending.

The latter sentence makes sense, but let's not forget that at the original table both South and East put back hands without the correct number of cards. Only the actions of the South at the second table, in failing to count accurately before looking, made the hand unplayable.

This post has been edited by gordontd: 2011-March-17, 10:37

[blackshoe]

gordontd, on 2011-March-17, 10:31, said:

…let's not forget that at the original table both South and East put back hands without the correct number of cards…

chrisl said:

The problem was that, after the board had been played in our room, one of East's (my partner's) cards somehow found its way into declarer's hand: I still can't think how.

You assume facts not in evidence, gordon. One possible scenario is that both South and East put back their correct hands, but then one of East's cards slid over into the south pocket. I've seen this happen with the duplimate boards that open at the top so the machine can deal the hands into the board.

[gordontd]

blackshoe, on 2011-March-17, 10:43, said:

You assume facts not in evidence, gordon. One possible scenario is that both South and East put back their correct hands, but then one of East's cards slid over into the south pocket. I've seen this happen with the duplimate boards that open at the top so the machine can deal the hands into the board.

This seems unlikely in the extreme, since the East card would have had to skip over the West cards to get to the South hand. However, if this did happen it would mean that no-one at the original table was at fault, and the only player at fault would have been the South player at the second table.

[gnasher]

Putting the wrong number of cards back into the board is a breach of Law 7C. Elsewhere in the White Book (90.4.3) it sets out the penalty for doing this - a warning the first time, and a standard procedural penalty the second.

The player who passed the wrong number of cards is not a non-offender, he's just a less serious offender than the player who looked at the wrong number of cards.

[Chris L]

axman, on 2011-March-17, 08:10, said:

Speed bidding [starting and continuing an auction prior to all players being ready] is an act of stupidity. Firstly, far from saving time it usually adds a minute to a board and often quite a bit more- since it gives more things [UI] of a more difficult nature for the other players to think about before they are ready to play. Then there is what happened here- failure to call the TD for too many cards prior to inspecting cards/starting the auction. And not to be left out, speed bidding is an act [which is a breach of propriety] of intimidation.

I’ll point out that besides the inadvertent mistake of players returning incorrect cards to the board, or players intentionally putting cards into the board incorrectly, there are other reasons that explain cards in the wrong pockets- while being transported a card drops from the pocket and the conveyor is the one that does not return it to the correct pocket.

Not the least of the many sources of amusement generated by this forum is the noise of hobby horses being ridden, closely followed by the utterly cynical willingness of some contributors to believe (on no evidence at all) the worst of fellow bridge players. Did I say anything about "speed bidding" in the OP? I think not. What I wrote was that East had been a bit slow to count his cards - and this in the context of being third in hand.

As to the possible explanations for the original misboard, we were playing with old-style rigid Fleming boards, with impenetrable divisions between the individual pockets.

[Chris L]

gnasher, on 2011-March-17, 10:51, said:

Putting the wrong number of cards back into the board is a breach of Law 7C. Elsewhere in the White Book (90.4.3) it sets out the penalty for doing this - a warning the first time, and a standard procedural penalty the second.

The player who passed the wrong number of cards is not a non-offender, he's just a less serious offender than the player who looked at the wrong number of cards.

No player passed the wrong number of cards. Two players with the right number bid; then the player with 12 cards finally got round to counting his cards and declared that he had only 12.

[RMB1]

Chris L, on 2011-March-17, 12:12, said:

No player passed the wrong number of cards. Two players with the right number bid; then the player with 12 cards finally got round to counting his cards and declared that he had only 12.

I don't understand this.

Did not two players at the table the board was first played put 12/14 cards back in the board?

Was the board in this state passed to the other room?

Did the hand with 14 cards call before the hand with 12 cards found he only had 12?

[Chris L]

RMB1, on 2011-March-17, 12:24, said:

I don't understand this.

Did not two players at the table the board was first played put 12/14 cards back in the board?

Was the board in this state passed to the other room?

Did the hand with 14 cards call before the hand with 12 cards found he only had 12?

As to the first, at the table the board was first played, 12 and 14 cards were put back in the East and South hands respectively. Whether one player (either East or South) was responsible for this or two I have no idea.

We are using "passed" in two different senses; I thought Gnasher was referring to the "call" not in fact made by East before he counted his cards on the second occasion the board was played.

No - before either East or South could call, East discovered he was a card short.

[FrancesHinden]

RMB1, on 2011-March-17, 08:10, said:

The two TDs who consulted on the ruling dismissed Law 86D. We considered both sides as offending* and discussions of Law 86D last year have lead us to the conclusion that we should only try to apply it when there is one offending side (and one non-offending side).

*one side for returning the wrong cards to the board, the other side for miscounting.

I don't understand how you decided both sides are offending for the reason stated.
There seems to be no evidence to show which side was offending in causing East/South to have the wrong number of cards. There seems to be no idea how it actually happened.

Certainly I agree both sides are offending for agreeing that the board was void. If they'd got round to calling for a ruling at that point, it might have turned out to be playable and failing that they could have redealt and played the board again as long as this was before scoring up.

So both sides are at fault for not asking for a ruling at the proper time; as the TD called afterwards I would tell them so and hence that the agreement to cancel the board stands (although I might still apply L86D).