[barmar]

Last night in an ACBL club game, my partner and I had what seemed to be a normal auction (opponents were silent). When dummy came down, I had to try to figure out the proper play of the card combination ♥Axx opposite ♥Axxx

It turns out that North and West took their cards from one board, while South and East took them from another. It was 3-board rounds, and after we finished the first board, someone flipped the board, two players pulled their cards, then someone else flipped the board again and the other two pulled cards. The director ruled that both boards were unplayable, and scored them as No Play for both pairs.

17D talks about what to do if you discover this error during the auction period: you start the auction over and award artificial adjusted scores if the offender's call differs. But in our case, the auction period had ended when we discovered the error. And there were also two offenders, one from each side.

Did we get the ruling right? No one remembered being the one to do the second flip, so I don't think we could assess a PP to them.

[gordontd]

barmar, on 2011-November-30, 20:45, said:

The director ruled that both boards were unplayable, and scored them as No Play for both pairs.

There's no legal basis for scoring them as NP - point the director towards L12C2 for guidance on how to score it.

NP gives a pair their session score for a missing board - for either pair who scored well, your director has effectively awarded two good scores for being involved in making those boards unplayable. That cannot be correct.

[gnasher]

Quote

there were also two offenders, one from each side

Is that so?

If North put a board on the table, then East or West replaced it with another board, only EW have offended.

If North put a board on the table, then South replaced it with another board, only NS have offended.

If East or West put a board on the table, then North, unaware that they had done this, replaced it with another board, it's not clear that North has done anything wrong. We can't expect him to continuously monitor EW's behaviour in case they're about to break the rules.

[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2011-December-01, 04:09, said:

If North put a board on the table, then East or West replaced it with another board, only EW have offended.

If North put a board on the table, then South replaced it with another board, only NS have offended.

If East or West put a board on the table, then North, unaware that they had done this, replaced it with another board, it's not clear that North has done anything wrong. We can't expect him to continuously monitor EW's behaviour in case they're about to break the rules.

The word "flipped" suggests to me that all the boards were on the table, and the top board was put at the bottom of the pile. Twice.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2011-December-01, 08:03, said:

The word "flipped" suggests to me that all the boards were on the table, and the top board was put at the bottom of the pile. Twice.

That is common practice in North America. Well, not the "twice" part.

[gordontd]

The way I've seen this happen is that the boards are put on the table out of order. Two players take out their hands, then another player sees the boards are not in order and "corrects" them before the two remaining players take out their hands.

This happened in the Tollemache about three years ago when another EBU TD and I were playing at the table.

[blackshoe]

Seen it happen. Probably done it myself. Everyone once in a while I remember to check that all four hands are in the board before I move it.

[bluejak]

Law 17D is not a model of clarity, though has been improved from the last Law book. The board they are playing is cancelled and artificial adjusted scores are given. NP is not an artificial adjusted score so is inappropriate. The TD decides who is at fault and gives Ave, Ave- or Ave+ accordingly. Ave-/Ave- seems quite likely.

He then sees whether the other board is playable - read Law 17D3. However, it probably is not, so the TD does the same again: probably repeating whatever type of Averages he gave on the first board.

[barmar]

gnasher, on 2011-December-01, 04:09, said:

Is that so?

If North put a board on the table, then East or West replaced it with another board, only EW have offended.

If North put a board on the table, then South replaced it with another board, only NS have offended.

If East or West put a board on the table, then North, unaware that they had done this, replaced it with another board, it's not clear that North has done anything wrong. We can't expect him to continuously monitor EW's behaviour in case they're about to break the rules.

The "offense" I was referring to was having cards from the wrong board, not the extra flipping of the boards (we have no idea who did that).

[mycroft]

I think most bridge traditions - especially the "I am North, Lord of the Table" ones - are silly. But this one has a good reason - and the problem the OP has, and the rather draconian penalty (well, "can't play two boards" is draconian, the penalty usually isn't so bad) is it (although usually I see 3-and-1, not 2-and-2). If I am not North, I will not switch the boards, unless I am South and North has explicitly said I'm to do it (I have one or two of those partners), or after a reasonable amount of kvetching time, N/S are *still* arguing about the last hand and not flipping the board as they're supposed to.

Others don't...and I get about one of these a tournament as a result.