DozyDom, on 2018-August-01, 16:19, said:
Isn't it N's responsibility to ensure the correct boards are being played/to enter the correct board number in the Bridgemate? That's the way I've always heard it, and it would lead to N/S getting an average minus. In which case it's very convenient for the director that they misrecalled the law.
sanst, on 2018-August-02, 02:53, said:
Where do the laws say so? What would you do if a pair refuses to sit NS because they wouldn’t t take the risk of being punished and EW walking away with no penalty at all or maybe even Avg+? Ahydra is right, it should be Avg-/Avg-.
First off, a pair that refuses to follow the TD's instructions is subject to penalty, up to and including ejection from the event. OTOH, in the clubs around here, subject to NS being reserved for people with disabiities, people can sit wherever they want.
The nearest relevant law is
Quote
Law 7D: Any contestant remaining at a table throughout a session is primarily responsible for maintaining proper conditions of play at the table.
Note: in a pairs game, "contestant" refers to the pair, not just one player. IAC, I don't think I've ever seen a law or regulation specifying who is supposed to enter scores, and who is supposed to validate them. The tradition that North takes care of that, like Topsy, "jest growed".
Along with 7D, there's
Quote
Law 7A: When a board is to be played it is placed in the center of the table where it shall remain, correctly oriented, until play is completed.
When I sit North, I try to remember to put
one board on the table — the one that's to be played — and to keep the other board(s) somewhere that other players (including South) can't get to them. This is how I try to avoid playing the wrong board or any of several other problems that can occur when the boards are all piled up in the middle of the table. Generally, it works well.
In the instant case, or similar, Law 16D2 applies to the play of board 12.
Quote
Law 16D2: If the Director considers that the information would likely interfere with normal play he may, before any call has been made:
(a) adjust the players’ positions at the table, if the type of contest and scoring permit, so that the player with information about one hand will hold that hand;
(b) if the form of competition allows of it order the board redealt for those contestants;
(c.) allow completion of the play of the board standing ready to award an adjusted score if he judges that the extraneous information affected the result;
(d) award an adjusted score (for team play see Law 86B).
In particular, the TD has a choice between 16D2{c} and 16D2{d}; 16D2{a} and {b} are not relevant. In the instant case, it seems clear that the information all four players have may well affect the result. Still I suppose the TD can try to get a valid result. I wouldn't like it; I have sympathy for the position that 16D2{c} should not apply, which leaves 16D2{d} (and we may get to an artificial adjusted score even under 16D2{c}). That takes us to
Quote
Law 12C2{a}: When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained (see also C1{d}), the Director awards an artificial adjusted score according to responsibility for the irregularity:
average minus (at most 40% of the available matchpoints in pairs) to a contestant directly at fault,
average (50% in pairs) to a contestant only partly at fault,
and average plus (at least 60% in pairs) to a contestant in no way at fault.
If someone from the NS pair is responsible for entering the score, and someone from the EW pair is responsible for validating it*, then both contestants are at least partly at fault, so nobody should be getting average plus. It seems to me that ruling that both are directly at fault is reasonable, in which case both would get average minus.
* even if this responsibility is not explicitly stated in law or regulation, the TD can so rule (see Law 80B1).
Help
)