[lamford]

At our club weekend tournament, possibly affected by alcohol consumption, a player bid a hand until dummy went down with the cards from board 21, the next board he would play. The other three players bid with cards from board 20. When dummy went down the error was discovered by declarer who had some cards in common with dummy.

With help from bluejak, the director assessed an artificial adjusted score of average plus (60%) to those with the correct cards and 40% to the pair without. The offenders wanted to appeal as
a ) there was an announcement about dinner and a later quiz during the round, distracting the player;
b ) he felt that there should have only been one board, not three, on the table, and that was all four players' responsibility.

The director did not think an appeal against an artificial adjusted score of this type was possible, but I cannot see a reason why not. Law 93B3 is the possible reason, if it is a point of law or regulation.

[WellSpyder]

Does this depend on how short of money the organisers are? I can't see any chance of the appeal winning, so if you are short of money then allow an appeal and keep the money. Otherwise, I hope everyone can save some time by not allowing an appeal....

[McBruce]

A very similar incident happened in Vancouver, at a 0-300 tournament, with a player holding a 12-count with KQTxxxx of spades, hearing 1S on her left, 2C from partner and 3S on her right! She doubled, somehow this was passed out, and when she contributed the KH to the first trick, declarer wondered whether her own king of hearts would prevail.

It seemed to us that with the actual cards she would not have doubled and the auction would end, so we let them play 3S undoubled with the correct cards, which made for 140. On the following hand, does Law 24B apply to the exposed king of hearts? It says "during THE auction period," which surely means the auction period for that hand and not the following one...

[blackshoe]

Players have a right to appeal. So you cannot "disallow" an appeal. Even if it's an appeal on a point of law. In the latter case the reason you cannot disallow it is that the National Authority can overturn a TD's ruling on a point of law, but in order to get there, you have to go through the appeal process locally.

You can advise a potential appellant that appealing would be ill-advised, or would likely result in loss of the deposit, but you can't tell them they cannot appeal.

I have some small (very small) sympathy with point a ). Point b ) is ridiculous.

[mycroft]

The tradition here is that North handles the boards, and while that's a tradition that is more honoured by those people who sit North because they have control issues than otherwise, when people ask me about it, I recommend that only North touches the boards, unless he explicitly abrogates that right to his partner - and E-W shouldn't touch them at all, unless "next board please" hasn't managed to stop the postmortem.

That's because this is a very common occurrence - someone switches the board, and pulls her cards; North finishes scoring, and switches the board without looking and the rest pull their cards. Usually nobody realizes it until someone plays a card that's in dummy... I get maybe two of these a year. They're ugly. Let North change the boards :-)

[lamford]

McBruce, on 2010-November-08, 11:36, said:

<snip> we let them play 3S undoubled with the correct cards<snip>

This looks wrong. Once the doubler's partner passes over the double, it has to be an artificial adjusted score:
17D2 <snip> the Director shall award artificial adjusted scores <snip> if the offender’s partner has subsequently called over the cancelled call.

[axman]

lamford, on 2010-November-08, 10:27, said:

At our club weekend tournament, possibly affected by alcohol consumption, a player bid a hand until dummy went down with the cards from board 21, the next board he would play. The other three players bid with cards from board 20. When dummy went down the error was discovered by declarer who had some cards in common with dummy.

With help from bluejak, the director assessed an artificial adjusted score of average plus (60%) to those with the correct cards and 40% to the pair without. The offenders wanted to appeal as
a ) there was an announcement about dinner and a later quiz during the round, distracting the player;
b ) he felt that there should have only been one board, not three, on the table, and that was all four players' responsibility.

The director did not think an appeal against an artificial adjusted score of this type was possible, but I cannot see a reason why not. Law 93B3 is the possible reason, if it is a point of law or regulation.

The first issue is the board# in play. Just because three hands are from #x and one from #y does not necessarily mean that #y is not the one in play.

L7D provides that a player that remains at the table is responsible for the conditions of play <sic> so <presumably> it is N that puts the board in play- so he needs to be asked.

Once it is determined which board is in play it is obvious who has correct cards and who has incorrect cards.

L17D1 is clear that all calls 'by players holding incorrect hands' are cancelled. It is not particularly clear that the incorrect cards are to be put in their proper pockets before proceeding.

L17D2 appears to presume that such players will extract their cards from the proper board and look at them. Thereafter L17D2 is clear that such players having looked at their now correct hands then call after which the auction proceeds- with the further provision: If offender’s LHO has called over the cancelled call the Director shall award artificial adjusted scores when offender’s substituted call differs* from his cancelled call (offender’s LHO must repeat the previous call) or if the offender’s partner has subsequently called over the cancelled call.

* For example, a substituted call differs if its meaning is much different or if it is psychic.


And then there is the matter of the 'other' board and L17D3.

As for the TD interrupting play unnecessarily he ought to know better; and players ought to know better than do anything during a distraction- improper as it may be , or otherwise.

[bluejak]

axman, on 2010-November-08, 13:31, said:

L7D provides that a player that remains at the table is responsible for the conditions of play <sic> so <presumably> it is N that puts the board in play- so he needs to be asked.

Oh, please. This has been misquoted and explained at least forty times to my knowledge on RGB which you read, axman. You really do not need to misquote it again.

Every time anyone quotes Law 7D they always misquote it, goodness knows why. It is not difficult.

No, Law 7D does not say the stationary pair is responsible for conditions of play. It says he is primarily responsible, which means that the other side is not absolved from any responsibility. And this will continue to be so however many times people misquote this Law.

Furthermore, responsibility is never the same thing as doing something anyway. So there is nothing in the Laws about who puts the board on the table.

I never understand the fuss over this anyway. Whether there is one board one the table or three, only an idiot takes his hand from the wrong board, and then you follow the Laws and do not make a big production of it. People lead out of turn: no-one tries to make a big production to make sure it never happens again: what is the difference?



As for the appeal, there will always be people who are silly. That's life.

[axman]

bluejak, on 2010-November-08, 19:48, said:

Oh, please. This has been misquoted and explained at least forty times to my knowledge on RGB which you read, axman. You really do not need to misquote it again.

Every time anyone quotes Law 7D they always misquote it, goodness knows why. It is not difficult.

No, Law 7D does not say the stationary pair is responsible for conditions of play. It says he is primarily responsible, which means that the other side is not absolved from any responsibility. And this will continue to be so however many times people misquote this Law.

Furthermore, responsibility is never the same thing as doing something anyway. So there is nothing in the Laws about who puts the board on the table.

I never understand the fuss over this anyway. Whether there is one board one the table or three, only an idiot takes his hand from the wrong board, and then you follow the Laws and do not make a big production of it. People lead out of turn: no-one tries to make a big production to make sure it never happens again: what is the difference?



As for the appeal, there will always be people who are silly. That's life.

Fouling two comparisons is not a big deal.
Issuing PP to non offenders is not a big deal.
So, why are you making a big deal?

[bluejak]

Worrying about the number of boards on the table because someone somewhere else made a mistake is a big deal because it upsets a lot of people.

Worrying about who puts the board on the table because someone somewhere else made a mistake is a big deal because it upsets a lot of people.