[Xiaolongnu]

At a club game a week ago my ruling was challenged. I don't see ANY other way that the law could be (mis)interpreted but could you all just please confirm with your views.

In Round 2 of a Hesitation Mitchell, the sitting pair at Table 2, Pair 2 was supposed to play boards 13-16 against pair 5. Neither of them checked the boards and they ended up playing 17 instead. We are in L15 territory. The mistake was discovered after the board was completed with a valid result, 3NT=w, was produced.

A. Players Have Not Previously Played Board

If players play a board not designated for them to play in the current round (but see C):

The Director normally allows the score to stand if none of the four players have previously played the board.

The Director may require both pairs to play the correct board against one another later.

The Director ruled that the result stands, as neither pair has played the board before. According to the movement, 17 was meant to be played 2 against 6 in round 3 and 10 against 5 in round 5. The Director adjusted the score to round 3, NS 3NT=w, EW Ave+, and round 5 NS Ave+ EW 3NT=w. As a matter of equity the Director considered a PP to Pairs 2 and 5, but decided to be lenient and wrote it off.

The Scorer challenged that the result should be a plain Ave+ to NOS and Ave- to OS. He claims that ruling this way would not be fair to the other contestants. The Director explained that this does not do justice to the fact that the result of board 17 2 vs 5 was in fact legal and justified, no doubt against the movement. In layman terms, the Director explained that as a matter of logic, the players may have done it at the wrong place and wrong time, but they did the right thing, and their "effort" should not be "wasted". The Director also quoted the spirit of the law and emphasized that we try to not scrap any boards that could be salvaged or made legal. Finally, the Director explained that giving averages all round was not only slip short, but gives pair 2 an overly bad result (besides the point) while Pair 5 gets an overly good result (the more pressing issue, someone cannot be getting a good result cos he screwed up).

I think another reason why the Scorer was not convinced is that he is not very familiar with the concept of split scores, so it appears that on the score board of 2 vs 6, 2 appears to have a higher MP score than 6, but only because of their own merit in good defence (holding declarer to 9 tricks instead of 11). He also failed to appreciate the fact that it is how much a pair gains, and not how much the other pair loses, that matters in the final result.

Any other points that I ought to bring in to convince him (and his peers) about the ruling?

Edit: Disclaimer, what the Director said to the scorer is not very formal bridge law language, I was just trying to explain in simplified layman terms to help convince him in the logic behind the ruling and that the ruling is "fair". Of course the formal bridge language is stated in L15 and L12 regarding how an innocent side gets Ave+ for the board.

[gordontd]

 Xiaolongnu, on 2012-March-26, 20:38, said:

At a club game a week ago my ruling was challenged. I don't see ANY other way that the law could be (mis)interpreted but could you all just please confirm with your views.

In Round 2 of a Hesitation Mitchell, the sitting pair at Table 2, Pair 2 was supposed to play boards 13-16 against pair 5. Neither of them checked the boards and they ended up playing 17 instead. We are in L15 territory. The mistake was discovered after the board was completed with a valid result, 3NT=w, was produced.

I think you are correct. Since you have both a scorer and a director, the scorer ought to accept that he does not make the rulings.

He might find it easier to score by the following method (if your software allows changes of pair numbers):

Score the board as played by Pair 2 vs 5 - ie on the line for round 3, change the EW pair number to 5.

Then on the line for round 5, change the NS pair number to 10 and enter a score of AV+/AV+ for 10 vs 6.

[pran]

 Xiaolongnu, on 2012-March-26, 20:38, said:

At a club game a week ago my ruling was challenged. I don't see ANY other way that the law could be (mis)interpreted but could you all just please confirm with your views.

In Round 2 of a Hesitation Mitchell, the sitting pair at Table 2, Pair 2 was supposed to play boards 13-16 against pair 5. Neither of them checked the boards and they ended up playing 17 instead. We are in L15 territory. The mistake was discovered after the board was completed with a valid result, 3NT=w, was produced.

A. Players Have Not Previously Played Board

If players play a board not designated for them to play in the current round (but see C):

The Director normally allows the score to stand if none of the four players have previously played the board.

The Director may require both pairs to play the correct board against one another later.

The Director ruled that the result stands, as neither pair has played the board before. According to the movement, 17 was meant to be played 2 against 6 in round 3 and 10 against 5 in round 5. The Director adjusted the score to round 3, NS 3NT=w, EW Ave+, and round 5 NS Ave+ EW 3NT=w. As a matter of equity the Director considered a PP to Pairs 2 and 5, but decided to be lenient and wrote it off.

The Scorer challenged that the result should be a plain Ave+ to NOS and Ave- to OS. He claims that ruling this way would not be fair to the other contestants. The Director explained that this does not do justice to the fact that the result of board 17 2 vs 5 was in fact legal and justified, no doubt against the movement. In layman terms, the Director explained that as a matter of logic, the players may have done it at the wrong place and wrong time, but they did the right thing, and their "effort" should not be "wasted". The Director also quoted the spirit of the law and emphasized that we try to not scrap any boards that could be salvaged or made legal. Finally, the Director explained that giving averages all round was not only slip short, but gives pair 2 an overly bad result (besides the point) while Pair 5 gets an overly good result (the more pressing issue, someone cannot be getting a good result cos he screwed up).

I think another reason why the Scorer was not convinced is that he is not very familiar with the concept of split scores, so it appears that on the score board of 2 vs 6, 2 appears to have a higher MP score than 6, but only because of their own merit in good defence (holding declarer to 9 tricks instead of 11). He also failed to appreciate the fact that it is how much a pair gains, and not how much the other pair loses, that matters in the final result.

Any other points that I ought to bring in to convince him (and his peers) about the ruling?

Edit: Disclaimer, what the Director said to the scorer is not very formal bridge law language, I was just trying to explain in simplified layman terms to help convince him in the logic behind the ruling and that the ruling is "fair". Of course the formal bridge language is stated in L15 and L12 regarding how an innocent side gets Ave+ for the board.

You must have overlooked

Law 15B said:

If any player plays a board he has previously played, with the correct opponents or otherwise, his second score on the board is cancelled both for his side and his opponents, and the Director shall award an artificial adjusted score to the contestants deprived of the opportunity to earn a valid score.

(my enhancement)
The correct scores on board 17 are:
2-5 : 3NT=w
10-6 : A+ A+

If 2 and 5 fail to play one of their scheduled boards (13-16) due to lack of time the correct scores on that board are A- A-

Otherwise you might consider awarding a PP of 10% to each of pairs 2 and 5 but I would as well normally let that be.

regards

[gordontd]

 pran, on 2012-March-27, 02:49, said:

You must have overlooked
(my enhancement)

I don't think he overlooked it: it just doesn't apply to the given circumstances.

[pran]

 gordontd, on 2012-March-27, 03:07, said:

I don't think he overlooked it: it just doesn't apply to the given circumstances.

Oh certainly it does!
When eventually pairs 2 and 5 respectively are scheduled to play board 17 they have already played it, so regardless of what they do any result they can possibly obtain on that board the second time will be cancelled for both them and their respective opponents (i.e. pairs 10 and 6), and artificial adjusted scores shall be awarded.

The only possible alternative (if the nature of the event allows it, neither pair 10 nor pair 6 can have any knowledge about cards or results on board 17, and both pairs agree to it) is for pairs 10 and 6 to meet and play board 17 between them during a break or after normal completion of the event.

Awarding pair 6 a score as if the board had been played with them against pair 2 and awarding pair 10 a score as if the board had been played with them against pair 5 exactly the same way as it was originally played between pairs 2 and 5 has no basis in the laws. There is no way a result can legally be obtained without playing the board or when one (or both) pair(s) has already played the board.

[Lanor Fow]

I'm confused. You're quoting a law that applies (at least the way i'm reaing it) when a board is played twice by the same pair. This didn't happen here (if i read OP correctly) as the director was on the ball enough to stop it being played the second time. As such we don't have a second score to cancel, we jsut have one score, and 2 artificially assigned results (which I agree with). I can't see why we are trying to apply 15B.

Where am I going wrong?

[gordontd]

 Lanor Fow, on 2012-March-27, 06:15, said:

I'm confused. You're quoting a law that applies (at least the way i'm reaing it) when a board is played twice by the same pair. This didn't happen here (if i read OP correctly) as the director was on the ball enough to stop it being played the second time. As such we don't have a second score to cancel, we jsut have one score, and 2 artificially assigned results (which I agree with). I can't see why we are trying to apply 15B.

Where am I going wrong?

You aren't. Someone else is.

[gordontd]

 pran, on 2012-March-27, 05:21, said:

Oh certainly it does!
When eventually pairs 2 and 5 respectively are scheduled to play board 17 they have already played it, so regardless of what they do any result they can possibly obtain on that board the second time will be cancelled for both them

They know this, so they won't play it, and there won't be another result to cancel. Hence L15B doesn't apply.

[pran]

 gordontd, on 2012-March-27, 08:36, said:

They know this, so they won't play it, and there won't be another result to cancel. Hence L15B doesn't apply.

But Law 12C1 does, with the same result as if Law 15B had become applicable (unless pair 10 and 6 can manage to play board 17 between them and obtain a legal result at some free time).

If they do not play the board in a legal fashion they must be given A+.

[Xiaolongnu]

Chill guys. I totally understand the whole picture.

The score of 2 vs 5 stands as it is the first time they played the board. Clearly, 2 and 5 both must not play the board "again" during their rightful "time slot" but instead their result against each other stands and the opps get Ave+. This was what I understood L15 to mean, and after clarification, I see that I am right. I only brought this up because my scorer wanted to dispute that the rightful result of 2 vs 5 should be scrapped and given Ave- instead.

The Director, me, was just wondering whether the 2 vs 5 result could be salvaged by the spirit of the law and not waste the effort of the players in playing the board.

[bluejak]

As a matter of Law the result of the board as played stands. It is only cancelled if for some reason it is impossible to give these scores to the two sides. Offhand, I cannot think of a reason.

As a matter of Law, the decision as to what to do on this board is the Director's.

Therefore the Scorer was wrong on two counts: first, his suggestion was against the Laws, and second, it was not his business.

pran, it is time you re-read the OP: he ruled as you suggested, of course.

[pran]

 bluejak, on 2012-March-27, 18:27, said:

As a matter of Law the result of the board as played stands. It is only cancelled if for some reason it is impossible to give these scores to the two sides. Offhand, I cannot think of a reason.

As a matter of Law, the decision as to what to do on this board is the Director's.

Therefore the Scorer was wrong on two counts: first, his suggestion was against the Laws, and second, it was not his business.

pran, it is time you re-read the OP: he ruled as you suggested, of course.

I had trouble understanding exactly what he had ruled so I showed the correct ruling explicitly.

Actually it seemed to me as if he ruled two sets of split scores with 2 meeting 6 at one table and 5 meeting 10 at the other which is technically incorrect. However, the final result would probably be the same in this particular situation (as far as I can see)?

[Xiaolongnu]

Well I shall confess to the sin of not knowing my Pairs Scorer well enough, thanks for the tip. So I did it manually in an equivalent way. Thanks seniors.