[pescetom]

So it finally happened.

One bugbear of mine, both as player and TD, has always been having one board on the table at once.
When I am TD, everyone knows to place the board(s) not in play on a side table, leaving the board in play correctly oriented on the table.
Of course I am not always TD, and there is not always a side table in other venues.
A pile of boards on the table can hamper visibility, the boards can be played out of order (with or without recognition before entering score), can be positioned inverted giving false indication of dealer and vulnerability, etc.
But the one that was always possible but never happened yet was people extracting hands from different boards.

So the other week in a distant club we bid comfortably to 4♥, opponent tanked and my partner looked at board to check the vulnerability, noticing to her dismay that her card slot was still full on the board in play but empty on the unplayed board below.
Director ?

[jillybean]

This does happen, albeit infrequently. I hope, having different color decks helps.
I assign A- to the player with the wrong deck, A+ to the NOS, for both boards. I can’t recall the Law off the top of my head.

Unlike you, I do not like one board on the table at a time. In NA, it is custom to have 3 boards stacked. We don’t have side tables.
Players passing boards could do better to orient and order them, as could the receiving player and table check before a new board is played.
One less problem when the game goes electronic.

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2025-September-05, 18:27, said:

I assign A- to the player with the wrong deck, A+ to the NOS, for both boards. I can’t recall the Law off the top of my head.

The Director in this case looked at the traveller and hand diagram, saw that 4♥ was the probable contract and simply told my partner to put her cards back and extract the correct cards, the auction so far stands.
He waited until all passed, and then disappeared.

I said nothing, but I liked the solution only a little more than yours

Let's see what others have to say.

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2025-September-05, 18:27, said:

Unlike you, I do not like one board on the table at a time. In NA, it is custom to have 3 boards stacked. We don’t have side tables.

A stack is the mainstream custom in Italy too.
My club has side tables, although the boards not in play still have to fight for space with huge handbags containing all the paraphenalia an Italian woman retains necesssary to play cards for a few hours.
When there are no side tables, I have learned to live with the stack of boards: experience says that it is better than risking on a slippery chair, and placing boards on the floor is considered unacceptable (although grubby cards raise no eyebrows and nobody even glimpses at hand wipe on all tables).

[jillybean]

pescetom, on 2025-September-06, 08:56, said:

A stack is the mainstream custom in Italy too.
My club has side tables, although the boards not in play still have to fight for space with huge handbags containing all the paraphenalia an Italian woman retains necesssary to play cards for a few hours.
When there are no side tables, I have learned to live with the stack of boards: experience says that it is better than risking on a slippery chair, and placing boards on the floor is considered unacceptable (although grubby cards raise no eyebrows and nobody even glimpses at hand wipe on all tables).

Hand wipes? We just lick our fingers, especially those who have lost their finger print and need to moisten their fingers to fan the cards.
It is gross but noone dare say anything.

[mycroft]

Unfortunately this is a common (well, once every couple of years) problem here. Usually down to "LotT taking their usual *forever* to switch the boards, in a round where the opponents arrived slightly late (or they were slightly late) and are trying to catch up, so eventually they get fed up and switch the boards." Now, usually, the LotT freaks out and wastes more time, because 'that's *North's* job'; but the odd time they're too wrapped up in berating their partner over what they did/finding out who went for 1100/pulling their scorecard out from their purse on the floor/... to notice. Doesn't stop them from switching the board and pulling their cards out, though - or not noticing that they haven't played 14 yet.

As a result, I know the Law too well, and it sucks.

Maybe that's an argument for "only one board on the table", but without side tables, never mind encouraging LotT behaviour (because now there's space to stop the pesky opponents from preempting their holy Procedure), it doesn't happen. Plus somehow they never pick up all those boards off the floor every round to pass to the next table (not that they ever pass the boards to the next table if they can whine or cajole their opponents or the director into doing it), and even if they do, they never do it the last round, adding to the directors' chiropractor bills... My problem is that with some boards, it's very difficult to pull my cards out of the board if it's on the table without something underneath it. But also, unlike you, I find that the chance of a board being 180'd is *much higher* if they're put on one at a time, especially these plastic boards which interlock (because they just don't lock if one is backwards), so there's only one opportunity to get it wrong. Granted, for the entire round if they do, but still...

Law 15A said:

Cards from Wrong Board

• A call is cancelled (together with any subsequent call) if it is made by a player holding cards that were picked up from a wrong board.
  
• • a If the offender’s partner has subsequently called, the Director shall award an adjusted score.
    
  • b Otherwise, after looking at the correct hand the offender calls again and the auction continues normally from that point.
    
  • c Law 16C applies to any call withdrawn or cancelled.
  
  
• If the offender subsequently repeats a call on the board from which the cards were mistakenly drawn, the Director may allow that board to be played normally, but the Director shall award an adjusted score when offender’s call differs 3 from the original cancelled call.
  
• A procedural penalty (Law 90) may be assessed in addition to the rectifications above.

So, almost always nobody notices this until dummy comes down and "I also have the ♠A". Which is inevitably 15A2a territory, and Average-whatevers are handed out. Unfortunately, for the next board, we have extraneous information to all players (the player with the wrong cards' bids, sometimes worse if that hand became dummy) and it's usually in "likely interfere with normal play" territory - leading to 16D2c or (usually) d land.

Now, note that "shall award an adjusted score" does not demand an Artificial Adjusted Score (although it strongly implies it: "no result can be obtained"), so if 10-and-exactly-10 tricks shall be taken by anyone who has learned to follow suit, I don't think it's *wrong* to assign 4♥= instead of A/A, especially if both pairs are responsible for making the director's life fun again (and so A+/A- is off the table). But I don't think it's right.

Short answer: "throw out both boards, determine if E-W were at all responsible for the foulup (usually yes, but sometimes South and North "collude" to cause the problem), assign the relevant artificial scores, and send them to the coffee room for an unscheduled sitout. Note: I *guarantee* you that E-W will forget anything they did, even if East is an inveterate "switch the boards" player who will happily tell the director "There's no Law saying North has to" and you know for a fact that that's what actually happened...

[mike777]

What is a side table? Is that some European thingy?

[jillybean]

Side table. or the British version

I guess you have to be from outside USA to know these things

[blackshoe]

At my local, we usually have at least two side tables at each table, unless some )(**&*^_ has stolen them.

"Shall award an adjusted score" means "start with 12A1 and only go to 12A2 if no result can be obtained or you think assigning a score is too hard". In this case, with the auction over, I'd look at the board with four correct hands and see what happens in the contract at which the table arrived. I might go ArtAS anyway, I dunno. I'm really inclined to rule "this whole game is unplayable, everybody go home". ;-)

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2025-September-06, 11:38, said:

Side table

Ours are nowhere near as elegant as the one you linked, unfortunately: they are rather low metal tables with press-in legs (that sometimes drop out when you lift the table), but nevertheless they are flat and do the job of hosting handbags and boards not in play.

[jillybean]

pescetom, on 2025-September-06, 13:01, said:

Ours are nowhere near as elegant as the one you linked, unfortunately: they are rather low metal tables with press-in legs (that sometimes drop out when you lift the table), but nevertheless they are flat and do the job of hosting handbags and boards not in play.

There's many options to create a side table. In NZ, they drink the beer then stand these on end.. It does the job.

[mike777]

This whole side table thing is starting to sound complicated. They did invest money and put up nice, wooden cubby holes in our main club.

For whatever reasons< I can't recall anyone day drinking alcohol at the main club. The other club, closest to me, is in a large church, with young school age kids, so probably frowned upon at that place.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2025-September-06, 09:48, said:

Unfortunately this is a common (well, once every couple of years) problem here. Usually down to "LotT taking their usual *forever* to switch the boards, in a round where the opponents arrived slightly late (or they were slightly late) and are trying to catch up, so eventually they get fed up and switch the boards." Now, usually, the LotT freaks out and wastes more time, because 'that's *North's* job'; but the odd time they're too wrapped up in berating their partner over what they did/finding out who went for 1100/pulling their scorecard out from their purse on the floor/... to notice. Doesn't stop them from switching the board and pulling their cards out, though - or not noticing that they haven't played 14 yet.

...

Maybe that's an argument for "only one board on the table", but without side tables, never mind encouraging LotT behaviour (because now there's space to stop the pesky opponents from preempting their holy Procedure), it doesn't happen. Plus somehow they never pick up all those boards off the floor every round to pass to the next table (not that they ever pass the boards to the next table if they can whine or cajole their opponents or the director into doing it), and even if they do, they never do it the last round, adding to the directors' chiropractor bills...

I can identify all too well with the first part, but not the second.

As a player (when it happens), I am no LotT, quite the contrary: except when mentoring I prefer being EW (if they got the weighting right and are not playing an arrow switch too early) or at least North (in Italy without screens, South runs the table and enters scores).

Nonetheless, my seven or so years of experience with the rule of one board on the table says that nobody yet played the board rotated: I imagine because LotT is now fully empowered and those twitchy opponents have nothing to gain by interfering unless they see something wrong.

I don't remember any problem about not uniting the last played board to the previously played boards either. There are occasional problems about boards not moving at all (in a Mitchell this is an EW task for us, not that it changes much), or more often moving to the wrong table. I often call next round while one or more slow tables are finishing and this can involve my moving one or more boards, maybe forgetting or not managing to do so, but that is rub of the green with a human TD I think.

[pilowsky]

Bridge: the only game where the umpires have more fun than the players.

[pescetom]

pilowsky, on 2025-September-06, 15:29, said:

Bridge: the only game where the umpires have more fun than the players.

I haven't even got to the decision itself yet

I'm not sure whether "more fun" is appropriate (try it and see) but I do confess that my first thought on reading the Laws was that the problem of interpreting them was at least as difficult and enticing as the game itself.

[jillybean]

mycroft, on 2025-September-06, 09:48, said:

'that's *North's* job'

These players make me smile, they are the ones that huff, puff, hum, haa, and reluctantly reach for the bidding box, or as a newbie, tell me that I am “not allowed to think that long”

[pescetom]

OK, lets get back to the decision

To make discussion easier, let's call the offender West and the boards A and B. The auction on board A (with West holding the cards of B) was uncontested (even if South tanked before the final pass) with East opening 1♥, West raising to 2♥ and and East closing in 4♥.

As said already, the TD was called during the tank, waited until 4♥ was passed out and then told us to play on, leaving the table.

blackshoe, on 2025-September-06, 12:10, said:

"Shall award an adjusted score" means "start with 12A1 and only go to 12A2 if no result can be obtained or you think assigning a score is too hard". In this case, with the auction over, I'd look at the board with four correct hands and see what happens in the contract at which the table arrived. I might go ArtAS anyway, I dunno.

After the tournament, the TD asked me what I thought about his decision. I told him diplomatically that as I recall Law 15 tells him to assign an artificial score, but that his decision to let us play the "correct" contract was in the spirit of the Laws, 2017 at least. I too think he could have assigned 4♥ making (and assessed a small penalty to EW) rather than A-/A+, given the hand (it was clear that West would have responded the same way with the correct cards and NS would have struggled to concede an overtrick).

But what about board B?
The TD allowed us to play it without any further attention and probably he had seen that West's cards were surprisingly similar on both boards (about 9 HCP balanced). I still thought that was irregular on his part, but I also remembered from study years ago that Law 15 for the second board was a bit of a mess, so maybe he wanted to avoid that.
Mycroft suggests it will not be played and they should head to the bar, but is that how L15A3 is intended to work here?

Quote

15A Cards from Wrong Board
1. A call is cancelled (together with any subsequent call) if it is made by a player holding cards that were picked up from a wrong board.
2a. If the offender’s partner has subsequently called, the Director shall award an adjusted score.
2b. Otherwise, after looking at the correct hand the offender calls again and the auction continues normally from that point.
2c. Law 16C applies to any call withdrawn or cancelled.

3. If the offender subsequently repeats a call on the board from which the cards were mistakenly drawn, the Director may allow that board to be played normally, but the Director shall award an adjusted score when offender’s call differs 3 (adds: or is psychic) from the original cancelled call.

4. A procedural penalty (Law 90) may be assessed in addition to the rectifications above.

That is my emphasis in point 3. Whereas I really like points 1 and 2 (good clear Law), point 3 looks like another case where the committee was late for dinner. What exactly does "repeat a call" mean, given that any preceding call(s) are likely to be different, if only because the Dealer (at least) changed. If I was first to call on board A but preceded by three calls on board B, can I ever make the same call unless they all passed or I bid a preempt? And if they opened, is it the intention of this law that I can never make a satisfactory call? "Differs" is also very vague: are we talking about a call on board B that is not literally identical to that on board A (a pass for a pass, a double for a double, same level and denomination for a bid), or about a call that describes a different hand?

Taking a step backwards, I imagine that the objective of point 3 is probably to allow the auction of board B to proceed only if East has no UI from the withdrawn call on Board A. In which case we are getting very close to requiring a Comparable Call as in L23, only extending the concept to two calls made in two different points of two different auctions.
Let us take the actual case where West bid 2H on board A. Say that on board B, again East opens 1H: now West can clearly make the same call, green light. Now say West is Dealer: the systemic call is pass with this hand and 2H would be pyschic in terms of length, red light (and rightly so, East still has UI).
But now let us imagine that West had passed on board A. Say that on board B he is dealer and passes: green light, of course. Say that East opens 1H and West responds 2H. Now East has no UI from board A, the call of 2H is "comparable" even if in a different auction and in a different position. Does L15A3 as written award a green light? I fear not but think it should, if the objective is to avoid UI.

[mike777]

pescetom, on 2025-September-06, 08:56, said:

A stack is the mainstream custom in Italy too.
My club has side tables, although the boards not in play still have to fight for space with huge handbags containing all the paraphenalia an Italian woman retains necesssary to play cards for a few hours.
When there are no side tables, I have learned to live with the stack of boards: experience says that it is better than risking on a slippery chair, and placing boards on the floor is considered unacceptable (although grubby cards raise no eyebrows and nobody even glimpses at hand wipe on all tables).

I see Versace just joined and just as quickly resigned from the Italian governing bridge board. Perhaps controversy over this whole side table discussion?

[pescetom]

mike777, on 2025-September-07, 13:36, said:

I see Versace just joined and just as quickly resigned from the Italian governing bridge board. Perhaps controversy over this whole side table discussion?

Don't joke about serious matters
His presence would have been important and I hope his decision had some sense.

[mycroft]

Let's not call West the (only) offender. First, it could be that West had the cards from the correct board, and the other three had the cards from the next in play. Your OP says "the unplayed board below" - could that in fact have been 13 when what's now on top is 14? Wouldn't be the first time I saw this.

You are allowed to play boards out of order (at least I can remember no Law that requires it "except when the Director directs". Of course, now someone will show me one); as long as they are boards "scheduled for play in this round". So equally arguably (even if it isn't my case, or more so if it was) West is the only non-offender of Law 15.

But really, the offender(s) are the ones that managed to trigger this problem; specifically the ones who switched the board after it had already been switched (arguably, the first switch if that was by someone "who shouldn't" have done it, i.e. E-W). Once you figure out *how* it came to pass that one hand has one set of cards and the other three the other set, you can start talking about "offenders" and "responsibility for the adjusted score".