BBO Discussion Forums: Is Law 17D Flawed? - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Is Law 17D Flawed? "What's the point?"

#21 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 12,690
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2012-May-28, 08:22

I disagree. The board has not been played yet - although play has started. I see no reason not to apply 17D, and I don't think the criteria of 87 are met anyway.
--------------------
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
Factor in Alzheimers, and I can not recall a bad result from aggessive action in this situation. -- Aguahombre
When I look through the hand records after a club evening, the boards I didn't play are always the ones where I would have done great. -- Cherdano
0

#22 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,025
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2012-May-28, 09:40

View Postblackshoe, on 2012-May-28, 08:22, said:

I disagree. The board has not been played yet - although play has started. I see no reason not to apply 17D, and I don't think the criteria of 87 are met anyway.

Law 87 A Definition said:

A board is considered to be ‘fouled’ if the Director determines that a card (or more than one) was displaced in the board, or if he determines that the dealer or vulnerability differed between copies of the same board, and the contestants who should have had a score comparison did not play the board in identical form for such reason.

This definition does not exclude unplayed board(s) from being considered fouled, and Law 87B (Scoring) applies whenever a board exists or has existed in more than one form.

I have on several occations with Mitchell or Howell movements been able to discover and correct a fouled board immediately after it was played first time. I still had to apply Law 87 and score the board in two separate groups, one group of course with just one result.

So also here. The fact that the foul was discovered before play began is irrelevant so long as at least one call had been made in the auction. (In a not too serious event I might consider "stretching" Law 13 allowing the board to be played.)
0

#23 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 12,690
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2012-May-28, 10:14

and the contestants who should have had a score comparison did not play the board in identical form for such reason.

It is not the case that these contestants "did not play the board..." because they haven't finished playing it. I say again, I see no reason not to apply Law 17D in this case.
--------------------
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
Factor in Alzheimers, and I can not recall a bad result from aggessive action in this situation. -- Aguahombre
When I look through the hand records after a club evening, the boards I didn't play are always the ones where I would have done great. -- Cherdano
0

#24 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,025
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2012-May-28, 16:56

View Postblackshoe, on 2012-May-28, 10:14, said:

and the contestants who should have had a score comparison did not play the board in identical form for such reason.

It is not the case that these contestants "did not play the board..." because they haven't finished playing it. I say again, I see no reason not to apply Law 17D in this case.

There is a difference between:
did not play the board in identical form for such reason
and:
played the board in different forms for such reason

Law 87 uses the first construction.
0

#25 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 11,408
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2012-May-28, 17:16

I think pran is right about this. 87 seems to explain how to deal after the fact when boards have been played in two different ways due to card displacements. If you catch the problem early enough, you can prevent the board from being fouled, by applying 17.

#26 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 12,690
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2012-May-28, 19:42

That's exactly what I'm saying.
--------------------
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
Factor in Alzheimers, and I can not recall a bad result from aggessive action in this situation. -- Aguahombre
When I look through the hand records after a club evening, the boards I didn't play are always the ones where I would have done great. -- Cherdano
0

#27 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,025
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2012-May-29, 02:01

Law 17D1 said:

A call is cancelled if it is made by a player on cards that he has picked up from a wrong board.

But the point is that in the session of this thread that we are discussing here (see post #19) the player has not picked the cards from the wrong board, some other player has placed cards from a wrong board into this board.

That makes Law 17 irrelevant because we have no offending player.
0

#28 User is offline   gordontd 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,303
  • Joined: 2009-July-14
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 2012-May-29, 02:13

View PostVampyr, on 2012-May-28, 05:58, said:

Easy. The person sitting in your seat at the next table put the cards from board 15 into the pocket of board 16 and vice versa. You make a call, then put your cards face-down on the table. Now you notice that the backs of your cards are blue and the backs of everyone else's cards are red.

Easy? I don't think so. When was the last time you saw a player with both their hands from two different boards out at the same time?
Gordon Rainsford
London UK
0

#29 User is offline   Zelandakh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,037
  • Joined: 2006-May-18
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2012-May-29, 02:43

View Postpran, on 2012-May-28, 07:22, said:

In that case the boards are fouled - see Law 87. Law 17D shall not apply.

I do not think you have the "and the contestants who should have had a score comparison did not play the board in identical form for such reason" clause for applying 87 at the point where 17D would apply.
(-: Zel :-)
0

#30 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,025
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2012-May-29, 03:28

View Postgordontd, on 2012-May-29, 02:13, said:

View PostVampyr, on 2012-May-28, 05:58, said:

Easy. The person sitting in your seat at the next table put the cards from board 15 into the pocket of board 16 and vice versa. You make a call, then put your cards face-down on the table. Now you notice that the backs of your cards are blue and the backs of everyone else's cards are red.

Easy? I don't think so. When was the last time you saw a player with both their hands from two different boards out at the same time?

Oh - I (as TD) have had that situation more than once! (The players were of course not very happy with my reaction.)
0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users