[Phil]

The boards are passed between rounds and the ♣Q from the East hand falls on the floor and only the South player sees it (he's the only one at the table).

This appears to be covered under 16C.

My question is "prior to the board being played, does the East player have the right to know that the South player knows about this card"?

[gordontd]

Phil, on May 21 2010, 10:33 PM, said:

The boards are passed between rounds and the ♣Q from the East hand falls on the floor and only the South player sees it (he's the only one at the table).

This appears to be covered under 16C.

My question is "prior to the board being played, does the East player have the right to know that the South player knows about this card"?

I'm not sure that I understand your question, but under L16C2a the director can arrow-switch the board so that South plays the East cards, and no-one knows anything of any hand other than the one they are bidding.

[Phil]

gordontd, on May 21 2010, 04:43 PM, said:

Phil, on May 21 2010, 10:33 PM, said:

The boards are passed between rounds and the ♣Q from the East hand falls on the floor and only the South player sees it (he's the only one at the table).

This appears to be covered under 16C.

My question is "prior to the board being played, does the East player have the right to know that the South player knows about this card"?

I'm not sure that I understand your question, but under L16C2a the director can arrow-switch the board so that South plays the East cards, and no-one knows anything of any hand other than the one they are bidding.

I saw that option. but I didn't consider it as it seemed more relevant if the South player saw one of North's cards, but perhaps that isn't the case in a pairs game.

Are there any 'field' considerations when switching the arrows?

[bluejak]

If you mean do you consider the effect on the field, no, you do not.

But if this is a two-winner event, for example, then it is not generally considered an acceptable thing to do. Interesting, because it does not do much harm ... except to the scorer's mental health.

[pran]

bluejak, on May 21 2010, 11:19 PM, said:

If you mean do you consider the effect on the field, no, you do not.

But if this is a two-winner event, for example, then it is not generally considered an acceptable thing to do.  Interesting, because it does not do much harm ...  except to the scorer's mental health. 

Two-winner competitions (Mitchell) are extremely scarce in Norway, but even with them I see no problem in arrow-switching a single board so that South plays the hand from which he has already seen one or more cards. (And I see nothing in the laws that prevents this?)

The only situation I can imagine where such arrow-switching is not feasible (nor even possible) is at teams of four if the board has already been played (by the affected teams) in the other room.

[aguahombre]

bluejak, on May 21 2010, 04:19 PM, said:

If you mean do you consider the effect on the field, no, you do not.

But if this is a two-winner event, for example, then it is not generally considered an acceptable thing to do. Interesting, because it does not do much harm ... except to the scorer's mental health.

Is there an arrow-switch protocol for, say, Bridgepad? If not spelled out, is there a relatively easy way to Mickey Mouse it?

I want to give the information to the local director, if possible.

[PeterAlan]

aguahombre, on May 22 2010, 12:34 PM, said:

bluejak, on May 21 2010, 04:19 PM, said:

If you mean do you consider the effect on the field, no, you do not.

But if this is a two-winner event, for example, then it is not generally considered an acceptable thing to do.  Interesting, because it does not do much harm ...  except to the scorer's mental health. 

Is there an arrow-switch protocol for, say, Bridgepad? If not spelled out, is there a relatively easy way to Mickey Mouse it?

I want to give the information to the local director, if possible.

At our EBU club (where we use Bridgemates coupled to Scorebridge scoring software) we've encountered this problem occasionally (usually because a table forgets to arrow-switch for the first board). The solution we use is not to worry about Bridgemate (Bridgepad in your case), but to switch the pairs as a correction in the scoring software after the event.

PeterAlan

[pran]

PeterAlan, on May 22 2010, 07:17 PM, said:

At our EBU club (where we use Bridgemates coupled to Scorebridge scoring software) we've encountered this problem occasionally (usually because a table forgets to arrow-switch for the first board).  The solution we use is not to worry about Bridgemate (Bridgepad in your case), but to switch the pairs as a correction in the scoring software after the event.

PeterAlan

With release 1.7.20 of the Bridgemate Control Program the following "new feature" was announced: Pair NS and pair EW numbers can be changed for an individual score.

However, I have been unable to find how this feature has been implemented within the Bridgemate system. The scoring program most used in Norway includes such feature among the "score correction" options.