[RMB1]

mrdct, on Jul 16 2010, 04:12 AM, said:

I'd love to see the root cause analysis of how this situation arose in the first place.

Every board that I've ever seen was either pre-marked by the manufacturer or has the board number, correct vulnerability and dealer all on one sticker so it's impossible to stuff it up.

It was another numbered board (17) with one sticker with number/dealer/vulnerability. It had been "converted" to board 8 by sticking a smaller (number only) sticker over the number.

[mrdct]

blackshoe, on Jul 16 2010, 01:19 AM, said:

That doesn't matter, since it's too late to do anything about it anyway.

If nobody analyses why things have gone wrong, history will surely repeat itself. I guess air crash investigations must be a complete waste of time and money also!

[blackshoe]

Well, they sure as hell won't help the people who were in the plane!

[pran]

bluejak, on Jul 16 2010, 12:31 AM, said:

There is no suggestion in Law 86D of comparing the two scores.

pran, on Jul 15 2010, 09:31 PM, said:

I would not dream of applying Law 86D when neither side is at fault.

Why not? Law 86D does not say you should not, does it?

No, but just consider the possibility that the different board played at one table was a completely different board, not different in just some minor detail, and that one of the pairs at that table called and played so well that the board was afterwards referred to in papers around the world and nominated for the play of the year.

Would you dream of applying Law 86D and award that pair (and team) a favourable adjusted score according to their extremely good result on that board?

Law 87 makes it absolutely clear that unless the boards are identical they are different, it doesn't matter how minute the difference is. A ♣2 can have been swapped with a ♣3, the vulnerabilities can have been different, the wrong player can have been marked as the dealer. How the board is different is immaterial, if it is not identical it is different, period.

So unless you would apply Law 86D in the hypothetical case above you should never apply it when there is no (relevant) comparison to make. And in events for teams of four the only relevant comparison is between the two tables in the same match.

[pran]

blackshoe, on Jul 16 2010, 08:22 AM, said:

Well, they sure as hell won't help the people who were in the plane!

So your opinion is that Air crash investigations are a waste of time and resources?

Good grief!

[gordontd]

mrdct, on Jul 16 2010, 04:12 AM, said:

Every board that I've ever seen was either pre-marked by the manufacturer or has the board number, correct vulnerability and dealer all on one sticker so it's impossible to stuff it up.

I've seen people put the stickers on the board the wrong way round, so that the wrong hands go in the slots when dealt by machine.

[campboy]

blackshoe, on Jul 16 2010, 02:20 AM, said:

Wait a minute. Was this two different boards, one marked correctly and one marked incorrectly as to dealer, or the same board with incorrect dealer markings which were ignored at one table? if it was the former, then I agree that Law 2 does not help the TD here.

If it were the latter then there would be no problem: in that case both tables would have played the same board, with one table simply having an opening call out of turn which was accepted by the next player in rotation.

[blackshoe]

pran, on Jul 16 2010, 04:19 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Jul 16 2010, 08:22 AM, said:

Well, they sure as hell won't help the people who were in the plane! 

So your opinion is that Air crash investigations are a waste of time and resources?

Good grief!

You jump to conclusions at your own risk, Sven.

And in this case, you jumped to the wrong conclusion.

[pran]

campboy, on Jul 16 2010, 10:21 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Jul 16 2010, 02:20 AM, said:

Wait a minute. Was this two different boards, one marked correctly and one marked incorrectly as to dealer, or the same board with incorrect dealer markings which were ignored at one table? if it was the former, then I agree that Law 2 does not help the TD here.

If it were the latter then there would be no problem: in that case both tables would have played the same board, with one table simply having an opening call out of turn which was accepted by the next player in rotation.

To repeat myself: In order for two boards to be the same they must have identical cards to each of the four hands, identical vulnerabilities and identical dealer.

Any difference in any of these properties makes the boards "different" for the application of Law 87, and the Director is not at liberty to make any judgement whether the difference is significant or can be ignored.

[pran]

blackshoe, on Jul 16 2010, 10:33 AM, said:

pran, on Jul 16 2010, 04:19 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Jul 16 2010, 08:22 AM, said:

Well, they sure as hell won't help the people who were in the plane! 

So your opinion is that Air crash investigations are a waste of time and resources?

Good grief!

You jump to conclusions at your own risk, Sven.

And in this case, you jumped to the wrong conclusion.

I know, but I couldn't resist the temptation - sorry

[Free]

You always read there are 53,644,737,765,488,792,839,237,440,000 bridge deals, but in fact you have to multiply this by 16 (4 different dealers, 4 different vulnerabilities). Deals with a different dealer and/or vulnerability simply aren't the same.

This board should be canceled, VP score calculated with 1 board less.

[bluejak]

pran, on Jul 16 2010, 09:16 AM, said:

bluejak, on Jul 16 2010, 12:31 AM, said:

There is no suggestion in Law 86D of comparing the two scores.

pran, on Jul 15 2010, 09:31 PM, said:

I would not dream of applying Law 86D when neither side is at fault.

Why not? Law 86D does not say you should not, does it?

No, but just consider the possibility that the different board played at one table was a completely different board, not different in just some minor detail, and that one of the pairs at that table called and played so well that the board was afterwards referred to in papers around the world and nominated for the play of the year.

Would you dream of applying Law 86D and award that pair (and team) a favourable adjusted score according to their extremely good result on that board?

Law 87 makes it absolutely clear that unless the boards are identical they are different, it doesn't matter how minute the difference is. A ♣2 can have been swapped with a ♣3, the vulnerabilities can have been different, the wrong player can have been marked as the dealer. How the board is different is immaterial, if it is not identical it is different, period.

So unless you would apply Law 86D in the hypothetical case above you should never apply it when there is no (relevant) comparison to make. And in events for teams of four the only relevant comparison is between the two tables in the same match.

You are trying to compare two completely different boards anyway, pran.

It does not matter whether it was merely a dealer position mis-marked, as here, or different in other ways. There is no point in you continually saying that two different boards cannot be scored against each other: of course they cannot, and no-one is saying that they can be,

But your conclusion from that that law 86D does not apply [and, I presume that it never applies so is a waste of a lot of ink] does not follow.

The Law gives a situation where it certainly should apply, and that includes the possibility of different boards being involved. Are you saying you would ignore the Law's wording when it happens?

I think you need a better argument than "I am not going to apply Law 86D because the boards were different".

[bluejak]

Free, on Jul 16 2010, 12:10 PM, said:

You always read there are 53,644,737,765,488,792,839,237,440,000 bridge deals, but in fact you have to multiply this by 16 (4 different dealers, 4 different vulnerabilities).  Deals with a different dealer and/or vulnerability simply aren't the same.

This board should be canceled, VP score calculated with 1 board less.

Well, that is certainly not right!

I believe there are only two possibilities.

First, Ave+ to both teams, leading to a 19-3 result.

Second, apply Law 86D. Now, why should we not apply Law 86D?

It is a red herring as to whether the boards were different: of course they were. It was the organisers' fault, but who cares? Everyone makes mistakes, no-one is going to sue them. It was not the fault of any of the eight players, so do you apply Law 86D or not?

[campboy]

pran, on Jul 16 2010, 11:33 AM, said:

campboy, on Jul 16 2010, 10:21 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Jul 16 2010, 02:20 AM, said:

Wait a minute. Was this two different boards, one marked correctly and one marked incorrectly as to dealer, or the same board with incorrect dealer markings which were ignored at one table? if it was the former, then I agree that Law 2 does not help the TD here.

If it were the latter then there would be no problem: in that case both tables would have played the same board, with one table simply having an opening call out of turn which was accepted by the next player in rotation.

To repeat myself: In order for two boards to be the same they must have identical cards to each of the four hands, identical vulnerabilities and identical dealer.

Any difference in any of these properties makes the boards "different" for the application of Law 87, and the Director is not at liberty to make any judgement whether the difference is significant or can be ignored.

That is not what I was saying. I was responding to Ed's suggestion that it might have been the exact same mismarked board played at both tables, but that at one table the players had (correctly, per law 2) followed the markings on the board whereas at the other they had not.

Of course, this has now been clarified as not being what actually occurred.

[shyams]

bluejak, on Jul 16 2010, 12:28 PM, said:

I believe there are only two possibilities.

First, Ave+ to both teams, leading to a 19-3 result.

Second, apply Law 86D.  Now, why should we not apply Law 86D?

IMHO, there is nothing to stop application of Law 86D. But wouldn't the Director be required to change the result at your table (4♥ making) to what he believes to be a fair result? Law 86D reads:

Quote

In team play when the Director awards an adjusted score (excluding any award that ensues from application of Law 6D2), and a result has been obtained between the same contestants at another table, the Director may assign an adjusted score in IMPs or total points (and should do so when that result appears favourable to the non-offending side).

Excerpts from the OP

bluejak, on Jul 15 2010, 04:19 PM, said:

We played it with North as dealer, at the other table [where team mates made 3♠ +2] they played it with West the dealer.  It is a fact that it is easier to miss the spade game with North the dealer... (snip)... this mis-marked board was played at our table ... (snip)

1. Clearly the table result that needs adjustment is the one where your side scored 4♥ making 10 tricks. The board was mismarked. Therefore, that result cannot stand.
2. See my highlight in the Law above. In this case, there are no offending sides in the actual incident and Director may not use this clause to give your side bigger +ve score

What did I get wrong?

[pran]

bluejak, on Jul 16 2010, 12:23 PM, said:

pran, on Jul 16 2010, 09:16 AM, said:

bluejak, on Jul 16 2010, 12:31 AM, said:

There is no suggestion in Law 86D of comparing the two scores.

pran, on Jul 15 2010, 09:31 PM, said:

I would not dream of applying Law 86D when neither side is at fault.

Why not? Law 86D does not say you should not, does it?

No, but just consider the possibility that the different board played at one table was a completely different board, not different in just some minor detail, and that one of the pairs at that table called and played so well that the board was afterwards referred to in papers around the world and nominated for the play of the year.

Would you dream of applying Law 86D and award that pair (and team) a favourable adjusted score according to their extremely good result on that board?

Law 87 makes it absolutely clear that unless the boards are identical they are different, it doesn't matter how minute the difference is. A ♣2 can have been swapped with a ♣3, the vulnerabilities can have been different, the wrong player can have been marked as the dealer. How the board is different is immaterial, if it is not identical it is different, period.

So unless you would apply Law 86D in the hypothetical case above you should never apply it when there is no (relevant) comparison to make. And in events for teams of four the only relevant comparison is between the two tables in the same match.

You are trying to compare two completely different boards anyway, pran.

It does not matter whether it was merely a dealer position mis-marked, as here, or different in other ways. There is no point in you continually saying that two different boards cannot be scored against each other: of course they cannot, and no-one is saying that they can be,

But your conclusion from that that law 86D does not apply [and, I presume that it never applies so is a waste of a lot of ink] does not follow.

The Law gives a situation where it certainly should apply, and that includes the possibility of different boards being involved. Are you saying you would ignore the Law's wording when it happens?

I think you need a better argument than "I am not going to apply Law 86D because the boards were different".

How do you evaluate what IMP score the result on the separate board shall justify in a Law 86D adjustment?

[pran]

bluejak, on Jul 16 2010, 12:28 PM, said:

Free, on Jul 16 2010, 12:10 PM, said:

You always read there are 53,644,737,765,488,792,839,237,440,000 bridge deals, but in fact you have to multiply this by 16 (4 different dealers, 4 different vulnerabilities).  Deals with a different dealer and/or vulnerability simply aren't the same.

This board should be canceled, VP score calculated with 1 board less.

Well, that is certainly not right!

I believe there are only two possibilities.

First, Ave+ to both teams, leading to a 19-3 result.

Second, apply Law 86D. Now, why should we not apply Law 86D?

It is a red herring as to whether the boards were different: of course they were. It was the organisers' fault, but who cares? Everyone makes mistakes, no-one is going to sue them. It was not the fault of any of the eight players, so do you apply Law 86D or not?

OK, at least we agree that the two boards were "different" (I haven't had the impression of an unanimous agreement on this fact so far.)

Assume now that somehow the difference between the two boards is such that on the "different" board 7NT is cold, and indeed bid and made at that table.

Is it your opinion that Law 86D should apply to the side that was so lucky as to make 1520 or 2220 (depending on the vulnerability) and they be awarded an assigned adjusted score according to this result converted to IMP? (After comparison with what?)

One of my techers in physics once taught us a very valuable principle to be applied whenever we wanted to test if something was reasonable:

Vary the premises to become extreme and see if the result is still reasonable.

In this case I vary the score on the different board to an extreme. If Law86D should be applicable in your situation it should also be applicable in my hypthetic case. And conversely it you find it outrageous to give a law 86D adjustment based on a board result 1520 or 2220 then it is equally outrageous to apply Law 86D in your situation.

[bluejak]

shyams, on Jul 16 2010, 02:55 PM, said:

bluejak, on Jul 16 2010, 12:28 PM, said:

I believe there are only two possibilities.

First, Ave+ to both teams, leading to a 19-3 result.

Second, apply Law 86D.  Now, why should we not apply Law 86D?

IMHO, there is nothing to stop application of Law 86D. But wouldn't the Director be required to change the result at your table (4♥ making) to what he believes to be a fair result? Law 86D reads:

Quote

In team play when the Director awards an adjusted score (excluding any award that ensues from application of Law 6D2), and a result has been obtained between the same contestants at another table, the Director may assign an adjusted score in IMPs or total points (and should do so when that result appears favourable to the non-offending side).

Excerpts from the OP

bluejak, on Jul 15 2010, 04:19 PM, said:

We played it with North as dealer, at the other table [where team mates made 3♠ +2] they played it with West the dealer.  It is a fact that it is easier to miss the spade game with North the dealer... (snip)... this mis-marked board was played at our table ... (snip)

1. Clearly the table result that needs adjustment is the one where your side scored 4♥ making 10 tricks. The board was mismarked. Therefore, that result cannot stand.
2. See my highlight in the Law above. In this case, there are no offending sides in the actual incident and Director may not use this clause to give your side bigger +ve score

What did I get wrong?

You have a match between two teams. A board is played which was different board at the two tables. How do you define one board as correct and the other as incorrect? Remember that if they had both played a board mismarked similarly the result would have stood - see the last paragraph of Law 2. In effect you just have two different boards in a match.

I agree that the parentheses bit does not apply. But where in the law does it say that the rest of the law does not apply if the bit in parentheses does not apply? The parentheses bit is additional advice to say what should be done in a specific case. This is not that specific case. If they meant it to apply in this case only the Law would read "When the non-offending side" etc.

[bluejak]

pran, on Jul 16 2010, 03:45 PM, said:

Assume now that somehow the difference between the two boards is such that on the "different" board 7NT is cold, and indeed bid and made at that table.

Is it your opinion that Law 86D should apply to the side that was so lucky as to make 1520 or 2220 (depending on the vulnerability) and they be awarded an assigned adjusted score according to this result converted to IMP? (After comparison with what?)

One of my techers in physics once taught us a very valuable principle to be applied whenever we wanted to test if something was reasonable:

Vary the premises to become extreme and see if the result is still reasonable.

In this case I vary the score on the different board to an extreme. If Law86D should be applicable in your situation it should also be applicable in my hypthetic case. And conversely it you find it outrageous to give a law 86D adjustment based on a board result 1520 or 2220 then it is equally outrageous to apply Law 86D in your situation.

Read Law 86D and find me anything in that Law that makes it outrageous not to adjust based on a good score of 2220. It is time you read Law 12B2.

A agree with your premise: since there is no reason not to adjust when 2220 is involved then why should we not adjust in this case?

[dburn]

shyams, on Jul 16 2010, 08:55 AM, said:

1. Clearly the table result that needs adjustment is the one where your side scored 4♥ making 10 tricks. The board was mismarked. Therefore, that result cannot stand.

What did I get wrong?

This: there is nothing in the Laws to the effect that the result on a mis-marked board cannot stand. Indeed, the Laws expressly say that such a result shall stand, with the players using the (incorrect) markings on the actual board to determine the score rather than what the (correct) markings should have been.

As to pran's waffling: as I have already remarked, it is entirely legal for a result obtained at one table to be "compared" with no result at all at the other table - that is what Law 86D is for. However, this Law is generally invoked only in cases of apparent skulduggery, to prevent players from nullifying a bad result by fouling the board and rendering it unplayable at the other table.

Whether or not it should apply in the circumstances of the actual case is not clear; whether or not it can apply is also (at the moment) unclear to the WBF, from which it is possible to conclude that for the moment, a Director can apply it if he chooses.

Awarding averge plus to both sides is, to my way of thinking, ridiculous - teams should not randomly have their scores enhanced with respect to the rest of the field just because the organisers are incompetent.