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?