[jallerton]

mrdct, on Jul 19 2010, 02:43 AM, said:

With pre-dealt boards now ubiquitous (I haven't played in any event or club that uses hand-dealt cards since 1993) you obviously have the same boards being played at every table around you so there is always a risk of picking up a stray comment like, "you could've made that by dropping the stiff ♠K offside". 

Well you might be in for a shock if you visit the U.K. in the near future. Here, many league and knockout events are played at people's homes, and although plenty of gadgets that weren't available 20 years ago have now made it into many homes, bridge duplimate machines are not among them.

Quote

There are reasonably adequate laws to deal with this assuming that the players in receipt of the UI are ethical.

Yes, but unfortunately that is, in my opinion, a rather big assumption.

[jallerton]

Vampyr, on Jul 17 2010, 04:46 PM, said:

It is pretty clear to me that a victory-pointed team game with hands dealt at the table is not a contest of duplicate bridge.

Law 6B would suggest otherwise.

Do you play in any leagues? If you do, are your team-mates aware of your view?

[jallerton]

shyams, on Jul 19 2010, 10:45 AM, said:

Therefore, if I understand correctly, the TD should have ruled something along these lines (based on TD's judgement of correct contracts)
* At bluejak's table: 4♥ =  vs. a hypothetical 4♥ -1: which is + 470 (or 10 IMPs) to Bluejak
* At the other table: 3♠ +2 vs. a hypothetical 4♠ =:  which is -220 (or -6 IMPs) to Bluejak's team-mates
Result for Board 8: Net +4 IMPs for bluejak's team

Well "should" is a bit strong.

Given the exact wording of the Law (as neither side is "the" non-offending side) it would have been perfectly legal to award both sides 3 IMPs (average plus) and leave it at that.

Alternatively, if the Director exercises his option of "may assign an adjusted score in IMPs or total points" then I agree with the principle of your calculation for Bluejak's team, but what about the other team? If applying Law 86D for one side, I don't see why Law 86A should apply to the other, so presumably if Bluejak gets + 4 IMPs, his opponents should get -4 IMPs (based on the TD's assessment of the results obtained).

[Vampyr]

jallerton, on Jul 20 2010, 09:27 PM, said:

Vampyr, on Jul 17 2010, 04:46 PM, said:

It is pretty clear to me that a victory-pointed team game with hands dealt at the table is not a contest of duplicate bridge.

Law 6B would suggest otherwise.

Do you play in any leagues?

Yes. I think that the effect is somewhat mitigated in an event that consists of long matches, but I do, from time to time, play in Europe, where Swiss Teams played under these circumstances are quite common.

Quote

  If you do, are your team-mates aware of your view?

I have no idea.

[gnasher]

jallerton, on Jul 16 2010, 06:00 PM, said:

Given the "should do so" instruction, why do you state that Law 86D is "generally invoked only in cases of apparent skulduggery"?  Are you suggesting that the use of the definite article before the word "non-offending" implies that the "should do so" instruction applies only when there is only one non-offending side?

I think that this:

Introduction to the Laws said:

Finally, unless the context clearly dictates otherwise, the singular includes the plural

tells us that such an interpretation would be incorrect.

[paulg]

Vampyr, on Jul 21 2010, 02:03 PM, said:

jallerton, on Jul 20 2010, 09:27 PM, said:

Vampyr, on Jul 17 2010, 04:46 PM, said:

It is pretty clear to me that a victory-pointed team game with hands dealt at the table is not a contest of duplicate bridge.

Law 6B would suggest otherwise.

Do you play in any leagues?

Yes. I think that the effect is somewhat mitigated in an event that consists of long matches, but I do, from time to time, play in Europe, where Swiss Teams played under these circumstances are quite common.

As are all the Swiss events, including the NABC+ ones, that I've played at the Nationals.

[jallerton]

gnasher, on Jul 21 2010, 02:25 PM, said:

jallerton, on Jul 16 2010, 06:00 PM, said:

Given the "should do so" instruction, why do you state that Law 86D is "generally invoked only in cases of apparent skulduggery"?  Are you suggesting that the use of the definite article before the word "non-offending" implies that the "should do so" instruction applies only when there is only one non-offending side?

I think that this:

Introduction to the Laws said:

Finally, unless the context clearly dictates otherwise, the singular includes the plural

tells us that such an interpretation would be incorrect.

The issue with the wording of Law 86D is not the use of the singular; it is the deliberate use of the definite article which is significant.

Compare with Law 12C1(e)

Quote

((e) In its discretion the Regulating Authority may apply all or part of the following procedure in place of ©:

      (i)  The score assigned in place of the actual score for a non-offending side is the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred.
   
      (ii) For an offending side the score assigned is the most unfavourable result that was at all probable.

where the use of the indefinite article acknowledges that the clause can apply to both sides.

As others have observed, it seems that Law 86D may have been written to cover a very specific situation; and that cases like the one mentioned at the start of this thread had not been considered.

[pran]

jallerton, on Jul 22 2010, 10:32 PM, said:

gnasher, on Jul 21 2010, 02:25 PM, said:

jallerton, on Jul 16 2010, 06:00 PM, said:

Given the "should do so" instruction, why do you state that Law 86D is "generally invoked only in cases of apparent skulduggery"?  Are you suggesting that the use of the definite article before the word "non-offending" implies that the "should do so" instruction applies only when there is only one non-offending side?

I think that this:

Introduction to the Laws said:

Finally, unless the context clearly dictates otherwise, the singular includes the plural

tells us that such an interpretation would be incorrect.

The issue with the wording of Law 86D is not the use of the singular; it is the deliberate use of the definite article which is significant.

Compare with Law 12C1(e)

Quote

((e) In its discretion the Regulating Authority may apply all or part of the following procedure in place of ©:

       (i)  The score assigned in place of the actual score for a non-offending side is the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred.
   
       (ii) For an offending side the score assigned is the most unfavourable result that was at all probable.

where the use of the indefinite article acknowledges that the clause can apply to both sides.

As others have observed, it seems that Law 86D may have been written to cover a very specific situation; and that cases like the one mentioned at the start of this thread had not been considered.

I have a strong feeling that this must be a misunderstanding of Law 86D.

Law 86D is there to protect an innocent side from having their score that because of the result obtained in one room most likely would exceed +3 IMP being reduced to +3 IMP only because some irregularity for which their side is not at fault in the other room prevents a result to be obtained on that board in that room.

If Law 86D kicks in because of an irregularity for which neither side is at fault in one room then still only one side in the other room can have a result giving an expectation of better score than +3 IMP. Consequently in such cases while the score should never be less than +3 IMP for each side (being "innocent") it can very well be better than +3 IMP for the (innocent) side that in case has such an expectation.

Be aware that Law 86D does not offer such protection to a side at fault!

[mrdct]

jallerton, on Jul 20 2010, 03:18 PM, said:

mrdct, on Jul 19 2010, 02:43 AM, said:

With pre-dealt boards now ubiquitous (I haven't played in any event or club that uses hand-dealt cards since 1993) you obviously have the same boards being played at every table around you so there is always a risk of picking up a stray comment like, "you could've made that by dropping the stiff ♠K offside". 

Well you might be in for a shock if you visit the U.K. in the near future. Here, many league and knockout events are played at people's homes, and although plenty of gadgets that weren't available 20 years ago have now made it into many homes, bridge duplimate machines are not among them..

Home games at my house are played with screens and pre-dealt boards; although I just get the single set dealt as it would be a bit excessive for each table to have its own set of boards in a home game. Also, some of my home games are just a single table so we must use pre-dealt boards taken from another event to have a datum to score against.

Fortunately, my local bridge club is happy to deal a set of boards for me gratis as it's only a few time a year, but I can't imagine it's very expensive to get a set of boards dealt on an arm's length basis as it only takes about 10 minutes to deal a set of 32 boards.

[bluejak]

Certainly I have sets of boards at home dealt by a friend using a duplimate. He makes 12 hand copies, puts them in, seals them and signs across the seal. When I remember I take them to privately held matches and offer their use to the opponents. Few say no.

[FrancesHinden]

mrdct, on Jul 24 2010, 03:13 AM, said:

Home games at my house are played with screens and pre-dealt boards; although I just get the single set dealt as it would be a bit excessive for each table to have its own set of boards in a home game.  Also, some of my home games are just a single table so we must use pre-dealt boards taken from another event to have a datum to score against.

Fortunately, my local bridge club is happy to deal a set of boards for me gratis as it's only a few time a year, but I can't imagine it's very expensive to get a set of boards dealt on an arm's length basis as it only takes about 10 minutes to deal a set of 32 boards.

screens? Gosh. That all seems a bit much, there's barely space in our house to keep two bridge tables, 8 chairs, bidding boxes, score cards etc. Is floor space somewhat cheaper where you live than London suburbia? (I thought you lived in Sydney which would be a no, but I don't know why I thought that.)

It's also not quite as simple as you make out.

It's all very well organising the local club to use their duplimate machine to deal a set of boards for me (although I don't have a suitable set of boards and cards, I assume I'd have to buy one), but if the opponents turn up at my house and are presented with a set of boards that have "already been dealt" they have every right to feel somewhat unhappy about it. It puts them in the horrible position of either having to play the boards and always wonder if we might have looked at them, or of objecting and looking as if they are accusing us of cheating.

"home" matches played at clubs often use pre-dealt boards which the club organises and keeps secure, but that is still (I think) the exception rather than the rule.

[mrdct]

FrancesHinden, on Jul 24 2010, 11:08 AM, said:

screens?  Gosh.  That all seems a bit much, there's barely space in our house to keep two bridge tables, 8 chairs, bidding boxes, score cards etc.  Is floor space somewhat cheaper where you live than London suburbia?  (I thought you lived in Sydney which would be a no, but I don't know why I thought that.)

None of my home games are part of any formal competition or league; just friends and family who prefer to play bridge the way God intended it - with screens.

For those who don't believe me, here is a photo of my family room:

[blackshoe]

mrdct, on Jul 24 2010, 10:13 PM, said:

bridge the way God intended it - with screens.

ROFL!