[peachy]

In one match of a 7-board club level Swiss teams, where boards where shuffled at beginning of each round, the first table that played a board (let's say Board 2) had EW have 14 and 12 cards. Or in any case, that is how the cards arrived to the other table where the players counted their cards before looking at them. EW at first table played 2NT making three, though they clearly should have been in 3NT. I have no idea how the mistake was not noticed during the play, or when dummy appeared, but there might have been some post-mortem (I know the players involved are 99.99% likely to have one because they always do).

Director ruled that the board be reshuffled, result of Table 1 voided, and then the "new" Board 2 be played at both tables. There was no PP or other consequences to the EW at table 1, whose fault the 12/14 appears to be. Is that ruling one of the options a TD has? I am too lazy to look myself, I hope y'all don't mind answering. Thx.

[blackshoe]

If it was an early board in the match, yes.

[TimG]

blackshoe, on 2010-November-22, 21:20, said:

If it was an early board in the match, yes.

I'm curious: why does it matter whether it was early or late in the match? Do the Laws change? Or, it is a matter of there being time available? So that what you meant was really "if time allows" rather than "if it was early"?

[TimG]

peachy, on 2010-November-22, 20:59, said:

EW at first table played 2NT making three, though they clearly should have been in 3NT.

I think it amusing that they "clearly" should have been in 3N with 12 cards opposite 14.

I'm pretty sure the result is irrelevant, no result obtained with the illegal deal matters.

[blackshoe]

Quote

Law 86C: The director shall not exercise his Law 6 authority to order one board redealt when the final result of a match without that board could be known to a contestant. Instead, he awards an adjusted score.

Early in the match, the final result can't be known.

[TimG]

blackshoe, on 2010-November-22, 22:13, said:

Early in the match, the final result can't be known.

Does that include a player's ability to estimate the state of the match, or must there already have been a score comparison?

[blackshoe]

I would think there would have to have been some comparison.

[pran]

Reshuffling the board is certainly one of the Director's options, but I would have taken the board back to the first table and requested them to reconstruct it.

If they cannot agree on what card(s) was(were) mislocated then the board must of course be voided, and reshuffled when time permits.

[bluejak]

So let us assume that the board was played correctly, and during the postmortem, when E/W found they had missed an obvious game, it just happened that E/W mixed their cards. So, instead of losing some imps for the missed game the TD cancelled the board without penalty? I hope they bought the TD a very large drink.

I do not like this one little bit. We have a Law 13 case, which does not mention redealing at all.

I suggest that we try to reconstruct the board - the players need to be very inexperienced if they cannot work out which card moved. Normally the board can now be played.

If the board becomes unplayable then under Law 13D2B we give the non-offenders Ave+ and the offenders Ave- and a further PP. I do not think it will happen again.

[pran]

bluejak, on 2010-November-23, 07:26, said:

So let us assume that the board was played correctly, and during the postmortem, when E/W found they had missed an obvious game, it just happened that E/W mixed their cards. So, instead of losing some imps for the missed game the TD cancelled the board without penalty? I hope they bought the TD a very large drink.

I do not like this one little bit. We have a Law 13 case, which does not mention redealing at all.

I suggest that we try to reconstruct the board - the players need to be very inexperienced if they cannot work out which card moved. Normally the board can now be played.

If the board becomes unplayable then under Law 13D2B we give the non-offenders Ave+ and the offenders Ave- and a further PP. I do not think it will happen again.

I agree with the substance of this, but isn't it reasonable to apply Law 6D1 and order a redeal if the unthinkable should happen that it is impossible to reconstruct the board (or even that it turns out the error was present already when the board was first played)? (In that case a PP is of course in order)

[TimG]

peachy, on 2010-November-22, 20:59, said:

I have no idea how the mistake was not noticed during the play, or when dummy appeared

I took this to mean that dummy had either 12 or 14 cards during the play and it went unnoticed by all at the table. If the switch took place after the hand was played, of course a reconstruction should be attempted.

I thought the question was merely about whether there should be a substitute for an unplayable board and whether a PP was in order (in particular whether it should apply only to EW given that NS both saw a dummy that had either 12 or 14 cards).

[blackshoe]

Of course we investigate and deal with whatever our investigation produces, but I am with Tim - I treated the question as "is it within the power of the TD to order a board redealt?"

[JoAnneM]

I would like to suggest another scenario, one in which the cards were misdealt, there was a claim, and no one noticed the misdeal, in which case there can be no reconstruction. Of course there is clearly a failure to count infraction but I have seen this happen, and it is far less sinister than some other possibilities.

[bluejak]

So it all depends what happened.



I hope to see some of you in Orlando.