[pescetom]

Simple 9 rounds x 2 boards Mitchell with a Bye in EW.
You are called eight minutes through the round to a table in a side room where NS (who have already had their sitout) finally realize they are still waiting for their opponents (named on the phone app).
Who can be seen playing at a nearby table, which should be the sitout this round (both pairs at the table had the information on their phone to avoid this).
They have already finished the first board and are busy bidding the second.
South says he already entered the score for the first board, which is impossible.
You take note of the score (good for EW) and lead and then reflect on Law 15 and what to do.
How do you proceed?

[mycroft]

For simplicity's sake, I am going to say that the boards are 13-14 at the "no longer sitout" table, and 15-16 at the "should be sitout" table. E-W should be playing 13 and 14, but have skipped a table and, having played "and scored" 15, are bidding 16.

Assuming EW have not yet played 15 and 16, Law 15B2 says they must finish both and get their score ("The director shall require"). So, there it is. N-S weren't supposed to play 15 and 16 ever - my experience is that you just throw the N-S results out. Arguably, you should give them the MPs they earn for all 18, and factor their score down to 16, but that's a *lot of* work.

Assuming you are running the full 18, there will be a point where E-W hit those boards "normally". At that point, L15B3 applies to N-S, and they get A+ for 15 and 16. In the "normal" Howell/"skipped barmar's table 15" case where L15 applies, there's an opportunity for N-S to play the boards against the E-W that got "bumped", but this time the sitout got bumped, so there's nobody to play.

The rules imply that E-W should still play 13 and 14 against the "double sitout" N-S. If they can, great, but I bet we award A+/A- and add "the Martinique $3 penalty" ("E-W, buy a round for N-S").

I don't know your scoring system, but you probably can't adjust the movement to be what happened, so there will be a lot of manual scoring and adjustments applied, as well as the four A+'s N-S.

If it turns out that E-W have already played these boards and were too clueless to notice, then it's simple - throw the results out, try to get 13 and 14 in after, same penalty :-).

As always, I am more likely to award PPs to players who screw up the movement than to anything but outright rudeness; and here, especially with "we put in the score for 15" that they absolutely couldn't (did they put it in 17, which, given your system shows the hands and scores, means you have to throw out 17 as well?) I think it's just fine to hit the "sitout" N-S, especially because, having caused the problem, they're also the only N-S who don't *get* a sitout!

[pescetom]

Thanks for the reply.

mycroft, on 2026-May-07, 09:57, said:

Assuming EW have not yet played 15 and 16, Law 15B2 says they must finish both and get their score ("The director shall require"). So, there it is.

And so far it was clear.

mycroft, on 2026-May-07, 09:57, said:

N-S weren't supposed to play 15 and 16 ever - my experience is that you just throw the N-S results out.

I did in the end, but with a burning feeling that Blackshoe and at least one WBFLC member would object... hence the post.

mycroft, on 2026-May-07, 09:57, said:

Arguably, you should give them the MPs they earn for all 18, and factor their score down to 16, but that's a *lot of* work.

If the scoring program could handle it I failed to figure out how, aiding the decision above.

mycroft, on 2026-May-07, 09:57, said:

The rules imply that E-W should still play 13 and 14 against the "double sitout" N-S. If they can, great, but I bet we award A+/A- and add "the Martinique $3 penalty" ("E-W, buy a round for N-S").

We did indeed

mycroft, on 2026-May-07, 09:57, said:

As always, I am more likely to award PPs to players who screw up the movement than to anything but outright rudeness; and here, especially with "we put in the score for 15" that they absolutely couldn't (did they put it in 17, which, given your system shows the hands and scores, means you have to throw out 17 as well?) I think it's just fine to hit the "sitout" N-S, especially because, having caused the problem, they're also the only N-S who don't *get* a sitout!

Hmm. I wasn't happy with "yes, we put the score in", but while they are the strongest pair in the tournament they are also probably the weakest with a phone; it is also a known (and reported) hazard of the app that when you are in a sitout it already allows input of boards in next round (because they chose not to have an "end of round" decision). I decided all three pairs were equally guilty of carelessness and gave them all a small penalty. I confess it never even occurred to me that the sitout pair might have just decided that playing against their friends was more fun than looking at each other, I do hope not.

[mycroft]

You'd have to do it manually. Score their 16 as normal, and hand-matchpoint the other two. Add the matchpoints, multiply by 16/18 (or 8/9 if you're a purist) and put in a "penalty" manual adjustment (plus or minus) that means they end up with the factored matchpoint total.

As I said, lots of work.

My concern with "we put the score in" was more "will you allow them to play 17 after (potentially) seeing the hands and traveller?" than "penalize them for not noticing it was the wrong board" (but there's some of that, too).

[blackshoe]

Actually, Pescetom, I agree that if they play a board they weren't scheduled to play, there's no place in the movement to put a score in for that board, so you toss the score.

[pescetom]

 blackshoe, on 2026-May-07, 17:59, said:

Actually, Pescetom, I agree that if they play a board they weren't scheduled to play, there's no place in the movement to put a score in for that board, so you toss the score.

Thanks. I agree it is the most practical solution, has some intrinsic merits and does not seem to violate the Laws. But I am also conscious of the strong "a score obtained playing bridge stands, if at all possible" mentality of the current Laws Committee, which would suggest NS should keep the (bottom) score they earned playing the board.

[pescetom]

 mycroft, on 2026-May-07, 16:49, said:

You'd have to do it manually. Score their 16 as normal, and hand-matchpoint the other two. Add the matchpoints, multiply by 16/18 (or 8/9 if you're a purist) and put in a "penalty" manual adjustment (plus or minus) that means they end up with the factored matchpoint total.

As I said, lots of work.

So *that's* why the score program allows a "plus" penalty.
Lots of work, indeed.

[pescetom]

 mycroft, on 2026-May-07, 16:49, said:

My concern with "we put the score in" was more "will you allow them to play 17 after (potentially) seeing the hands and traveller?" than "penalize them for not noticing it was the wrong board" (but there's some of that, too).

I checked immediately, they had no score registered against board 17. I imagine what happened is that he entered the contract and score but did not notice that it was rejected due to the impossible lead. If he had been able to see the hand and traveller then I would not allow them to play it later (and yes I know that at least one WBFLC member would disapprove that, but our national regulations explicitly forbid allowing them to play it in a local tournament, which is fine by me).

[axman]

pescetom, on 2026-May-06, 14:57, said:

Simple 9 rounds x 2 boards Mitchell with a Bye in EW.
You are called eight minutes through the round to a table in a side room where NS (who have already had their sitout) finally realize they are still waiting for their opponents (named on the phone app).
Who can be seen playing at a nearby table, which should be the sitout this round (both pairs at the table had the information on their phone to avoid this).
They have already finished the first board and are busy bidding the second.
South says he already entered the score for the first board, which is impossible.
You take note of the score (good for EW) and lead and then reflect on Law 15 and what to do.
How do you proceed?

If Mycroft has parsed correctly, EW moved to the wrong table completing play of the 1st board and in the middle of 2nd board auction.

Regarding play at the wrong table (cards from the wrong board:

15A1 commands that the bidding for both boards be canceled and artificial scores awarded since both pairs played the wrong board (NS were scheduled to never play the two boards and EW <supposedly later>

Notably 15A2 appears improvidently conceived as I think there are many occasions that can be salvaged in a fair manner. With that in mind:

Since these boards are a nullity (sitout) for "this" comparison they get (not a L15A1) artSC but no score for these shenanigans.

EW deprives its own comparison (for the replay) because the calls were cancelled for the 1st board- making (the play period unrecoverable) ‘scheduled comparison’ fouled and scored with artSc and penalty.

EW’s 2nd board comparison might be salvaged (supposedly, there were old revisions that provided for it) the 2nd time around:

The least that can be said of 15A3 is that antecedents are missing.

For the table that waited so long they have 2 scheduled boards to play against EW and it is up to the TD to remedy it (fetch the shotgun errr cattle prod).

For the replay of the 2nd board scheduled for some later round (1st board being unplayable is artSC) the comparison is salvaged or it isn’t. If it isn’t it is artSc both sides and PP as appropriate.

edit:

regarding the impossible to enter score: It needs to be ?erased and if it causes a problem that needs to be remedied.

This post has been edited by axman: Yesterday, 16:18

[mycroft]

15A (in its entirety) does not apply to this issue - the cards everyone held belonged to the board(s) they were bidding. They weren't scheduled to bid or play that board (this round, in the case of E-W), but that's not 15A. I can see why one might read it that way, but this is the "S switched the boards and pulled out their cards, N switched the boards and the rest pulled out their cards" law.

15B specifically states (my emphasis) "If, after the commencement of the auction period, the Director discovers that a contestant is playing a board not designated for this pair to play in the current round, then:" and there is zero reason to believe that any other Law that does not say this applies in the situation where a contestant is playing a board not designated for this pair to play in the current round.

[blackshoe]

Not surprisingly, I agree with Mycroft.

[pescetom]

I think 15B is clearly applicable and mandated.

My only remaining doubt is about throwing away the scores obtained by the sit out pair. I would like to poll it if there was an international Directors Forum more numerous than we are here - does one exist? There is of course that other site, but in my experience any Law discussion there gets smothered by opinionated players and the senior Directors tend to stay out of it.

[axman]

mycroft, on 2026-May-08, 21:39, said:

15A (in its entirety) does not apply to this issue - the cards everyone held belonged to the board(s) they were bidding. They weren't scheduled to bid or play that board (this round, in the case of E-W), but that's not 15A. I can see why one might read it that way, but this is the "S switched the boards and pulled out their cards, N switched the boards and the rest pulled out their cards" law.

15B specifically states (my emphasis) "If, after the commencement of the auction period, the Director discovers that a contestant is playing a board not designated for this pair to play in the current round, then:" and there is zero reason to believe that any other Law that does not say this applies in the situation where a contestant is playing a board not designated for this pair to play in the current round.

Well. I read the law provides (improvidently) that there is application from A&B. A1 is absolute (without regard to time or any other provision), if a player calls from cards from a wrong board such call[s] are cancelled.