Law 15B
If pairs A and B play the wrong board (say through picking one from the wrong pile on a relay table), then Law 15B2 allows the result to stand if neither pair has already played the board. But what happens on the next round, when pair A is scheduled to play the board against pair C ?
Law 15B1 says the board is cancelled for both sides. But Law 15B3 says that the pair who don't get to play the board should get an artificial adjusted score.
For scoring, is the board "not played". Or is pair A scored as playing the board twice, with Ave-/Ave+ ? Or ...
Comments
15B1 doesn't apply since the board is no longer the "wrong board" - it is at the right table at the right round.
15B3 means that the pair who were to have played the board - against a pair who have already played it get an artificial adjusted score - this is likely to be Average Plus BUT of course they could be partly responsible for the board getting to the wrong table.
In Summary
A V B (incorrect board) - score stands, board is put back to where it should be i.e. on the relay table.
Later: A goes to table C to play the same board: board can't be played - C gets average plus.
Later: Board now back at table B: Pair D arrives: board can't be played - D gets average plus.
ABC&D have all played the board once and got one score on it.
Thank you, I'd missed the significance of the wording at the start of 15B1, and I like the fact that people only get one score for a board. So, I should leave it at that.
But ... if that wording means 15B1 doesn't apply, then shouldn't it also mean that 15B3 doesn't apply? I don't see any punctuation to distinguish between them.
Worse still, if it's realised that the board has been played before anyone takes their cards, the auction period won't have started, which seems to leave 15B1 in limbo.
The practical way of putting this into effect, as long as your scoring program allows renumbering of pairs on the traveller, is to exchange B & C's numbers and then score C vs D as Av+/Av+. Depending on your determination of fault, you might want to fine A & B 10% each to "balance the books".
In this scenario, isn't the balancing factor the Av-/Av- on the board that A & B were supposed to have played against each other, but didn't?
Let's say A & B were scheduled to play board X against each other, but actually played board Y. A was scheduled to play board Y against C, and B was scheduled to play board Y against D.
On board X, A get Av-, B get Av-, C and D have a normal result against unrelated players.
On board Y, A and B get the table result, C get Av+, D get Av+ (assuming C and D were not at fault for A and B playing the wrong board).
(I feel like there might be a mistake in this reasoning, but can't immediately spot it.)
It depends if the offending pairs end up playing a full number of boards. If they don't you are correct that they will both usually get Av- for the one they are deemed not to have played. If they do, but the non-offending pairs don't, then you may want to issue fines.