After a misboard
Director, after a few rounds of a club pairs, called to a table when the players looking at bridgemate think a misboard.
Turns out the previous table had returned the cards N to E, E to S, etc.
The cards were returned to the correct place and before scoring the pair numbers for that board swapped so the 2 pairs received a score for that board.
This was ok with the 2 pairs but is it correct, or even acceptable in a club environment.
It does of course affect
a. vulnerability, this can be allowed for by scorer.
b. dealer
It was equal vul. with one pair 'never' bidding so fortunate.
Should it have just been the 2 pairs given 60% ?
Turns out the previous table had returned the cards N to E, E to S, etc.
The cards were returned to the correct place and before scoring the pair numbers for that board swapped so the 2 pairs received a score for that board.
This was ok with the 2 pairs but is it correct, or even acceptable in a club environment.
It does of course affect
a. vulnerability, this can be allowed for by scorer.
b. dealer
It was equal vul. with one pair 'never' bidding so fortunate.
Should it have just been the 2 pairs given 60% ?
Comments
You are correct - the results can't stand and both pairs should get Av+, with the pairs who caused the misboard being fined.
I took the opportunity to look at the laws relating to this.
I was intrigued to find that Law 15 entitled "WRONG BOARD OR HAND" makes no reference to taking the wrong hand from the right board (however so caused).
Of course the correct law is Law 97 as it is a fouled board, with the players at the table being in a subfield of size 1.
Note that some earlier discussion here concluded that the laws do not say what to do with a 'sub-field of size 1'.
The latest White Book has a new sentence to cover this.