Score adjustment in teams

We had a multi teams event, and we were sharing boards. So some tables would not be playing the boards in order. We had the option set (from our usual pairs events) to suggest the board number (would have been good to turn this off). However, whereas everyone was warned about this, and East / Wests were told to be diligent about checking. On a couple of occasions say board 6 was scored in the place of board 4, and so after the scores are entered - you can see the other results on board 4 which you haven't yet played. (again we should have turned on the option to not display previous scores). So board 4 becomes unplayable at this table.

So - I have two questions - are both sides equally at fault - NS for entering the score for board 6 against board 4, and E/W for not checking, before accepting.

If that is the case - then my reading of Law 86B2c - states that if both sides are at fault, the board is cancelled. As I said this happened twice, and in both occasions a particularly good result was obtained for one side - ie in one situation at the 'other' table, the result was 6NT-2, and all other tables were making 3NT with or without an overtrick. and in the other board in Question all results were 4H making, and in the one with no result at the other table, it was 5H-1.

Am I correct in reading that the law will only reward a good result at the other table, where only one side was at fault ?


  • edited June 2018

    In EBU pairs events we rule that the scoring side and the accepting side are both responsible and score the unplayable boards as 40%/40%. At teams, the same principles apply and if an artificial score is needed it should be AVE-/AVE- (-3IMP to both sides) - but it may be right to apply Law 86B1 or play a substitute board. We do not treat this as multiple occurrences because the errors were independent.

  • A very good practice that has saved me from such problems is Lead validation in Bridgemates options, if of course you use them.

    That the score at the other table is 'clearly favorable' means, not necessarily a large amount of imps, it just means that the result achieved in the other table cannot be easily replicated or, in other words, it is not a "normal" result as Maurizio di Sacco states in his lecture.

    He also says that even the offender has at the other table a clearly favorable result the board is not canceled. His point is that the damage (a silly result) of non-offenders has nothing to do with the infraction (e.g seeing results on an other board - thus making it unplayable), but with their own actions. So even if both pairs are offenders and you have a favorable result, you can make some calculations and give your result, instead of giving an artificial AVG-/AVG-.

    Also, in EBL's TD forum has been discussed, that the default position is to only redeal when both sides are non-offending, so I think it is not right in your situation to play substitute boards.

Sign In or Register to comment.