Incorrect board played and incorrect claim
Tuesday night's regular Pairs session was a nightmare (for me as the director). The first problem was that I had forgotten my Law book so I was in a position where I had to rely on my memory for any rulings.
I was summoned to a table where the wrong board had been played. I remembered somewhere that all the players at a table share responsibility for correct procedures and so fined each pair (Ave-) for playing a board they shouldn't have. Indeed having since checked I see that Law 7D says that all players at a table share responsibility for correct procedures. The wrong board being played also meant that some players couldn't play the board so I awarded them an average plus as per Law 15B3 (also since checked).
However I see that Law 15B2 says that the board should be played by the 4 players and scored. If that happens, what happens to other pairs who should have played the board ?
E/W were peeved at my rulings as they felt it should be N/S who should be penalised as North was the one who put the incorrect board on the table. E/W were also upset because of the slow play by N/S on the next board which meant they couldn't complete the round. E/W didn't want to play the board at the end but I wonder if I was wrong in not awarding them an adjusted score since it was N/S who caused the problem ?
N/S arrived at another table as E/W and played the hand again this time scoring just 10%. I probably made the mistake of awarding the 90% pair with an average plus. Should I have left the score as 90% (or even increased it to 100%) and applied a second penalty to reduce the infringers' score to 0%?
The Pairs who were unable to play the board were awarded Average+.
I suppose the question comes down to:
a. Basically, do two infringements of the same rule at different tables warrant one or two penalties?
b. If two, does the second penalty still apply if it involves the same board?
Finally N/S arrived at our table (Howell movement) and playing E/W this time West made a claim which we accepted. Having made a call on the next board my partner realised that the claim was incorrect and the board should have been scored as one down. West accepted my partner's analysis and so I corrected the score on the bridgemate. East objected to my ruling saying that as a call on the next board had been made the result had to stand. I promised to check it out when I got home. LAW 69 covers this problem but is a bit confusing to say the least. 69A says that agreement is established when a call on a subsequent board has been made. You would probably look no further as 69B is on the next page which counters this by saying that agreement with a claim can be withdrawn within the Correction Period (24 hours in our case - see Law 79C). I think 69A needs a reference to 69B and 69B 1 & 2 could be better expressed.
What a night!