Procedural Penalty Due to Mis-boarding

We had a situation at the club where, after playing a board, North ended up with 14 cards going back into the pocket and East 12 cards.

The next table played the hand and discovered the card imbalance as they reached the final trick. The director (me) duly awarded a 40-40, since the hand was then unplayable, to that table and issued a reminder to count cards accurately in future.

The director then considered that the loss of a board to that table was an aggravating consideration for the mis-boarding at the previous table and that it would be unfair to take away a board from one table without also penalising the table which had caused the mis-boarding. A standard penalty of 25% of a top was then issued to the players who had mis-boarded the hand, both NS and EW. I must admit that I would have been happier were I able to issue the old 10% penalty, since that would have seemed more fair.

What is the general view here? Was the director unreasonable in awarding a penalty for the mis-boarding? Relevant laws seem to be WB 2.8 and 8.12.

Thanks in advance.

Comments

  • WB2.8.2 suggests a warning for a first offence (of passing on a hand without 13 cards).

    The fault here is entirely that of the next table for not counting their cards. The consequences are worse solely because of the next table's inability to follow correct procedure.

    40-40 to the next table, warning to the misboarding table.

    In terms of 10% or 25%, the director has full discretion as to what is an appropriate penalty, however it would need extenuating or exacerbating circumstances to vary from the recommended levels.

  • TagTag
    edited October 7

    Agreed, @JeremyChild but it also suggests a PP for passing on the wrong 13 cards. 14 cards could be viewed as the wrong 13 cards but the WB doesn't make it entirely clear what it means by "the wrong 13 cards".

    Obviously, I have received an appeal and am trying to find what is viewed as fair and reasonable.

  • The White Book regards it as a worse offence to pass on the wrong 13 cards rather than passing on other than 13 cards because the latter can be detected by the next table. The attitude is to judge offences by the severity of their impact.

    Not counting ones card is an example (Law 90B7) of errors that may be subject to penalty - which explains some of the emphasis in the White Book.

    What is "fair and reasonable" is to be consistent: unless the club always issues a procedural penalty for this offence or always issues a procedural penalty to pairs who have been warned previously, then it may be regarded as inconsistent and 'not fair' to penalize in this case.

  • @Tag said:
    14 cards could be viewed as the wrong 13 cards

    Not if it's the right 13 cards plus an extra one. I think it's clear that the wrong 13 cards means 13 cards some of which belong to a different hand.

  • As Gordon and Robin have said, swapping cards between hands (the 'wrong' 13 cards) is undetectable whereas 14 vs 12 should be caught by both pairs.

    Slightly off-topic, but if N/S are 14/12 while E/W are 13-13 I would give 60/40.

  • @Frances said:
    As Gordon and Robin have said, swapping cards between hands (the 'wrong' 13 cards) is undetectable whereas 14 vs 12 should be caught by both pairs.

    Slightly off-topic, but if N/S are 14/12 while E/W are 13-13 I would give 60/40.

    Good point.

Sign In or Register to comment.