Extraneous information

When a pair has extraneous information about a board (e.g. by attempting to play it when they were not scheduled to do so, against a wrong pair), my normal response when they come to the board against the correct pair is to award AV+/AV- in favour of non-offenders.

The other day NS managed to "forget" they shouldn't be playing such a board against the proper opponents and tried to play it again. I cottoned on to this after the hand was finished and went to award AV+/AV-, but EW objected as they had obtained 100% on the board.

I allowed the result to stand under law 16D2(c).

I then wondered if I should always give the non-offending side an opportunity to earn greater then AV+ by allowing play of the board.

Is this right? It seems odd but fairer.

If it is right it opens up a raft of questions about how you prevent offenders from using UI, as there is probably upside but no downside to them doing so.

Comments

  • Most of your questions are rendered moot by the recent change to law 15, such that it now says:

    LAW 15 - WRONG BOARD OR HAND
    A. Cards from Wrong Board
    1. A call is cancelled (together with any subsequent
    call) if it is made by a player holding cards that he has picked up from a wrong board.
    2. (a) If the offender’s partner has subsequently called, the Director shall award an adjusted score.
    (b) Otherwise, after looking at the correct hand the offender calls again and the auction continues normally from that point.
    (c) Law 16C applies to any call withdrawn or cancelled.
    3. If the offender subsequently repeats his call on the board from which he mistakenly drew his cards the Director may allow that board to be played normally, but the Director shall award an adjusted score when offender’s call differs from his original cancelled call.
    4. A procedural penalty (Law 90) may be assessed in addition to the rectifications above.
    B. Wrong Board Discovered During Auction or Play Period
    If, after the commencement of the auction period, the Director discovers that a contestant is playing a board not
    designated for him to play in the current round, then:
    1. if one or more players at the table have previously played the board, with the correct opponents or otherwise, the board is cancelled for both his side and his opponents.
    2. if none of the four players have previously played the board the Director shall require the auction and play to be completed. He allows the score to stand and may require both pairs to play the correct board against one another later.
    3. the Director shall award an artificial adjusted score [see Law 12C2(a)] to any contestant deprived of the opportunity to earn a valid score.

  • The official answer must be that if pairs attempt to play a board against the wrong opponents, Law 15 requires that they finish that attempt. Having played the board once, even if they play to a result a second time, that result cannot stand.

    In general, when a non-offending player has extraneous information then they should be given the opportunity to play the board. But if a player gets to a point where it is impossible to ignore the extraneous information (or impossible to appear to take advantage) then the TD should be prepared to cancel play of the board at that point. Even if the board is completed, if the extraneous information could have affected the result, then the TD may have to award an adjusted score.

  • XI is a bit like UI, in that abuse of XI can cause a score adjustment, but the existence of XI doesn't automatically cause a score adjustment. (Law 16D2d allows the Director to immediately adjust the score, but Law 16D2c gives the Director the alternative option of playing the hand out and then adjusting if the XI gave an advantage. Adjusting would probably only be a good idea if the XI clearly makes the board unplayable; "one of the players has seen all 52 cards" is probably enough to make the board unplayable. That said, if a player can see all the cards and still get 0%, maybe we should be playing it out just in case…)

    The big difference between XI and UI is that there's no requirement to avoid using XI; taking actions on the basis of XI is legal, but your score gets adjusted if you benefit from it. On the other hand, there is a requirement to call the Director (unlike with UI), so that the Director can try to set things up so that the XI doesn't cause a problem.

    Law 15 gives a more specific procedure than the generic procedure in Law 16D for the specific case of XI due to playing the wrong board, but the procedures don't really contradict each other.

  • @gordonrainsford said:
    Most of your questions are rendered moot by the recent change to law 15, such that it now says:

    ...

    1. the Director shall award an artificial adjusted score [see Law 12C2(a)] to any contestant deprived of the opportunity to earn a valid score.

    The only thing law 15 says about playing the board against the correct opponents is 15B3, and that does not define what consists "deprived of the opportunity to earn a valid score".

    @Robin_BarkerTD said:
    The official answer must be that if pairs attempt to play a board against the wrong opponents, Law 15 requires that they finish that attempt. Having played the board once, even if they play to a result a second time, that result cannot stand.

    I'm sure it says it somewhere, but where in the laws does it say a pair cannot play a board twice in a session?

    @ais523 said:
    That said, if a player can see all the cards and still get 0%, maybe we should be playing it out just in case…)

    My point exactly!

    Also, I'm not sure if this information is XI or UI (or some other category). It is accidental in the sense that it was obtained unintentionally, but is it is also as a result of an error by the offending pair (playing a wrong board).

  • @gordonrainsford said:
    Most of your questions are rendered moot by the recent change to law 15, such that it now says:

    LAW 15 - WRONG BOARD OR HAND

    B. Wrong Board Discovered During Auction or Play Period
    If, after the commencement of the auction period, the Director discovers that a contestant is playing a board not
    designated for him to play in the current round, then:

    1. if none of the four players have previously played the board the Director shall require the auction and play to be completed. He allows the score to stand and may require both pairs to play the correct board against one another later.

    This is what I meant: the new law requires them to continue playing the hand to completion.

  • @gordonrainsford said:
    This is what I meant: the new law requires them to continue playing the hand to completion.

    Aha. Yes that's what I did, but that wasn't what my question was about.

  • @JeremyChild said:

    @gordonrainsford said:
    This is what I meant: the new law requires them to continue playing the hand to completion.

    Aha. Yes that's what I did, but that wasn't what my question was about.

    Well once they've played it to completion, all your other questions about UI and 16D2(c) go away!

  • @gordonrainsford said:
    Well once they've played it to completion, all your other questions about UI and 16D2(c) go away!

    I think my OP may have been unclear. (if it wasn't then I'm missing something obvious, which is quite possible).

    Board 6 was played at table 3 by pairs #5 and #10 (Howell movement). They shouldn't have played it, but they did and in fact completed the hand before they realised.

    The result was counted as per 15B2.

    Later on, pair #10 come up against pair #2 where they are scheduled to play board 6 (per the original movement).

    **Q1: Where in the laws does it say they cannot play the board?
    **
    In fact they do play it because pair #10 are asleep. Pair #10 get 0% this time. Pair 10 have UI / XI since they have seen all the hands from when it was played before.

    I allowed the 100% to pair #2 to stand, under 16D2(c).

    Q2: Am I right to do so?

  • No, no score can stand when a pair has previously played a board.

    I am aware that this does not answer your first question, which I'll continue to consider!

  • @gordonrainsford said:
    No, no score can stand when a pair has previously played a board.

    I am aware that this does not answer your first question, which I'll continue to consider!

    L15B1 - though not quite since they have finished play
    1. if one or more players at the table have previously played the board, with the correct opponents or
    otherwise, the board is cancelled for both his side and his opponent.

    Did the director not tell the pairs not to play the board a second time but to call him when they encountered it again?

  • @pg10003 said:
    L15B1 - though not quite since they have finished play
    1. if one or more players at the table have previously played the board, with the correct opponents or
    otherwise, the board is cancelled for both his side and his opponent.

    15B only applies if "a contestant is playing a board not designated for him to play in the current round".

    Did the director not tell the pairs not to play the board a second time but to call him when they encountered it again?

    Yes I did!

  • edited June 2019
    Well there’s the problem! Either they failed to follow your instructions, or you let them play the board when they should not.
  • I'd have to have recourse to 6D2 and say that they are playing the hand from a 'sorted deck' (a pack of cards not randomized from its prior condition) but that is definitely stretching it.

    Everything Gordon says about the Law is right; they weren't allowed to play the board again and they failed to follow the TD's instructions. I do however have a lot of sympathy for the NOS who got a 100% board in spite of being handicapped by not having seen the board before.

    I admit I might have convinced myself to award a 100/0 adjusted score and mumbled about 12C1(b) - the NOS would have got 0% on the board when they were due to play it, if they hadn't carelessly already played it before.

    This probably doesn't stand up to scrutiny but it does seem to fairest outcome.

  • edited June 2019

    15B applies because pair 10 are no longer scheduled to play the board (schedules can change - insert name of rail franchise here}

  • @gordonrainsford said:
    Well there’s the problem! Either they failed to follow your instructions, or you let them play the board when they should not.

    They definitely failed to follow instructions! On a Mitchell I know when they're going to play the board, so I can be ready but it was a Howell so it wasn't obvious. I could have looked up the movement and found out, but as player director and also dealing with other calls I didn't. Such is club bridge.

  • If you told them not to play it, it wasn't scheduled to be played by them and anything they did on the board is irrelevant - which is essentially what Robin said.

  • @Robin_BarkerTD said:
    15B applies because pair 10 are no longer scheduled to play the board (schedules can change - insert name of rail franchise here}

    I started off by liking this answer, then wasn't so sure.

    If they're no longer scheduled to play it, then presumably neither are the other pair originally scheduled to play it (pair #2 in my scenario above). If they are not scheduled to play it, how can an artificial adjusted score be awarded?

    I realise this is getting into "angels dancing on a pinhead" territory, and it is "bl**dy obvious" that it can't be played again by a pair, but the law should still cover it.

    On a slight sidetrack, one thing I have noticed is that the concept of scheduled boards occasionally comes up in posts. I have been unable to find much written on the topic - when is a board scheduled? when is it not? what can change this? Can anyone direct me to some reading material? Thanks.

  • The definitions in the Laws say:

    Session
    an extended period of play during
    which a number of boards, specified
    by the Tournament Organizer, is
    scheduled to be played.

    Which essentially says that the schedule is whatever the organiser says it is.

  • It has been pointed out to me that L82B2 allows you to cancel the play of a board, which is what the TD actually did. Then it is not scheduled to be played and anything that happens on it is not valid as a score.

  • By the logic of not scoring boards that players are not scheduled to play, why does that not apply to the original incorrect play of board 6? Pairs 5 & 10 were not scheduled to play that board on that round and certainly not against each other, ever.
    Yet it is played and we score accordingly.
    Then it is not scheduled again, but it is.

    My feeling is that pair 2 should get the actaul result of 100% and incorrect get 40% as the standard.

    There might not be a legal leg to stand on for this, but it sounds fair...?
  • @Martin said:
    By the logic of not scoring boards that players are not scheduled to play, why does that not apply to the original incorrect play of board 6? Pairs 5 & 10 were not scheduled to play that board on that round and certainly not against each other, ever.
    Yet it is played and we score accordingly.

    There is a very clear and precise law that applies to this situation and tells us to do that.

Sign In or Register to comment.