Board fouled in first round

It never ceases to amaze me how our little darlings keep coming up with new ways to test our knowledge and application of the laws. :)

It's the first round. Table has played and scored the board. South, whilst removing the board from the table, drops it and the cards go flying. They can't remember the hands well enough and there are no hand records available.

I make them redeal the board so others can play something, and I mark the board as fouled for that round - presumably the scoring software (EBUScore pairs) treats it appropriately.

EW complain that they got a good result on the board, but since it now cannot be compared to anyone else, they will end up with (presumably) 50-50.

There is a discussion to be had about how responsible South is for this situation (it was accidental, but South is known to be clumsy and we can always take more care), but leaving that aside for now, let's assume South is deemed responsible for the situation (perhaps he got cross and threw the board down).

My instinct is to want to award EW 60-40 - it is not their fault don't have the opportunity to get a good score, but can I?

The board has been played and scored, so I can't see that there has been damage per 12B1: "Damage exists when, because of an
infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred." The result has been obtained and was not affected by the infraction.

Comments

  • If they don't play the redealt board should it not be scored as "not played"?

  • It can't be scored as "Not played". A bridge score was achieved for the board, and then the board was fouled, so the board has to be scored as being in a sub-field of one table. Law 87B refers.

    Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live

  • @JeremyChild said:
    They can't remember the hands well enough

    Some players can't remember hands one minute later and some can remember them 25 years later!

    Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live

  • 60/40 seems right.

  • @GrahamC said:
    If they don't play the redealt board should it not be scored as "not played"?

    "> @Senior_Kibitzer said:

    It can't be scored as "Not played". A bridge score was achieved for the board,

    Even if a score hadn't been achieved, "Not Played" should never be used, unless the board was not scheduled to be played.

  • @JeremyChild said:
    and I mark the board as fouled for that round - presumably the scoring software (EBUScore pairs) treats it appropriately.

    EBUScore Pairs will give an artificial score for a board in sub-field of one result but it won't know who (if anyone) is at fault for the one result being not-comparable to other results. So it is presumptuous to leave it to the software to treat the board appropriately. In this case, the TD knows there will only be one fouled result - so should decide on the appropriate (Law 12C2) ruling and enter that.

    There have always been concerns at teams of one pair fouling in a board after a conceding a bad result - put a hand face up in the board when taking it to the other table. Hand records and not physically sharing boards and Law 86B have made these concerns less.

    I have not heard of such occurence at pairs - it only works if the deal is not recorded in any way. But I can imagine a Mollo character conceding a slam off two cashing aces, acting angry and passing/throwing the board to the next table, only to have it explode all over the floor - and the deal and bad result disappear.

    I am sure nobody behaves like that at Jeremy's clubs - but EW do have cause to feel unhappy.

  • Love the Mollo comment. HH once again.
  • I am sure nobody behaves like that at Jeremy's clubs - but EW do have cause to feel unhappy.

    I had something similar the next day (in effect but not execution). South was declarer and claimed with 3 tricks to go. Dummy had three cards left in the suit nearest to East. East scooped up dummy's three cards as well as his own hand as was just about to shuffle them.

    Fortunately I was dummy and awake, so I managed to stop him in time.

  • @gordonrainsford said:
    60/40 seems right.

    Agreed - but under which law?

    I'm conscious of 12B2 (The Director may not award an adjusted score on the grounds that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side.)

  • @JeremyChild said:

    @gordonrainsford said:
    60/40 seems right.

    Agreed - but under which law?

    I think Law 12C2 applies when a result was obtained but cannot be compared to any other result.

  • edited March 6

    @Robin_BarkerTD said:
    I think Law 12C2 applies when a result was obtained but cannot be compared to any other result.

    Alternatively, we start with Law 87B

    In scoring a fouled board the Director determines as closely as possible which scores were obtained on the board in its correct form and which in the changed form(s). He divides the scores on that basis into groups and rates each group separately as provided in the regulations for the tournament. (In the absence of a relevant regulation the Director selects and announces his method.)

    Defaulting to EBU regulations tells use what to do with groups of more than one score (neuberg, etc.). You can make up what to with results of one score (using the bit in brackets) or follow what the EBU does and apply Law 12C2.

  • @SteveMap said:
    Love the Mollo comment. HH once again.

    Possibly ChCh or, more likely, his cousin: I think that virtually all other Mollo's characters upheld - to a greater or lesser degree- the ethics of the game.

    Certainly RR and HH would make the contract - HH by a deliberate deception play and RR by an accidental one. Papa would find some clever way of going down, Karapet certainly would go down, even if the contract appeared cold at first glance - but he is used to it. TT and DD are too meek to raise their temper and WW would just be complaining about being in a slam with 'only' 32 points. SB of course is the ultimate Law upholder and neither CC or PPP seem of such deposition. MM of course would still be blaming her (male) partner.

  • Yes, much more likely CC. Although HH ate a card once to avoid showing he’d revoked.
  • Sorry about all this as it’s distracting from the main thread. But for anyone who’s not sure what this is all about Read “Bridge in the Menagerie”
    Book by Victor Mollo. An excellent and informative read.
  • On a different tangent. If the hands are dealt at the table, it is good to make a record of the hand when it has been played for the first time.

    Traditionally in England this was done with curtain cards - when the EBU used pre-printed curtain cards for making up pre-dealt hands. Elsewhere (France?), the hands were completed on a hand diagram on the traveller.

    If there is no traveller, perhaps the tabletop scoring device has a facility to enter the deal by the players who have played it?

  • @Robin_BarkerTD said:

    If there is no traveller, perhaps the tabletop scoring device has a facility to enter the deal by the players who have played it?

    Good idea! Failing that maybe put the four hands out double dummy and take a photo on your phone, which you could pass to director if needed?

    Peter Bushby Suffolk

Sign In or Register to comment.