[One Short]

Normal club evening; 11 ½ tables; Mitchell movement; 9 rounds of 3 boards; skip after 6 rounds.
The Playing Director forgot to mention at the start of the session that there would be a skip movement although he was aware there should be one. At the end of the 6th round (about 3 tables still playing) he duly announced the start of the next round but forgot to ‘remind’ the room of the skip.
As a consequence, 6 of the tables started bidding, NS not realizing that they had already played the hand, but other tables did notice and announced their discoveries. 5 tables had not started bidding.
The Director then corrected, duly implemented the skip, cancelled the 6 started boards due to the irregularity and the remaining 5 tables continued normally with all the players now in their correct seating positions.
At the end of the evening the 6 cancelled boards were scored AV+ both sides; LAW 12: C.2.(a)with 2 pairs being allotted 66% and 65% C.2.©.

Q1 In the circumstances it seems hardly practical that LAW 15: C. (Play of a wrong board) should apply to the 6 boards but has a Director any authority to cancel all 6 boards and award the adjusted scores?

Q2 Is there any authority to cancel all 11 boards and not award any adjusted scores or is such a move unfair on the other 5 tables

Q3 Hypothetical in this case – if the Director, at the start of the session, had announced a skip movement but then failed to implement it, would any player be considered to be partly, or even directly, at fault for not being aware of the correct movement at the time it should have been implemented?

Q4 Facetiously – Should the Director award himself a PP?

[crazy4hoop]

I'm not sure I know the answer to your questions but I have a question. Could the director just ask that play stop this round and have the boards go down another table?

[gordontd]

 crazy4hoop, on 2012-July-01, 08:42, said:

I'm not sure I know the answer to your questions but I have a question. Could the director just ask that play stop this round and have the boards go down another table?

How is that going to help?

[gordontd]

 One Short, on 2012-July-01, 07:47, said:

Q1 In the circumstances it seems hardly practical that LAW 15: C. (Play of a wrong board) should apply to the 6 boards

Why not? That would be the normal solution.

[gordontd]

 One Short, on 2012-July-01, 07:47, said:

6 of the tables started bidding, NS not realizing that they had already played the hand,

NS wouldn't have already played the hand.

[One Short]

apologies it was obviously EW who had already seen the hands

[FrancesHinden]

 One Short, on 2012-July-01, 07:47, said:

Normal club evening; 11 ½ tables; Mitchell movement; 9 rounds of 3 boards; skip after 6 rounds.
The Playing Director forgot to mention at the start of the session that there would be a skip movement although he was aware there should be one. At the end of the 6th round (about 3 tables still playing) he duly announced the start of the next round but forgot to ‘remind’ the room of the skip.
As a consequence, 6 of the tables started bidding, NS not realizing that they had already played the hand, but other tables did notice and announced their discoveries. 5 tables had not started bidding.
The Director then corrected, duly implemented the skip, cancelled the 6 started boards due to the irregularity and the remaining 5 tables continued normally with all the players now in their correct seating positions.
At the end of the evening the 6 cancelled boards were scored AV+ both sides; LAW 12: C.2.(a)with 2 pairs being allotted 66% and 65% C.2.©.

Q1 In the circumstances it seems hardly practical that LAW 15: C. (Play of a wrong board) should apply to the 6 boards but has a Director any authority to cancel all 6 boards and award the adjusted scores?

Q2 Is there any authority to cancel all 11 boards and not award any adjusted scores or is such a move unfair on the other 5 tables

Q3 Hypothetical in this case – if the Director, at the start of the session, had announced a skip movement but then failed to implement it, would any player be considered to be partly, or even directly, at fault for not being aware of the correct movement at the time it should have been implemented?

Q4 Facetiously – Should the Director award himself a PP?

Q1: If he has noticed quickly enough, and has a bit of spare time, and (possibly has some help), he should apply 15C i.e. he gets everyone to move correctly, and for the 6 tables that had started to bid the hand once, they start again with the correct opponents. The the auction starts the same way, they can get on with it. This is what he ought to do, and on any table where the auction is "different" (for the Lawbook definition of different) he cancels the board and awards AV+. It's hard enough managing that with 1 table never mind with 6, but he could certainly try with an announcement along the lines of "start bidding the hand again with the right opponents, if the auction is different or you are in any way concerned about it, please call me"

It doesn't seem that impractical to try and apply 15C. If he thinks he can't, then I don't see what option the TD has other than to do what he did. He might apply AV+ to NS/AV to EW saying EW are 'partially at fault' for not realising they'd played the board before the auction started, but that's a pretty harsh ruling and I don't think many would.

Q2 Why on earth would he? 5 tables have been able to play the board properly and should keep their results.

Q3: Possibly the EW players, as I said you could give them Av (or even Av-) for being partly or fully at fault but I don't think any club would do that. If you had a room full of experienced tournament players who were also qualified TDs you might! (What a frightening thought...)

Q4: Well, he's screwed up. But even if he's a playing director, no. He might offer to (e.g.) donate his free play voucher to make a second prize instead, or buy the offended players a drink... but I wouldn't confuse TD's error with the TD's score as a player.

[blackshoe]

Gordon's right. in fact, technically, 15C probably applies at all 11 tables - it's just that at 5 of them there's no auction to cancel. 15C applies when "during the auction period the director discovers..." and the auction period starts for a side when either player takes his hand out of the board (Law 17A), so unless at one or more of the five tables nobody took his hand out of the board, 15C applies at all of them. So the correct ruling is to cancel whatever's going on, have the EW pairs move up a table, and apply 15C at all 11 tables (only the six where an auction had been started being a problem). That the TD now has to work hard to ensure things are done right at six tables simultaneously is just too bad for him.

Q1: As above. One could, I suppose, argue that the director has broad powers to "ensure the orderly progress of the game" (Law 81C1) but I think that argument is trumped by

Quote

Law 81B2: The director applies and is bound by these Laws and supplementary regulations announced under authority given in these Laws.

Q2: No. See my answer to Q1.

Q3: Not by me. It's the director's responsibility to ensure the players execute the movement properly at a skip. I go around the room while they're playing the last board of the pre-skip round and remind each pair individually of the skip. I note in passing that the Bridgepads we use here (and I would guess any similar devices) include the skip instructions to EW in the next screen after they approve the score on the last board of the round - but nobody ever looks at that.

Q4: He should be required to pay for the first round of drinks after the game. This would work well for me, because the club games I direct don't happen in places with a bar, and the custom of going to a nearby bar after the game has died out.

[RMB1]

In a club setting, I would get everyone to skip and then tell NS who have started an auction to do their best to play the hand normally, and say if anyone at the table thought there was a problem that I would look at it when I was able.

[Alternatively, with 11.5 tables play a hesitation mitchell with no NS1, avoiding the board sharing.]

[blackshoe]

That would be a much better alternative. However, if you're going to do it around here, you'd best be prepared for a lot of "what's with the weird movement?" crap.

[crazy4hoop]

 gordontd, on 2012-July-01, 09:26, said:

How is that going to help?

I thought instead of the players skipping a table that the boards would essentially skip a table to make up for it. I am probably overlooking something, maybe overlooking a lot of things.

[crazy4hoop]

I thought this 10-table example from ACBLscore would work for the 12 (or 11.5) table game:

3.10.3 Forgot to call the skip
Let's say, you have a 10 table game with Mitchell Movement. There should be a skip
after 5 rounds. However, at the beginning of the 6th round, E-W pairs tell you that
they have already played the boards which reminds you that you forgot to call the
skip. N-S pairs saw their hands already, therefore it is more sensible to move the
boards to the next lower table (which makes the same effect as players' skipping)
instead of moving the players.
This requires some changes to be made in ACBLscore. Use EDMOV and choose
the second option ("Display or change movement"). The schedule of seating and
the 12-item menu will be displayed. The schedule clearly does not match the seating
in your game at this point.
First, you need to correct the E-W player seating and then, move the boards on the
program. Select option seven (Edit pairs) from the menu to start changing the
seating so that ACBLscore will be consistent with your game. After choosing "Add a
constant to moving pairs", select direction of moving pairs from the alternatives
presented to you. Next, ACBLscore will ask the starting and the ending round
numbers (the starting round number is 6 since the error occurred at round 6. The
ending round number is 9), low (1) and high (10) moving pair number in cycle, and
the constant to add all moving pair numbers (1). You will be back to the Select Pair
Edit Option window. Press ESC and select "edit boards" from the 12-item menu.
Choose, the first option ("Add a constant to board numbers") from the Select
Board Edit Option window. Change the starting round number to 6 and ending
round number to 9. Low board number in cycle is 1 and the high one is 30. Since it
is a 3 board per round movement, change the constant to add to board numbers to 3.
After you are done, check the schedule to see whether you have achieved what you
were trying to do. Then, select save and exit from the 12-item menu. If there is an
error, ACBLscore will inform you; if not, you will be back to the EDMOV options

Again, EBU is out of the jurisdiction of ACBL and I apologize for wasting anybody's time if this alternative is no good.

[aguahombre]

Blackshoe is right, and the Director will get what he deserves by applying L15C multiple times. That will be his PP, and I bet he will never do this again.

Any other adjustments (NP, ave, etc) would be just plain lazy, and improper unless he first tried to apply 15C.

BTW: to "Crazy"...Neither Blackshoe, nor I represent EBU and we chose to post. If you felt your idea had merit, it is not a waste of anyone's time, IMO.

[blackshoe]

 crazy4hoop, on 2012-July-01, 16:25, said:

Again, EBU is out of the jurisdiction of ACBL and I apologize for wasting anybody's time if this alternative is no good.

Agree with Agua. I'm not familiar with the software used in England, but I'll bet it's at least as capable as is ACBLScore of modifying a movement.

[gordontd]

 crazy4hoop, on 2012-July-01, 16:25, said:

I thought this 10-table example from ACBLscore would work for the 12 (or 11.5) table game:

Having looked at the original post more carefully, I think you are correct that this would work (although, like RMB1, I would have much preferred a Hesitation Mitchell, rather than the given movement in which players only play 2/3 or 3/4 of the boards in circulation).

However it's not the solution specified in the law book for this situation, and I think a NS pair who seemed to have had a good unopposed auction to the top spot (or were well on the way to it) would be entitled to feel aggrieved if they then lost the board because the director decided to improvise.