[gentgiant]

Last night we played teams at my local club (Kendal, UK) and as N/ in the middle of the evening I played a 2NT* contract to make 10 tricks and a good score of 690. A boost for the team.

However, the Bridgemate would not accept the result and the TD called. Eventually, it was found that the board had been fouled at the previous table with N and E hands transposed completely.

The board was declared 'No Play' and so no 690 for me!

However, no penalty was applied to the N/S or E/W pair at the 'guilty' table and in one case a team made a very big imps gain.

I understand why my team could not be scored for the board but I felt very aggrieved that the pairs from two teams that fouled the board were not penalised. Was I right to be annoyed?

[ahydra]

Yes, as you and your opponents should have both got +3 IMPs on the board. The penalty to the other table is at the TD's discretion but fouling a board is one of the bigger offences as it impacts play at other tables, so a PP should be more likely than not.

ahydra

[gordontd]

Law 86D might have been invoked.

[pran]

I was puzzled by OP:
Was this an ordinary match for teams where each contestant consists of two pairs and the scores are computed from the results at the two tables where the two contestants meet (ignoring any results at other taables)?

If so the only relevant question is whether the two tables involved played the board in identical form.

If they did then the board is scored normally whether or not the board differed in any way from the form in which it was played at other tables.

And if the Board was indeed fouled between the two involved tables then the Director shall apply (as applicable) 2007 Law 86 or 2017 Law 86B. (I assume that Law 86A is out of the question here).

[gentgiant]

 pran, on 2017-June-20, 04:51, said:

I was puzzled by OP:
Was this an ordinary match for teams where each contestant consists of two pairs and the scores are computed from the results at the two tables where the two contestants meet (ignoring any results at other tables)?

If so the only relevant question is whether the two tables involved played the board in identical form.

If they did then the board is scored normally whether or not the board differed in any way from the form in which it was played at other tables.

And if the Board was indeed fouled between the two involved tables then the Director shall apply (as applicable) 2007 Law 86 or 2017 Law 86B. (I assume that Law 86A is out of the question here).

The board was played correctly at Table 9 between 9 N/S and 11 E/W. Either or both of these pairs then put the cards incorrectly back int the carrier to pass to me on Table 8 where we, unwittingly, played the fouled board. Our partner in this teams of 4 night played the board correctly at their table.

So my score and our teammates scores (and our ops on my table) were voided and no other change made. As has been stated it seems we and our ops should have been given +3 imps for the board in question (and who knows what for our teammates) whilst Teams 9 and 11 penalised. If such had been applied, my team would have risen one placing and the 'guilty' teams unchanged in ranking.

It was unsettling and rather unfortunate. My wife was on the team for the very first time being a player of only 6 months experience and very much a beginner. The rest of us are classed as intermediates in BBO language. That extra place meant a lot to us as it meant we outperformed our level. I felt my wife had been hard done by and had an unfortunate introduction to club bridge.

[Vampyr]

You can always ask for the applicable law to be read out when a ruling is made. But anyway if the club is once a week you are probably not out of time for an appeal. The director may telephone a referee for a ruling.

[pran]

 gentgiant, on 2017-June-20, 05:32, said:

The board was played correctly at Table 9 between 9 N/S and 11 E/W. Either or both of these pairs then put the cards incorrectly back int the carrier to pass to me on Table 8 where we, unwittingly, played the fouled board. Our partner in this teams of 4 night played the board correctly at their table.

So my score and our teammates scores (and our ops on my table) were voided and no other change made. As has been stated it seems we and our ops should have been given +3 imps for the board in question (and who knows what for our teammates) whilst Teams 9 and 11 penalised. If such had been applied, my team would have risen one placing and the 'guilty' teams unchanged in ranking.

It was unsettling and rather unfortunate. My wife was on the team for the very first time being a player of only 6 months experience and very much a beginner. The rest of us are classed as intermediates in BBO language. That extra place meant a lot to us as it meant we outperformed our level. I felt my wife had been hard done by and had an unfortunate introduction to club bridge.

Let me try to get this clear:
Assume that your team was assigned the number 9 and that you played the Board in question in your match against team number 11.
Your halves of the teams met at table number 8 and played a fouled Board.

Alternative A:
The other halves of teams number 9 and 11 had previously played this board at table 9 and returned the cards incorrectly to the board after the play?
Alternative A1:
Only one pair at table 9 (either East/West or North/South fouled the board by exchanging cards between them before returning their cards to the Board.
The team responsible should receive -3IMPs, the other team should receive +3IMPs.
Alternative A2:
Both pairs "participated" in fouling the Board.
Both teams should receive -3IMPs.

Alternative B:
The board was fouled by some other contestants (neither team number 9 nor team number 11).
alternative B1:
teams number 9 and 11 played identical (but fouled) boards at both tables where they met. The board is scored normally
alternative B2:
teams number 9 and 11 played different versions of the Board at the two tables involved. They shall (normally) both receive the artificial score of +3IMPs.

[blackshoe]

I suspect some kind of movement of the boards such that the pairs that played the board immediately prior to OP's pair and opps did not include either of those pairs' teammates.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2017-June-20, 17:09, said:

I suspect some kind of movement of the boards such that the pairs that played the board immediately prior to OP's pair and opps did not include either of those pairs' teammates.

And that (in case) will bring us directly to my alternative B2.