[pescetom]

I think this belongs in Simple Rulings even though it takes some explanation and caused some discussion.
Follow your local regulations and your own judgement, but please point both out.

In a club f2f MP tournament with Howell movement, Bill and Sue move to EW knowing they will face Mike and Jane, boards 9+10.
Jane arrives and sits in South and places the first board on the table.
Bill and Sue make 3♥-1, which looks to them like a good score given that NS have spades, maybe game.
Jane tries to enter the score but the lead is flagged as wrong, realises she is scoring board 9 but this is board 17.
Director is called.
Turns out Mike and Jane already played this board two rounds ago but in EW, making 4♥-1.

Boards 9+10 are located and duly played.
But later Bill and Sue are due to play boards 17-18 in EW against Sally and Tom.
Director awards Sally and Tom 60% for board 17, but what should she award Bill and Sue? See poll.

Please explain and justify your choice, in particular if you were willing to award not played or if you prefer to let Bill and Sue maintain the (joint top) score obtained against Mike and Jane even though the latter pair had already played the same board obtaining much the same score.

[barmar]

Since Bill and Sue played the board, they should normally get the score they achieved on it. However, the director can adjust if they think the defense had an advantage because they'd already seen the board -- they theoretically can defend double dummy. But if they didn't realize they were playing a board they already played, they probably couldn't work this out, so there's no actual damage.

[CMOTDib]

I voted other.
The reasoning is that Mike and Jane had previously played the board and therefore Law15 B 1 & 3 seem to be appropriate. I believe that "cancelled" in this context means that the play between Mike/Jane and Bill/Sue never happened. At Law 12 C 2(a) it is suggested that the score should be 40% if directly at fault, 50% if partly at fault or 60% if in no way at fault. The narrative would suggest that Bill/Sue knew that they should play boards 9 & 10 but it seems they accepted that Jane knew what she was doing and played the board without discussion. It seems to me that they are partly at fault for playing board 17 and therefore they should have an artificially adjusted score of 50%. I might reconsider if we know that Bill/Sue are inexperienced and Mike/Jane say that they convinced Bill/Sue to play the board on the table (stopped them calling the director).
It might be appropriate to discuss the situation with Mike/Jane and look at procedures (table cards or scoring equipment) to see if this could have been prevented.

[pescetom]

Thanks to both (I did hope for more) who replied. I understand it's a bit technical and no fun, but such is directing.

My heart is with barmar, I was taught long ago by WBF directors that the result obtained playing bridge should stand whenever reasonably possible.
And although the opponents who had already played the board in EW had every chance to obtain a good score, if they failed to do so I would let the score stand for NS rather than assign them an artificial score. But I can see (and do not refute) the opposing argument that the result is never valid if one or both pairs have already played the board.

What was totally unacceptable IMO was the actual decision of 40%-60% against Sally and Tom, whereby Bill and Sue collect a 40% as wholly responsible while Mike and Jane (who were at least equally responsible for the incident) get off scot free.

[jillybean]

Hold on! I first read this, rolled my eyes and considered it out of my league.

Who was responsible for moving the boards?

[CMOTDib]

"And although the opponents who had already played the board in EW had every chance to obtain a good score, if they failed to do so I would let the score stand for NS rather than assign them an artificial score". Not sure how you would score Board 17 with one pair scoring as N/S and E/W.

"What was totally unacceptable IMO was the actual decision of 40%-60% against Sally and Tom". Sorry I thought Sally/Tom had 60%

"whereby Bill and Sue collect a 40% as wholly responsible " that is harsh, did they appeal? I assume the director that assessed that score has had a bit of guidance?
"while Mike and Jane (who were at least equally responsible for the incident) get off scot free." How about a procedural penalty?

"Who was responsible for moving the boards?" I think we have to assume it was the players as the narrative didn't qualify that point.

"Boards 9+10 are located and duly played." Bill and Sue knew they were going to play those boards and Mike and Jane should have checked what boards were required. So both were responsible.

Sometimes you just have to make a decision on what you are told, even though some details have been omitted, and how it is reflected in the law Book and regulations.

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2025-June-20, 09:07, said:

Hold on! I first read this, rolled my eyes and considered it out of my league.

Who was responsible for moving the boards?

NS were responsible both for moving the boards and for scorekeeping (which by local regulation includes insertion of the contract and lead before play actually starts, and control of leads is enabled).
Nevertheless, EW have a duty ensure they are at the correct table against the correct opponents playing the correct boards.

[jillybean]

pescetom, on 2025-June-21, 12:53, said:

NS were responsible both for moving the boards and for scorekeeping (which by local regulation includes insertion of the contract and lead before play actually starts, and control of leads is enabled).
Nevertheless, EW have a duty ensure they are at the correct table against the correct opponents playing the correct boards.

Ok, I just wanted to check that this case didn't involve one of those overbearing Directors who move the boards and won't let the players touch them after the play.
It is nteresting that you have a regulation to control this. Is it a local custom or actual published regulation?