[BLML] scoring question

Stefanie Rohan daisy_duck at btopenworld.com
Thu May 28 00:38:03 CEST 2015

It seems to me that if it is a two-winner movement, ie no other boards are arrow-switched, then any result obtained is invalid. How can a two-winner event have four different fields?

> On 27 May 2015, at 21:11, Sven Pran <svenpran at online.no> wrote:
> I don't see any problem?
> If the board was not fouled in any way then EW apparently took NS hands and
> vice versa, the auction started with the player now holding the hand marked
> as "dealer" on the board and the board was played out under these conditions
> then the result on the board stands as if EW were seated NS and NS were
> seated EW and they receive the corresponding scores (EW the score allocated
> to NS on the board and NS the score allocated to EW on the board).
> However if the board was fouled (see Law 87) and was played in that form on
> one single table only then both affected pairs shall receive Ave+ score on
> that board. 
>> -----Opprinnelig melding-----
>> Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] På vegne av
> Steve
>> Willner
>> Sendt: 27. mai 2015 16:10
>> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List
>> Emne: [BLML] scoring question
>> This should be simple.  In a Mitchell movement, playing matchpoints, one
> board
>> is played rotated 90 degrees at one table only.  That is to say, EW take
> the NS
>> hands and vice versa.  Otherwise the board is played normally and a result
>> achieved.  The players are in no way at fault; the Director instructed
> them to do
>> this for reasons that seemed good at the time.  For illustration, let's
> say the
>> normal EW, holding the NS cards, achieve a higher score than any other NS
> pair.
>> How should the board be scored?
>> a) normal EW keep their top, normal NS their bottom?  At the end of the
>> session, the EW total matchpoints will exceed the NS total matchpoints by
> two
>> tops.
>> b) artificial scores, presumably avg+ to both?  (Board unplayable,
> Director's
>> error, or something along those lines.)
>> c) something else?
>> I think I know the answer, but can anyone cite an official regulation in
> any
>> jurisdiction?  ACBL would be ideal, but I'd be glad to see a regulation or
> official
>> guideline from anywhere.  I looked in the EBU White Book and didn't find
>> anything, and I know of nothing in the ACBL.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Blml mailing list
>> Blml at rtflb.org
>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> Blml at rtflb.org
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

More information about the Blml mailing list