[BLML] scoring question
hildalirsch at gmail.com
Thu May 28 16:34:19 CEST 2015
Obviously a 90 degree rotation of the board fulfills the "dealer differed"
criterion of Law 87A, if one accepts that the North-South and East-West
fields are scored separately.
Steve Willner suggested (but admitted he might have wrongly interpreted)
Law 16C2(a). But this Law contains the important caveat "if the type of
contest and scoring permit". In the circumstances under discussion this
point is moot; firstly at this time Law 16C3 over-rules Law 16C2(a),
secondly Law 16 unauthorized information obviously has zero relevance to a
Director's ruling on a fouled board.
Earlier in this thread Petrus suggested a regulation based on Law 15 might
be applicable. In my opinion, not so. Law 87 is about play of a Fouled
Board, but Law 15 is about play of a Wrong Board. That is, Law 15A (Players
Have Not Previously Played Board) defines a wrong board as "a board not
designated for them in the current round". In Steve Willner's scenario the
board was indeed designated for the current round, but instead fouled by
On Thursday, May 28, 2015, Steve Willner <swillner at nhcc.net
> On 2015-05-28 8:57 AM, Richard Hills wrote:
> > The key concluding phrase of Law 87A in this case is: "and the
> > contestants who ++should have had a score comparison++ did not play the
> > board in identical form for such reason."
> L87A has three conditions: A, or B, and C. (The above is C.) It looks
> to me
as though either A or B is required for the board to be fouled.
> There's also L16C2a. I would have thought that allows switching EW and
> NS, but maybe that was a wrong interpretation.
> Blml mailing list
> Blml at rtflb.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Blml