[BLML] scoring question

Sven Pran svenpran at online.no
Thu May 28 17:16:38 CEST 2015

If you rotate a board 90 degrees at the table you also “rotate” the dealer and the zones with respect to the players, but you do not change the actual cards held in each of the four directions North, East, South and West, or the designation of dealer or zones to these directions. 


“Hands”, “Dealer” and “zones” refer to the directions North, East, South and West , not the players (persons) assumed to be seated in these directions.

So please forget the misunderstanding that a board is fouled simply by having been rotated at the table without in any way disturbing the contents of, or markings on the board.


An example of where "if the type of contest and scoring permit" is relevant is matches for teams of four. Here you cannot rotate a board in one room without also rotating the same board in the same manner in the other room. In events where each “contestant” is a pair of two players or a single player no such consideration should ever be needed and Law 16C2a is fully applicable so that the Director can allow normal play of a rotated board to be completed and scored.


(Why you mention L16C3 at all is incomprehensible. The unauthorized information was received at the very moment a player looked at the wrong hand – see L16C1)


Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] På vegne av Richard Hills
Sendt: 28. mai 2015 16:34
Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List
Emne: [BLML] scoring question


 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 the Director.


Best wishes,


Richard Hills


On Thursday, May 28, 2015, Steve Willner <swillner at nhcc.net <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','swillner at nhcc.net');> > wrote:

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...
URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150528/bdeb5bd5/attachment.html 

More information about the Blml mailing list