[BLML] scoring question

Richard Hills hildalirsch at gmail.com
Thu May 28 19:06:59 CEST 2015

Thirty-five years ago I was a trainee Director in Hobart. When I ran the
Wednesday walk-in pairs, a two field Mitchell movement, it was traditional
for the experts to sit North-South and for the novices to sit East-West.

If I had made the Director's Error of rotating a board 90 degrees, and if I
had made a second Director's Error of letting the result stand, then I
would have hugely advantaged the expert pair and hugely disadvantaged the
novice pair. The experts, temporarily East-West, would be comparing their
result against the results of the other novices. The novices, temporarily
North-South, would be comparing their result against the results of the
other experts.

Another example was an English congress many years ago. Although there were
two sections, open and restricted, they shared the same boards. A
restricted pair accidentally wandered into the open section and played a
board. How would you rule?

Best wishes,

Richard Hills

On Friday, May 29, 2015, Richard Hills <hildalirsch at gmail.com> wrote:

> Law 16C2(a) is a useful Law, but I disagree with Sven calling it a "carte
> blanche" Law.
> For example, many years ago I played in the Spring National Teams. As I
> was collecting a board from an adjacent table, LHO's ace of hearts fell
> face up. I quickly concealed it with my foot, then summoned the Director.
> As luck would have it, the trainee Director had not come across this
> obscure situation before, so the Chief Director was summoned. The CTD
> checked whether the other table had played the board. As they had not, I
> was rotated into the ace of hearts seat, and the other table was  later
> likewise rotated.
> But if I had seen LHO's ace of hearts in a two-winner vanilla Mitchell
> movement, then Law 16C2(a) would not apply. Instead the Director
> would apply Law 16C2 (c), allowing completion of play pending consideration
> of a possible adjusted score.
> Note that it is illegal to apply the so-called "carte blanche" Law 16C2(a)
> if the UI is received after the first call in the auction. In Steve
> Willner's case play had been completed before the error was discovered. If,
> for the sake of argument, one assumes that the Willner scenario was not a
> fouled board, then nevertheless massive UI occurred during the auction and
> play, hence no "carte blanche" ruling is permitted.
> Best wishes,
> Richard Hills
> On Friday, May 29, 2015, Sven Pran <svenpran at online.no
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','svenpran at online.no');>> wrote:
>> > -----Opprinnelig melding-----
>> > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] På vegne av
>> Steve
>> > Willner
>> > Sendt: 28. mai 2015 15:38
>> > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List
>> > Emne: Re: [BLML] scoring question
>> >
>> > 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.
>> [Sven Pran]
>> On the contrary L16C2a is a carte blanche to "save" the board whenever
>> reseating the players is sufficient to allow a normal play of the board.
>> "Unauthorized information" includes the case where a player has seen cards
>> not destined for him, for instance by taking the wrong hand from the
>> board.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Blml mailing list
>> Blml at rtflb.org
>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150528/d2edfbd4/attachment.html 

More information about the Blml mailing list