[bluejak]

pran, on Jul 16 2010, 07:36 PM, said:

Do I understand you correct that if for some strange reason your companions at the other table had played an entirely different board resulting in 7NT bid and made by NS at that table you would have accepted as correct a resulting score on that board of some 17 IMPs (for 2220 - 620) to your opponents?

(You would of course still have been given your 3 IMPs score)

Why 2220 - 620? Where does the 620 come from?

pran, on Jul 16 2010, 10:06 PM, said:

I just don't understand this logic.

Already when I conducted my first top level event for teams of four back in the early eighties I met the established principle that all boards were shifted between the two "rooms" in the same match in order to minimize any risk of problems from fouled boards within a match.

And even today using preduplicated boards whre we experience a mean time between duplimated errors of more than five years (I am serious!) we still maintain the same rule of shifting the boards between the two rooms.

Of course this requires one copy of each board for each match (two tables) - so what? In the old days with manual preduplicating this took a little effort, but today ????

(Lower level events are a different matter - was this a low-level event?)

I take it that you never run Pairs events in Norway because it is not possible to pass one board around the room so everyone plays the same physical board?

It is all very well criticising as you often do the way things are run in other countries by only looking a one minor effect and ignoring other problems, but it does you no credit. The idea of duplimate machines is specifically so that you can produce identical copies of the same hand. If you always make sure the same physical set boards must be played you must have an incredibly low opinion of the people that do the duplimating.

We do not come to Norway and look to see if anything goes wrong. We do not continually criticise your methods and I am not sure it helps. When we run a Mitchell movement it is always charming to hear how you would never do such a thing in Norway because of this or that. Funny: Mitchell movements are much safer against board mis-duplication. Are you being consistent?

We use the Australian method because people like it for a number of reasons. Yes, something can go wrong, but I bet that in your experience of running events in Norway something went wrong somewhere sometime. It happens, and I would not come and say all Norwegian events were run wrong because of some single problem or other.

[Bbradley62]

bluejak, on Jul 17 2010, 04:14 PM, said:

Are you seriously suggesting that you check every board you play to make sure that that the label on it is not a label on top of a label, and you would notice such a label?

If you did happen to notice a board had been altered in some way, are you seriously suggesting you always check with the TD rather than just following what it says on a printed label?

No, but some OCD Norths might notice that they were dealer on two consecutive hands, although this wouldn't occur until the next board is presented. I'm also surprised that no player had a scorecard that indicated who should be the dealer on that board. But I thought I wouldn't bring it up until someone else did...

[pran]

mjj29, on Jul 17 2010, 09:36 AM, said:

pran, on Jul 17 2010, 01:42 AM, said:

They all sit (together with several other simultaneous events) in a single huge arena built to the Winter Olympic games in 1994, see http://bridgefestiva...ict/hh_inne.jpg 

For the teams events a barrier separates the two "rooms", and each "match" has its own set of boards, exchanging boards via the "barrier".

Isn't it too distruptive having everone moving around to swap boards? Does the barrier have table numbers marked on to ensure you get the right boards?

No, the area is sectioned so that each event has its part of the area.

Yes, the barrier is marked with table numbers.

Tables playing up to three boards/Round (events for pairs) are given the full set of boards for the round and need not exchange with anybody and we have assistants helping with the exchange of boards for the teams events.

[pran]

bluejak, on Jul 17 2010, 09:43 PM, said:

pran, on Jul 16 2010, 07:36 PM, said:

Do I understand you correct that if for some strange reason your companions at the other table had played an entirely different board resulting in 7NT bid and made by NS at that table you would have accepted as correct a resulting score on that board of some 17 IMPs (for 2220 - 620) to your opponents?

(You would of course still have been given your 3 IMPs score)

Why 2220 - 620? Where does the 620 come from?

You made game at your table didn't you? (Make it 1520 - 420 if not vulnerable)

bluejak, on Jul 17 2010, 09:43 PM, said:

pran, on Jul 16 2010, 10:06 PM, said:

I just don't understand this logic.

Already when I conducted my first top level event for teams of four back in the early eighties I met the established principle that all boards were shifted between the two "rooms" in the same match in order to minimize any risk of problems from fouled boards within a match.

And even today using preduplicated boards whre we experience a mean time between duplimated errors of more than five years (I am serious!) we still maintain the same rule of shifting the boards between the two rooms.

Of course this requires one copy of each board for each match (two tables) - so what? In the old days with manual preduplicating this took a little effort, but today ????

(Lower level events are a different matter - was this a low-level event?)

I take it that you never run Pairs events in Norway because it is not possible to pass one board around the room so everyone plays the same physical board?

Are you kidding? A fouled board in an event for teams where each board is compared between only two tables is much more serious than a fouled board in events for pairs where you compare each board over many more tables. And it is so much simpler to avoid the consequences in matches for teams where all you have to do is make sure both tables play the same copy. I shall say no more.

[nige1]

bluejak, on Jul 15 2010, 10:19 AM, said:

We [N/S] bid and make 4♥ in a Swiss Teams.  This is excellent because [a] it is cold off, and [b] the opponents are cold for 4♠, and [c] we gained 12 imps.  It is merely icing on the cake that E/W are a top Welsh pair. So we win the match 20-0 and are pretty darn pleased!   Then   the bad news. The board was mis-marked.  We played it with North as dealer, at the other table [where team mates made 3♠ +2] they played it with West the dealer.  It is a fact that it is easier to miss the spade game with North the dealer. Who is at fault?  The organiser, I suppose: this mis-marked board was played at our table and two others out of 35 to 40 tables. How do you rule?

Scoring: Teams

To appreciate why MrDct is again right, consider this freak:
Opponents are EW in room 1, NS in room 2.
Both opposing pairs conventionally open 2N with major two suiters.
In room 1, West is dealer and ends up in 7N +2220.
In room 2, North is dealer and ends up in 7N +2220.
Total swing, a useful 4440. We can do nothing about it

---

mrdct, on Jul 15 2010, 10:12 PM, said:

I'd love to see the root cause analysis of how this situation arose in the first place. Every board that I've ever seen was either pre-marked by the manufacturer or has the board number, correct vulnerability and dealer all on one sticker so it's impossible to stuff it up. I wonder how many other sessions and events this incorrectly marked board had been used in previously without being detected.

blackshoe, on Jul 16 2010, 01:19 AM, said:

That doesn't matter, since it's too late to do anything about it anyway.

mrdct, on Jul 16 2010, 02:10 AM, said:

If nobody analyses why things have gone wrong, history will surely repeat itself. I guess air crash investigations must be a complete waste of time and money also!

[mjj29]

nige1, on Jul 17 2010, 09:59 PM, said:

To appreciate why MrDct is again right, consider this freak:
Opponents are EW in room 1, NS in room 2.
Both opposing pairs conventionally open 2N with major two suiters.
In room 1, West is dealer and ends up in 7N +2220.
In room 2, North is dealer and ends up in 7N +2220.
Total swing, a useful 4440. We can do nothing about it

There's no question of not adjusting and here both tables bid to a sensible contract, so it's just adjusted to +3/+3 IMPs. If, however, at the other table 7NT was reached and at your table they played in a part score - then the question is do you get any IMPs for your opponents having got a very bad score on the board and then (through no fault of yours) the board got cancelled?

[PeterAlan]

bluejak, on Jul 17 2010, 03:14 PM, said:

PeterAlan, on Jul 17 2010, 02:35 PM, said:

It seems to me that there's another moral here as well: if you get a board on your table that's had its label altered in this sort of way, then check it out with the director before playing it.

Here, 12 players (3 tables) seemed to have played the board with nary a question.

That's right, let's blame the victims, why not?

Are you seriously suggesting that you check every board you play to make sure that that the label on it is not a label on top of a label, and you would notice such a label?

If you did happen to notice a board had been altered in some way, are you seriously suggesting you always check with the TD rather than just following what it says on a printed label?

This is a totally OTT reaction, David. I wasn't blaming anyone, merely making a mild suggestion that if you have a board in front of you where the label's obviously been altered it might be worth checking it out before playing it. Probably you'd first check the vulnerability / dealer against your scorecard rather than call the TD immediately (when I wrote my previous post I originally didn't include the words "with the director" but added them in deference to all those who constantly encourage us to call the TD). Where one label's been completely replaced by another (label on label), and the new (complete) label is for the board you're expecting there's obviously no issue. But a board where just the number has been altered on the label and nothing else has woud, I hope, raise a question in my mind, if I'm alert enough to be playing properly.

PeterAlan

[jeremy69]

I've had a ruling to do from a teams match played at home where a player had just gone for a large penalty following a two suited overcall and they said "but I looked at my scorecard and it said I was non vulnerable. Of course I would not have done it vulnerable" The board said they were vulnerable and it turned out that the boards were so old that they showed vulnerability from 40 years ago. The law is clear on this so they had to live with their score. In any case, of course, there had been no complaint in the previous 12 or so boards that they had played so the moral is, I suppose, don't rely on the scorecard in case your host is using the set of boards that auntie bought him for Xmas in 1957.

[bluejak]

PeterAlan, on Jul 18 2010, 09:48 AM, said:

This is a totally OTT reaction, David.  I wasn't blaming anyone, merely making a mild suggestion that if you have a board in front of you where the label's obviously been altered it might be worth checking it out before playing it.  Probably you'd first check the vulnerability / dealer against your scorecard rather than call the TD immediately (when I wrote my previous post I originally didn't include the words "with the director" but added them in deference to all those who constantly encourage us to call the TD).  Where one label's been completely replaced by another (label on label), and the new (complete) label is for the board you're expecting there's obviously no issue.  But a board where just the number has been altered on the label and nothing else has woud, I hope, raise a question in my mind, if I'm alert enough to be playing properly.

Sorry, I still think you are playing on a different planet. Anyone who has so little interest in the game itself to actually start checking whether the label is original or a label on top of a label and then check that is not showing sufficient interest in the bridge itself.

[mrdct]

You'd better post a photo of the offending board so we can properly judge how dodgy it looks.

[pran]

jeremy69, on Jul 18 2010, 10:33 AM, said:

I've had a ruling to do from a teams match played at home where a player had just gone for a large penalty following a two suited overcall and they said "but I looked at my scorecard and it said I was non vulnerable. Of course I would not have done it vulnerable" The board said they were vulnerable and it turned out that the boards were so old that they showed vulnerability from 40 years ago. The law is clear on this so they had to live with their score. In any case, of course, there had been no complaint in the previous 12 or so boards that they had played so the moral is, I suppose, don't rely on the scorecard in case your host is using the set of boards that auntie bought him for Xmas in 1957.

Interesting.
I have the laws from 1935 and they specify exactly the same marking for Dealer and vulnerabilities as our laws do today.

Still, Law 2 is very clear and unambiguous, leaving no doubt on how to handle the situation.

[bluejak]

I am surprised because there was a change when I was not playing long, say 1966 or so.

I think you should have another look Sven: I think that pre-change they did not repeat, so while 1 to 16 are the same as today, later boards may not be.

[PeterAlan]

bluejak, on Jul 18 2010, 08:04 AM, said:

PeterAlan, on Jul 18 2010, 09:48 AM, said:

This is a totally OTT reaction, David.  I wasn't blaming anyone, merely making a mild suggestion that if you have a board in front of you where the label's obviously been altered it might be worth checking it out before playing it.  Probably you'd first check the vulnerability / dealer against your scorecard rather than call the TD immediately (when I wrote my previous post I originally didn't include the words "with the director" but added them in deference to all those who constantly encourage us to call the TD).  Where one label's been completely replaced by another (label on label), and the new (complete) label is for the board you're expecting there's obviously no issue.  But a board where just the number has been altered on the label and nothing else has woud, I hope, raise a question in my mind, if I'm alert enough to be playing properly.

Sorry, I still think you are playing on a different planet. Anyone who has so little interest in the game itself to actually start checking whether the label is original or a label on top of a label and then check that is not showing sufficient interest in the bridge itself.

David, the different planet's yours. All this stuff about different labels didn't originate with me; I merely responded to a scenario you posed. Let's drop it.

PeterAlan

[bluejak]

I did not say you originated it. But no-one but you sees fit to criticise the victims.

[PeterAlan]

bluejak, on Jul 18 2010, 03:42 PM, said:

But no-one but you sees fit to criticise the victims.

I did not "criticise the victims", David, and I have proposed letting this exchange drop. But since you're not prepared to do so, let me repeat myself so as to be blindingly clear about what I am saying and what I am not.

RMB1 described the board thus:

RMB1, on Jul 16 2010, 01:34 AM, said:

It was another numbered board (17) with one sticker with number/dealer/vulnerability.  It had been "converted" to board 8 by sticking a smaller (number only) sticker over the number.

It seems to me that if you've got a board put in front of you with a normal board label that has had another number stuck over the number part of that label then it's very obvious that there's been a change to the number part of the label and not to the rest. In those circumstances it might, just might, occur to someone to think "does the new number go with the rest of the label?", and, say, pick up their scorecard to check. I'm not "blaming" anyone for not doing this, I'm not "criticising the victims", I was just attempting to make a practical suggestion that might lead someone, if this cropped up again, to query the board before playing it. Do I have to spell all this out in words of half a syllable to avoid such over-reaction?

My last words on the subject.

PeterAlan

[jallerton]

mjj29, on Jul 16 2010, 08:05 PM, said:

The hands are pre-duplicated so that everyone can look at hand records and post-mortem the hands together. The tables are arranged so that your team mates are half a row down from you (to avoid UI between the relevant tables), but the boards are passed down one table after playing them, repeating every 7 boards so everyone plays the same 7-board round. The board movement is for efficiency of running the tournament. This means that the same physical board is not played at the two tables in the match - which is fine unless there's a duplimate problem.

I don't really understand why this "avoids UI betwen the relevant tables". This seating arrangement only avoids UI when pre-duplicated boards are not in use. When they are in use and I hear a relevant comment about one of the hands from the pair sitting the same way as me at the next table, it is irrelevant whether they happen to be playing against my team-mates or not: either way I have unwelcome UI and have to call the TD.

[mrdct]

In the dark ages when swiss teams events didn't have pre-dealt boards, it made a lot of sense to keep tables of the same match separated and even in the "Australian" swiss movement (a term with which until this thread I was unfamiliar) the normal practice when two adjacent tables were drawn to play each other would be to switch a table number or two to maintain separation.

With pre-dealt boards now ubiquitous (I haven't played in any event or club that uses hand-dealt cards since 1993) you obviously have the same boards being played at every table around you so there is always a risk of picking up a stray comment like, "you could've made that by dropping the stiff ♠K offside". There are reasonably adequate laws to deal with this assuming that the players in receipt of the UI are ethical.

It remains good practice to keep head-to-head matches separated as, subcontiously at least, one is probably more likely to tune-in to obiter dicta emanating from your own match and you might also minimise UI that could arise from director calls and rulings at your other table.

[pran]

bluejak, on Jul 18 2010, 04:02 PM, said:

I am surprised because there was a change when I was not playing long, say 1966 or so.

I think you should have another look Sven: I think that pre-change they did not repeat, so while 1 to 16 are the same as today, later boards may not be.

This is a direct quotation:
Laws of Duplicate Bridge 1935, applicable to both Auction and Contract when played in Duplicate, were drawn up and adopted by a joint committee representing the American Bridge League and the United States Bridge Association; they have been adopted by the American Whist League and all other important Bridge assotiations and clubs who conduct or sponsor Duplicate tournaments or games. They went into effect February 1, 1933
[.......]

Duplicate Trays.
55 {a} One duplicate tray and one deck of cards shall be årovided for each deal.
{b} The trays shall be numbered consecutively starting with No. 1. Each tray shall be marked with an arrow or similar device to indicate the position in which it shall be placed on the table.
{c} Each tray shall be marked with the word "Dealer" beside one of the hands to indicate the first bidder for each deal. The word "Dealer" shall be so placed with reference to the arrow or indicating device that North will be dealer on tray No. 1 and each player will become dealer in proper rotation when the trays are played in numerical order.
{d} Each tray shall be plainly marked to indicate which side or sides are vulnerable if any. The trays shall be marked according to the following schedule:
Neither side vulnerable on trays 1, 8, 11, 14, 17, 24, 27, 30.
North and South vulnerable, East and West not vulnerable on trays 2, 5, 12, 15, 18, 21, 29, 31.
North and South not vulnerable, East and West vulnerable on trays 3, 6, 9, 16, 19, 22, 25, 32.
Both sides vulnerable on trays 4, 7, 10, 13, 20, 23, 26, 29.

Reference: The Encyclopedia of Bridge
Edited by Ely Culbertson
[.....]
Issued 1935


PS.: I found my law book from 1949, it has exactly the same schedules for the trays.

[shyams]

dburn, on Jul 16 2010, 05:08 PM, said:

shyams, on Jul 16 2010, 08:55 AM, said:

1. Clearly the table result that needs adjustment is the one where your side scored 4♥ making 10 tricks. The board was mismarked. Therefore, that result cannot stand.

What did I get wrong?

This: there is nothing in the Laws to the effect that the result on a mis-marked board cannot stand. Indeed, the Laws expressly say that such a result shall stand, with the players using the (incorrect) markings on the actual board to determine the score rather than what the (correct) markings should have been.

Therefore, if I understand correctly, the TD should have ruled something along these lines (based on TD's judgement of correct contracts)
* At bluejak's table: 4♥ = vs. a hypothetical 4♥ -1: which is + 470 (or 10 IMPs) to Bluejak
* At the other table: 3♠ +2 vs. a hypothetical 4♠ =: which is -220 (or -6 IMPs) to Bluejak's team-mates
Result for Board 8: Net +4 IMPs for bluejak's team

[bluejak]

Possible, though when assigning I always weight scores when in doubt. For example, when we made 4♥ with the opponents cold for 4♠ we might have got a weighting against +100, +170, -200 and -650. The same with team-mates but the weightings allowing for the fact that their spade game is more likely to be reached with the different dealer position.

But the basic problem as dburn has explained is that we are trying to apply a law which is there in the book but without sensible advice except in a specific situation that did not occur.



Over the weekend in a teams-of-eight inter-County representative event, a pair sat down at the table and started to play a board. They were the wrong pair, and the right pair had a different sequence [playing Precision]. North/South said that they had asked East-West three times for their pair number and been ignored three times, so it was not their fault: I agreed. The board had already been played.

So with the balance of points N/S the four scores were [seen from the Cumbria team's point of view]:

Blue N/S: Ave+
Blue E/W: +800
Green N/S: -50
Green E/W: -420

Cumbria did not seen to think that -7 imps was fair.