[Hanoi5]

In a team event where all the tables are in the same room the boards are picked up from a table in the center so that everyone plays the same boards. At one table North-South have a misunderstanding and go down for 2000 points. When they're comparing the score:

1. The board was changed (fouled) sometime afterwards (what about previously) and their teammates didn't get to play the same board.
2. The board just wasn't played at the table because they miscounted the number of boards or just missed it.
3. One of the players at the other table announces s/he has information about the board from a comment (not neccessarily about the 2000)

What's the ruling in each case?

[campboy]

Firstly you need to determine who was at fault. In cases 1 and 3 it may be that a third party (whoever passed on the incorrect hands first/made the comment) is at fault; they should normally get a procedural penalty. If a player at the table where the fouled board was played should have noticed because he had the wrong number of cards then he is partially at fault.

If one of the two teams is entirely at fault (the misboarding took place at the first table and only one pair passed incorrect hands) then the normal ruling is +3/-3 or an assigned adjusted score at the second table if NOS had a good score at the first table. If a third party and one of the teams are partly at fault (the board was fouled by some other team, but N/S should have noticed that they had 12 and 14 cards) then again there is exactly one non-offending side and an assigned score is given if favourable to them; the only difference is that the normal artificial score is now +3/0.

If a third party caused the problem and both teams involved are non-offending then +3/+3 is a possible ruling. It is not clear whether an assigned score under 86D is appropriate. RMB1 discussed this in a blog post here. I think there may subsequently have been an official verdict on this in the EBU, though obviously your case is under a different RA.

[bluejak]

I had a really good result in the Mid Wales Congress and the board was fouled - by the Organisers! To say I was displeased with the Ave+/Ave+ we received is to put it mildly, but Mike Amos, the TD, had consulted with Max Bavin, the EBU and WBF CTD. While this was a Welsh event English interpretations and Regulations normally apply in Wales.

Since that time there has been another occasion where the interpretation that when there is no offending side Law 86D should not apply.

However, further discussion has changed matters somewhat. Max has agreed our arguments as to why Law 86D should apply in such cases, and accepted that while he will continue with his stated approach at World level, he will not challenge English/Welsh TDs who apply Law 86D with no offending side. So, Mike, can I have my imps for the Mid Wales Congress back please?

[pran]

bluejak, on 2011-October-02, 18:18, said:

I had a really good result in the Mid Wales Congress and the board was fouled - by the Organisers! To say I was displeased with the Ave+/Ave+ we received is to put it mildly, but Mike Amos, the TD, had consulted with Max Bavin, the EBU and WBF CTD. While this was a Welsh event English interpretations and Regulations normally apply in Wales.

Since that time there has been another occasion where the interpretation that when there is no offending side Law 86D should not apply.

However, further discussion has changed matters somewhat. Max has agreed our arguments as to why Law 86D should apply in such cases, and accepted that while he will continue with his stated approach at World level, he will not challenge English/Welsh TDs who apply Law 86D with no offending side. So, Mike, can I have my imps for the Mid Wales Congress back please?

Honestly I cannot see any reason why Law 86D should not apply unless there is an offending side?

Does the lack of an offending side make the non-offending side less non-offending?