[dickiegera]

After playing 1st board in a Board-A-Match event shared boards are played by next table. They discover that south has 14 cards and north 12 cards.

Director returned cards to us and it was agreed that the hand was played with 12&14 cards in the north/south hands.
Director ordered the board to be replayed.

We East/West disagreed to no avail. We were in 5♣ making 6. There was a revoked by South that was corrected but lead to a penalty card
and West used the option to her advantage and made an over trick

Question: Why were we pentalized by being required to replay board when it was North/South fault for not counting their cards?
The boards were duplicated by someone not playing in the Board_A-Match

[billw55]

dickiegera, on 2013-April-08, 13:59, said:

Question: Why were we pentalized by being required to replay board when it was North/South fault for not counting their cards?

edit: lol at me, ignore

I can hardly imagine how it can be correct to replay the board though.

[ArtK78]

Law 13C reads as follows:

C. Play Completed. When it is determined after play ends that a player's hand originally contained more than 13 cards with another player holding fewer (but see Law 13F), the result must be canceled and an adjusted score awarded (Law 86D may apply). An offending contestant is liable to a procedural penalty.

Neither Law 13F nor Law 86D appear to be relevant under these circumstances.

In any event, since this was the first round and since the result MUST be cancelled in all events, the TD's remedy - requiring the board to be replayed - appears to solve the problem rather nicely.

If your side would have obtained a favorable result on the board AND neither you nor your partner were responsible for the fouled board, you can certainly request that an adjusted score be awarded that is favorable to your side (Ave+ for example).

[aguahombre]

It would seem that an adjusted score would only be appropriate if the other team plays the board and gets a score. Since the board was not playable at the other table, and rightfully cancelled at your table, it didn't exist. I don't see how the TD can adjust something that didn't exist.

Play the replacement board and get on with life.

[Zelandakh]

Next time I revoke on the first board, I might try and slip one of my cards to partner. "I swear I only had 12 the whole hand, honest guv'." In any case 13C is obviously the correct law here. Unlike Art and agua I do not find the TD's solution at all equitable. PP to NS and an adjusted score.

[barmar]

Zelandakh, on 2013-April-09, 04:35, said:

Next time I revoke on the first board, I might try and slip one of my cards to partner. "I swear I only had 12 the whole hand, honest guv'." In any case 13C is obviously the correct law here.

You may not violate a law intentionally, even if you're willing to accept the proscribed penalty.

[aguahombre]

Zelandakh, on 2013-April-09, 04:35, said:

Unlike Art and agua I do not find the TD's solution at all equitable. PP to NS and an adjusted score.

I did not claim "equitable". IMO, equity is not an issue when there was never a hand to begin with. "Practical" would be my choice of description.

[gordontd]

The law says the result must be cancelled and an adjusted score awarded, so that's what I'd do. Who was directly responsible for the situation? NS who failed to count their cards. So, 40/60 (which would give the scorer the pleasure of applying the ACBL's byzantine regulation for artificial scores in BAM events).

[aguahombre]

The adjusted score would be the table result of a real replacement hand.

[gordontd]

aguahombre, on 2013-April-09, 10:51, said:

The adjusted score would be the table result of a real replacement hand.

You must show me where it says that.

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2013-April-09, 10:51, said:

The adjusted score would be the table result of a real replacement hand.

Is there any precedent for adjusting a score by playing a completely different hand? Is that a reaonable interpretation of "result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred"? If the players hadn't failed to count their cards, they would have played this hand with the correct cards, not a totally different hand.

On the other hand, the director's decision seems to me to fall into "no harm, no foul" territory. Since it's possible to replace the board and obtain a real bridge result, without impacting the rest of the game, it seems like a practical solution. But give the OS a PP for failing to follow correct procedure and disrupting the game as a result.

[gordontd]

barmar, on 2013-April-09, 11:06, said:

Since it's possible to replace the board and obtain a real bridge result, without impacting the rest of the game, it seems like a practical solution.

I agree it's a practical solution, if the players all agree to it. But the NOS didn't agree, and ought to be able to get their AV+ board if that's what they would prefer.

[chrism]

The original post did not specify the jurisdiction, nor whether the board had already been played at the other table (as could easily be the case with a 2-section mirror movement).

Assuming it had not, then a replay would be appropriate in the world of ACBL, following the regulations that gordontd aptly terms "byzantine" (quoted below).
While I have sympathy for EW, they achieved their "good result" on an illegal board that has to be canceled. I would be happy to see a PP go to NS, and if time did not permit a new board to be played, then whatever the local interpretation is of A+/A- for a BAM would be indicated.

Quote

ADJUSTED SCORE
A strong effort must be made to achieve a valid table result at each
table. When both tables achieve a valid result and they have played
the identical deal, then the results are compared in the normal
manner, with a BAM score for each team of zero, half, or one.

A score assigned by a director or a committee is considered a valid
result if it is assigned in total points prior to matchpointing (140,
400, etc.) The scores awarded to each side need not balance. The
assigned score or scores are then compared against the result at the
other table in the normal manner to reach a BAM score of zero, half,
or one. When the scores assigned to the opposing sides are different,
the BAM matchpoints for that deal need not total one. NOTE: Directors
and committees shall assign adjusted scores only to the table at which
an irregularity occurred, NOT to the whole team. An adjusted score at
one table shall not invalidate a legitimate result at the other table.

If a board is unplayable for any reason, then:
1. If the board has not yet been played at the other table, the
director shall substitute a new board if practical.

2. If the board has already been played at the other table, or if
substituting a new board is not practical, the director shall
assign percentage scores to the pairs at the affected table, as
follows:

a. If neither side is responsible for the irregularity, each pair
receives a matchpoint score of 50%.
b. If only one side is responsible, that pair receives 40% and their
opponents receive 60%.
c. If both sides are responsible, they both receive 40%.

These percentage assignments are NOT Average-Plus and Average-Minus. A
60-40 assignment is exactly that.

3. The result obtained at the other table is matchpointed across the
field of pairs in the same comparison group who played the same
board. The matchpoint percentage scores achieved by the pairs at
that table are added to the assigned percentage scores at the
table with the irregularity, and:

a. A team that totals 120% or more receives a win.
b. A team that totals 80% or less receives a loss.
c. A team that totals more than 80% and less than 120% receives a
half.

4. If a board is unplayable at BOTH tables, then:
a. If both teams are responsible, they both receive zero.
b. If neither team is responsible, they both receive half.
c. If one team is responsible, it receives zero, and their opponents
receive their TEAM percentage of game. This is the ONLY case in
which percentage of game (of any kind) is used.

5. Any team or teams responsible for an irregularity requiring the
assignment of an artificial adjusted score (percentage) shall be
penalized 1/4 board.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2013-April-09, 11:06, said:

Is there any precedent for adjusting a score by playing a completely different hand?

This happens all the time in Swiss Teams, when another pair or team are discussing the board loudly.

[aguahombre]

Let's assume Ohio is in the ACBL and that Dick was also.

[gordontd]

Vampyr, on 2013-April-09, 18:42, said:

This happens all the time in Swiss Teams, when another pair or team are discussing the board loudly.

It's specifically allowed by Law 16, if it happens before the board has been started. It's not an option given by Law 13.

[bluejak]

Zelandakh, on 2013-April-09, 04:35, said:

Unlike Art and agua I do not find the TD's solution at all equitable. PP to NS and an adjusted score.

Who said anything about "equitable"? The question is what is right per the Laws.

It is not a TD's job to make Laws up.

aguahombre, on 2013-April-09, 19:15, said:

Let's assume Ohio is in the ACBL ..

So you know geography? Does that make you unusual?

[aguahombre]

bluejak, on 2013-April-18, 13:28, said:

So you know geography? Does that make you unusual?

Welcome back. It was an answer to a question which was later edited out.

[Zelandakh]

I meant equitable in the sense "reasonable", David, not as in "restoring equity", which I assume is how you are thinking. And I meant that specifically in reference to what is right according to the Laws. Or do you disagree that 13C is the correct Law to follow here?

[bluejak]

Zelandakh, on 2013-April-19, 02:38, said:

I meant equitable in the sense "reasonable", David, not as in "restoring equity", which I assume is how you are thinking. And I meant that specifically in reference to what is right according to the Laws. Or do you disagree that 13C is the correct Law to follow here?

Of course you follow the Laws.

But you do not rule on a basis of what you think is "reasonable", which in my view has a completely different meaning from "equitable", but is just as wrong as a basis for ruling.