[axman]

mycroft, on 2025-September-07, 15:32, said:

Let's not call West the (only) offender. First, it could be that West had the cards from the correct board, and the other three had the cards from the next in play. Your OP says "the unplayed board below" - could that in fact have been 13 when what's now on top is 14? Wouldn't be the first time I saw this.

You are allowed to play boards out of order (at least I can remember no Law that requires it "except when the Director directs". Of course, now someone will show me one); as long as they are boards "scheduled for play in this round". So equally arguably (even if it isn't my case, or more so if it was) West is the only non-offender of Law 15.

But really, the offender(s) are the ones that managed to trigger this problem; specifically the ones who switched the board after it had already been switched (arguably, the first switch if that was by someone "who shouldn't" have done it, i.e. E-W). Once you figure out *how* it came to pass that one hand has one set of cards and the other three the other set, you can start talking about "offenders" and "responsibility for the adjusted score".

Food for thought. The law specifies that board markings control. In keeping with this premise I maintain the board in play until the official score is recorded to assure that the score reflects the markings. Problems arise 1. while the score is being recorded when a player swaps and the score reflects not the board in play but some different board. And 2. then there is when hands are removed from the prematurely swapped board afterwards scorer (not realizing what has happened) swaps and then different players remove cards.

On a memorable occasion a decrepit opponent went about disrupting the recording of the score, and to maintain decorum I stopped scoring and slammed my hand onto the board stirring loud protest by the opponent. Thereafter, I kept the yet to be played boards on my portable side table (folding chair) so that there was only one board on the table at a time.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2025-September-07, 15:32, said:

Let's not call West the (only) offender. First, it could be that West had the cards from the correct board, and the other three had the cards from the next in play. Your OP says "the unplayed board below" - could that in fact have been 13 when what's now on top is 14? Wouldn't be the first time I saw this.

You are allowed to play boards out of order (at least I can remember no Law that requires it "except when the Director directs". Of course, now someone will show me one); as long as they are boards "scheduled for play in this round". So equally arguably (even if it isn't my case, or more so if it was) West is the only non-offender of Law 15.

But really, the offender(s) are the ones that managed to trigger this problem; specifically the ones who switched the board after it had already been switched (arguably, the first switch if that was by someone "who shouldn't" have done it, i.e. E-W). Once you figure out *how* it came to pass that one hand has one set of cards and the other three the other set, you can start talking about "offenders" and "responsibility for the adjusted score".

That's a fair point I guess, although I merely adopted the same term used in L15A, to avoid confusion.

I agree of course that TD has to determine who triggered the problem (and whether the other line is partially or wholly at fault too) before assessing a penalty or assigning an artificial adjusted score, if you decide to do either.

You didn't address the substance of my point about L15B: is it about "comparable" calls or is it really about "identical" calls whatever the context in auction? Is an opening Pass on board B "similar" to a Pass over RHO's opening of a natural 1♣ on board A?

[mycroft]

See the footnote: "A substituted call differs if its meaning is much different or is psychic."

For your specific example, that would be director's discretion I believe. But a 2♣ call after partner's 1♠ on the previous board is much different from a 2♣ call after partner's 1NT (or 1♣, unless the ranges are the same for both (GF or 10+)). A pass over RHO's 1♥ opening is probably much different from a pass over partner's 1♥ opening, for instance. Where the line lies? Check the commentary or your RA's case law.

ETA: specifically "comparable" does not apply (unless Ton K. says so in the commentary). No reference to Law 23.

[pescetom]

Quote

mycroft, on 2025-September-08, 17:59, said:

See the footnote: "A substituted call differs if its meaning is much different or is psychic."

For your specific example, that would be director's discretion I believe. But a 2♣ call after partner's 1♠ on the previous board is much different from a 2♣ call after partner's 1NT (or 1♣, unless the ranges are the same for both (GF or 10+)). A pass over RHO's 1♥ opening is probably much different from a pass over partner's 1♥ opening, for instance. Where the line lies? Check the commentary or your RA's case law.

ETA: specifically "comparable" does not apply (unless Ton K. says so in the commentary). No reference to Law 23.

I belatedly checked the 2017 Laws Commentary and it does say clearly the contrary: "if the offender makes a comparable call (see new Law 23)". WTH the committee didn't just write that in L15 beats me. So I was right about the intentions and I think the answers to my examples are clear in the spirit of Law 23 (a first seat pass is different from a second seat pass over opponent's 1♣, but not vice versa).

So maybe L15A3 could be changed from:

Quote

3. If the offender subsequently repeats a call on the board from which the cards were mistakenly drawn, the Director may allow that board to be played normally, but the Director shall award an adjusted score when offender’s call differs 3 from the original cancelled call.

to something like:

Quote

3. If the offender is later due to play the board from which the cards were mistakenly drawn, the Director may allow that board to be played normally, but the Director shall award an adjusted score when offender’s first call on the board is not comparable (in the sense of Law 23) to the original cancelled call or when either call is psychic.

[jillybean]

I very much doubt that I would get these "comparable call" calls correct at the table.

Many club players are unsure of their agreements and I imagine would be no better than I am at understanding and determining 'comparable calls'

When a board is fouled, the common, "playing nice" approach is to skip the board or assign A=
If there is a clear offending side, I don't hesitate to adjust A-, A+, without belittling or embarrassing the OS.
Duplicate Bridge is a game that demands due care and attention.

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2025-September-10, 17:52, said:

I very much doubt that I would get these "comparable call" calls correct at the table.

Many club players are unsure of their agreements and I imagine would be no better than I am at understanding and determining 'comparable calls'

When a board is fouled, the common, "playing nice" approach is to skip the board or assign A=
If there is a clear offending side, I don't hesitate to adjust A-, A+, without belittling or embarrassing the OS.
Duplicate Bridge is a game that demands due care and attention.

Comparable calls in general is a can of worms, difficult to explain to players and even more difficult to guarantee uniform Rulings between TDs.
But I think this is actually easier to explain to a player than to a zealous TD: "your first call this time is allowable if after hearing it your partner gains nothing from having also heard your first call on the previous board".

If necessary you can also explain (away from the table) which possible calls are allowed and which are not, although it should be the player proposing the calls.

[mycroft]

I like to ask leading questions: "could you do this with 14?" or "do you have a way to show diamonds and strength here?". Sometimes I'm surprised, but usually *that* gets the correct answer and the answer is also what I expect.

I think that "comparable call" breaks the cardinal rule of "we don't make judgement rulings at the table/without consultation", but the Law trumps best practise, so we do what we can. 82C is always there if we missed something.

[jillybean]

Best practice?
American expert standard, or the Directors view of best practice?

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2025-September-11, 10:27, said:

Best practice?
American expert standard, or the Directors view of best practice?

I agree with mycroft's view of Directing best practice, we shouldn't be making difficult judgement decisions at the table and we should be able to point to clear criteria to explain the decisions we made after reflection.

I also have sympathy with his idea of posing leading questions without actually suggesting, but this is a sub-minefield in L23 as there are widely varying sensibilities about the role of the TD preceding the actual decision of a call, just as there are about the dimensions of the grey area in comparability. I remember at least some EBU TDs arguing initially that the TD should just read the law and wait for a choice of call. IIRC the WBF commentary clarifies that TD can explain what would happen with a chosen call, but that does not extend to suggesting possible calls. Posing a leading question to a hapless or terrified intermediate seems a fair compromise to me.

[mycroft]

"You probably know that you shouldn't make judgement rulings without consultation, but we're telling you that that should be a requirement. Even if you're the only director, you should be talking to players. Sometimes your judgement isn't good enough, or bad enough, or is clouded by your own playing biases,..."

Quote from memory from the TA training video, mumblety years ago (VHS tape. Take a wild guess).

Hence the "I'm not going to tell you if I think that call was use of UI while the auction is going on. Apart from 'we don't make judgement rulings without consultation', would you be happy if I told his partner 'Oh yeah, his bid is totally solid'?" or the "rule it -1 for now, we'll do some analysis and determine if there should be an adjustment" or...

Absolutely everybody will miss something - I just did this previous session until I saw it happen at the table. In a comparable call ruling. Which explains my difficulty with "having to make judgement rulings at the table" in the previous quote.