[barmar]

gordontd, on 2011-September-07, 16:53, said:

There used to be in the old laws:

Glad to know I wasn't just imagining it. I wonder if the directors realized that they were obeying an obsolete law.

But maybe in this case it was inconsequential. We were playing as fill-ins in an event we hadn't qualified for, so we couldn't win any awards. So what difference does it make if we switch partners for a couple of hands? The only point was to ensure that the rest of the players got to play all the boards.

[ggwhiz]

Two pairs arrived at a mutually agreeable consensus as to a fair compromise that does not fault anyone.

Why must the "Law" inflict damage where none exists?

The late arriving pair accepted partial responsibility in full knowledge of the facts (as well as fessing up to having seen the cards) and we must tell them that is not allowed?

My ruling would be practical rather than technical.

[gordontd]

ggwhiz, on 2011-September-08, 15:51, said:

Two pairs arrived at a mutually agreeable consensus as to a fair compromise that does not fault anyone.

Why must the "Law" inflict damage where none exists?

There is damage, and by ruling like that we would effectively be telling South that it's ok to continue to do this, which it is not.