[jallerton]

At a recent EBL event, each table was provided with its own set of boards.

At table 1(team A vs team B) in a VP-ed round robin teams match, there was a duplimating error as the hands belonging to board 3 were 'dealt' into a board 4 (so showing game all, dealer West) and the hands supposed to belong to board 4 were 'dealt' into a board 3 (so showing E/W Vulnerable, dealer South). At all other tables, including table 2 involving teams A & B, the hands were 'dealt' as intended.

How should the TD approach this sort of situation? In particular.

1. Are the results obtained at table 1 (using the wrong dealers/vulnerabilities) relevant?
2. Are the results obtained at tables not involving teams A & B relevant?
3. Say the TD judges that board 3 was most likely to have been flat (but with uncertainties either way) had the board been duplicated correctly at table 1. What score should he assign to teams A and B?
4. Say the TD judges that team A had a potentially good result at table 2 on Board 4 (they defeated 3NT, when the alternative game of 4♠ would often be allowed to make in practice). If he assigns +12 IMPs to team A, what score does he assign to team B?

[pran]

 jallerton, on 2013-November-20, 00:14, said:

At a recent EBL event, each table was provided with its own set of boards.

At table 1(team A vs team B) in a VP-ed round robin teams match, there was a duplimating error as the hands belonging to board 3 were 'dealt' into a board 4 (so showing game all, dealer West) and the hands supposed to belong to board 4 were 'dealt' into a board 3 (so showing E/W Vulnerable, dealer South). At all other tables, including table 2 involving teams A & B, the hands were 'dealt' as intended.

How should the TD approach this sort of situation? In particular.

1. Are the results obtained at table 1 (using the wrong dealers/vulnerabilities) relevant?
2. Are the results obtained at tables not involving teams A & B relevant?
3. Say the TD judges that board 3 was most likely to have been flat (but with uncertainties either way) had the board been duplicated correctly at table 1. What score should he assign to teams A and B?
4. Say the TD judges that team A had a potentially good result at table 2 on Board 4 (they defeated 3NT, when the alternative game of 4♠ would often be allowed to make in practice). If he assigns +12 IMPs to team A, what score does he assign to team B?

In a teams (of four) match between team A and team B they are supposed to play the same boards at two tables: A North South at one and East West at the other.

Results obtained on boards that differ in any way between the two tables are completely irrelevant when scoring the match between these two teams.

The way I understand the description this applies to boards 3 and 4 in the match between A and B so the results obtained on these two boards are therefore completely irrelevant for this match. What happened at other tables (not involving A and B) is (of course) also completely irrelevant for the match beetween A and B.

Specifically:
1: NO
2: NO
3: VOID
4: VOID (to both teams)

(The Director may be justified in awarding artificial scores +3 IMPs to both teams on the fouled boards, but awarding for instance +12 IMPs as indicated to either or both teams is outrageous.)

[gordontd]

What about Law 86D, Sven?

[barmar]

 gordontd, on 2013-November-20, 03:25, said:

What about Law 86D, Sven?

How is it relevant? It starts with "when the Director awards an adjusted score". But since the director doesn't award an adjusted score in this case, the rest of that law doesn't apply.

[pran]

 gordontd, on 2013-November-20, 03:25, said:

What about Law 86D, Sven?

Inapplicable

The relevant Laws are 87 and 12C2a: No result can be obtained in a match between teams of four when the two boards to be compared differ in any way.

[gordontd]

 barmar, on 2013-November-20, 05:12, said:

the director doesn't award an adjusted score in this case

What do you think the director has done?

[nige1]

 jallerton, on 2013-November-20, 00:14, said:

At a recent EBL event, each table was provided with its own set of boards. At table 1(team A vs team B) in a VP-ed round robin teams match, there was a duplimating error as the hands belonging to board 3 were 'dealt' into a board 4 (so showing game all, dealer West) and the hands supposed to belong to board 4 were 'dealt' into a board 3 (so showing E/W Vulnerable, dealer South). At all other tables, including table 2 involving teams A & B, the hands were 'dealt' as intended.How should the TD approach this sort of situation? In particular.
1. Are the results obtained at table 1 (using the wrong dealers/vulnerabilities) relevant?
2. Are the results obtained at tables not involving teams A & B relevant?
3.Say the TD judges that board 3 was most likely to have been flat (but with uncertainties either way) had the board been duplicated correctly at table 1. What score should he assign to teams A and B?
4. Say the TD judges that team A had a potentially good result at table 2 on Board 4 (they defeated 3NT, when the alternative game of 4♠ would often be allowed to make in practice). If he assigns +12 IMPs to team A, what score does he assign to team B?

 gordontd, on 2013-November-20, 03:25, said:

What about Law 86D, Sven?

TFLB L86D said:

Result Obtained at Other Table: In team play when the Director awards an adjusted score (excluding any award that ensues from application of Law 6D2), and a result has been obtained28 between the same contestants at another table, the Director may assign an adjusted score in IMPs or total points (and should do so when that result appears favourable to the non-offending side).

IMO

• Maybe
• They should be.
• Not sure
• No idea.

It's unclear how the director can compute an adjusted score. And no player seems to be an offender. Neverthelss, IMO, it is tempting to give some benefit to a pair who seem to have achieved a good result, in absolute terms; but especially relative to other tables where this identical board was played by the rest of the room

[gordontd]

 pran, on 2013-November-20, 05:40, said:

Inapplicable

Then when do you think it is applicable, and what do you think prompted its inclusion in this lawbook?

[pran]

 gordontd, on 2013-November-20, 05:55, said:

Then when do you think it is applicable, and what do you think prompted its inclusion in this lawbook?

It applies when because of an irregularity by one side at a table a result on a board cannot be obtained there, and at the other table (the team-mates to) the non-offending side has obtained an apparently (very) favourable result on the board.

It is included in the laws to "protect" a non-offending side from receiving a "lousy" +3 IMP artificial score when their expected score from the result at the other table is significantly better.

[PeterAlan]

 pran, on 2013-November-20, 05:40, said:

The relevant Laws are 87 ...

I assume everyone can agree on that much. It says:

Law 87 said:

LAW 87: FOULED BOARD

A. Definition
A board is considered to be ‘fouled’ if the Director determines that a card (or more than one) was displaced in the board, or if he determines that the dealer or vulnerability differed between copies of the same board, and the contestants who should have had a score comparison did not play the board in identical form for such reason.

B. Scoring
In scoring a fouled board the Director determines as closely as possible which scores were obtained on the board in its correct form and which in the changed form(s). He divides the scores on that basis into groups and rates each group separately as provided in the regulations for the tournament. (In the absence of a relevant regulation the Director selects and announces his method.)

The conditions of A are clearly met, and, unless the regulations for the tournament made specific provision for this circumstance (which I assume they didn't), B clearly gives the Director authority to decide appropriately. Law 86 has specific application, and as I read Law 12C2 it's not in conflict with or over-riding those specific provisions when they apply.

[gordontd]

 pran, on 2013-November-20, 06:49, said:

It is included in the laws to "protect" a non-offending side from receiving a "lousy" +3 IMP artificial score when their expected score from the result at the other table is significantly better.

Which is precisely the situation we have here.

[blackshoe]

87B refers to tournament regulations. Are there relevant tournament regulations in this case?

[pran]

 gordontd, on 2013-November-20, 07:19, said:

Which is precisely the situation we have here.

NO! Law 86D is aimed at the situation where we have an offending side causing an irregularity and a non offending side suffering from the irregularity.

There is no offending side here, so whatever artificial score you will award to the non-offending side you must award equally to both sides.

If team B receives (say) +12 IMPs for their very good result at one table then team A must receive the same +12 IMPs because they without any fault on their side has been deprived of the possibility to obtain the same good result.

[chrism]

The boards were fouled, so apply the fouled board procedure for groups of size 1, which is pretty much universally Ave+ both ways. If either side had been responsible for the foul, there might have been a PP; that clearly does not apply in this case.

So +3 IMPs to both sides on each board. Each side returns a separate result, and the VPs for the match add up to more than the usual maximum.

The results in other matches playing the same board are irrelevant. 86D refers to "the non-offending side" which implies that there is also an offending side - not the case here.

Answers to the 4 initial questions:
1) No
2) No
3) Ave+/Ave+ (and the TD's judgement does not enter into the answer)
4) He should not assign any score other than Ave+ to Team A, but if he does so, Team B still gets Ave+

[campboy]

 pran, on 2013-November-20, 07:47, said:

NO! Law 86D is aimed at the situation where we have an offending side causing an irregularity and a non offending side suffering from the irregularity.

There is no offending side here, so whatever artificial score you will award to the non-offending side you must award equally to both sides.

If team B receives (say) +12 IMPs for their very good result at one table then team A must receive the same +12 IMPs because they without any fault on their side has been deprived of the possibility to obtain the same good result.

86D applies whether or not there is an offending side in that it permits the TD to give an assigned score. The parenthetical remark (only) does not apply here. Consequently he is not required to give an assigned score, but he may do so. The +12 imps in question is therefore not an artificial score, but the result of comparing an assigned score of 4♠= with the result at the other table. And it is not the fouled board which deprived team A of the chance to get +12 IMPs, it is the result at the non-fouled table which did that. Once team B make 3NT, team A are never winning the board, so +3 IMPs sounds pretty good for them.

[pran]

 campboy, on 2013-November-20, 08:34, said:

86D applies whether or not there is an offending side in that it permits the TD to give an assigned score. The parenthetical remark (only) does not apply here. Consequently he is not required to give an assigned score, but he may do so. The +12 imps in question is therefore not an artificial score, but the result of comparing an assigned score of 4♠= with the result at the other table. And it is not the fouled board which deprived team A of the chance to get +12 IMPs, it is the result at the non-fouled table which did that. Once team B make 3NT, team A are never winning the board, so +3 IMPs sounds pretty good for them.

You are making a seriously invalid assumption that Team A would not also make the same successful play as did Team B at the other table. There is even the real possibility that A could have made an even better result.

Team A never got the chance to show what they would have done with the correct deal, so there is no comparison possible for the Team B result at the other table. An alleged PAR result of 4♠= is completely irrelevant here. Thus, whatever adjusted score TD might select to award on this board will be artificial.

[gordontd]

 pran, on 2013-November-20, 07:47, said:

There is no offending side here, so whatever artificial score you will award to the non-offending side you must award equally to both sides.

I think that's what 86D tells us we don't have to do. That's what it's there for, why it was introduced.

[campboy]

 pran, on 2013-November-20, 09:45, said:

You are making a seriously invalid assumption that Team A would not also make the same successful play as did Team B at the other table. There is even the real possibility that A could have made an even better result.

How on earth am I doing that? I am giving Team A 3 IMPs more than they would have gotten even if they had made the same successful play as Team B. The extra 3 IMPs are to take into account the possibility that they could have had an even better result.

[pran]

 campboy, on 2013-November-20, 10:19, said:

How on earth am I doing that? I am giving Team A 3 IMPs more than they would have gotten even if they had made the same successful play as Team B. The extra 3 IMPs are to take into account the possibility that they could have had an even better result.

I remember a team coming triumphantly out from closed room with +1400 on a board only to discover that their teammates had paid out 2600!

Who are you to state that team A could not possibly have made better than +3 IMPs against their opponents' "successful" play?

[aguahombre]

None of that matters. A did not play board 3 against B. A did not play board 4 against B. Pran already has it right. The boards weren't played in accordance with the conditions of the event.

Nobody can get IMPS for a board not played. Neither side is an offending side for PP.
An award of 3 IMPS to both sides doesn't change the VP conversion. The match was played with two less boards; get over it.

The rest of the teams are not affected by what happened; they get the VP's for their matches based of the differentials in those matches.