[blackshoe]

I disagree. The board has not been played yet - although play has started. I see no reason not to apply 17D, and I don't think the criteria of 87 are met anyway.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2012-May-28, 08:22, said:

I disagree. The board has not been played yet - although play has started. I see no reason not to apply 17D, and I don't think the criteria of 87 are met anyway.

Law 87 A Definition said:

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.

This definition does not exclude unplayed board(s) from being considered fouled, and Law 87B (Scoring) applies whenever a board exists or has existed in more than one form.

I have on several occations with Mitchell or Howell movements been able to discover and correct a fouled board immediately after it was played first time. I still had to apply Law 87 and score the board in two separate groups, one group of course with just one result.

So also here. The fact that the foul was discovered before play began is irrelevant so long as at least one call had been made in the auction. (In a not too serious event I might consider "stretching" Law 13 allowing the board to be played.)

[blackshoe]

and the contestants who should have had a score comparison did not play the board in identical form for such reason.

It is not the case that these contestants "did not play the board..." because they haven't finished playing it. I say again, I see no reason not to apply Law 17D in this case.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2012-May-28, 10:14, said:

and the contestants who should have had a score comparison did not play the board in identical form for such reason.

It is not the case that these contestants "did not play the board..." because they haven't finished playing it. I say again, I see no reason not to apply Law 17D in this case.

There is a difference between:
did not play the board in identical form for such reason
and:
played the board in different forms for such reason

Law 87 uses the first construction.

[barmar]

I think pran is right about this. 87 seems to explain how to deal after the fact when boards have been played in two different ways due to card displacements. If you catch the problem early enough, you can prevent the board from being fouled, by applying 17.

[blackshoe]

That's exactly what I'm saying.

[pran]

Law 17D1 said:

A call is cancelled if it is made by a player on cards that he has picked up from a wrong board.

But the point is that in the session of this thread that we are discussing here (see post #19) the player has not picked the cards from the wrong board, some other player has placed cards from a wrong board into this board.

That makes Law 17 irrelevant because we have no offending player.

[gordontd]

Vampyr, on 2012-May-28, 05:58, said:

Easy. The person sitting in your seat at the next table put the cards from board 15 into the pocket of board 16 and vice versa. You make a call, then put your cards face-down on the table. Now you notice that the backs of your cards are blue and the backs of everyone else's cards are red.

Easy? I don't think so. When was the last time you saw a player with both their hands from two different boards out at the same time?

[Zelandakh]

pran, on 2012-May-28, 07:22, said:

In that case the boards are fouled - see Law 87. Law 17D shall not apply.

I do not think you have the "and the contestants who should have had a score comparison did not play the board in identical form for such reason" clause for applying 87 at the point where 17D would apply.

[pran]

gordontd, on 2012-May-29, 02:13, said:

Vampyr, on 2012-May-28, 05:58, said:

Easy. The person sitting in your seat at the next table put the cards from board 15 into the pocket of board 16 and vice versa. You make a call, then put your cards face-down on the table. Now you notice that the backs of your cards are blue and the backs of everyone else's cards are red.

Easy? I don't think so. When was the last time you saw a player with both their hands from two different boards out at the same time?

Oh - I (as TD) have had that situation more than once! (The players were of course not very happy with my reaction.)