[rhm]

In an IMP match over 32 boards the boards are duplicated and played in many different matches at the same time and the boards move from one table to another.

A deal is picked up after having been played at a different table in a different match and North holds 14 cards and East 12 cards.
Both North / East have looked at their cards before realizing what has happened.
So the board is unplayable even though it has been played in the other room.
Which teams should get penalized and what are the penalties?

Rainer Herrmann

[Vampyr]

rhm, on 2014-March-17, 05:17, said:

So the board is unplayable even though it has been played in the other room.

It is not always unplayable.

But assuming that it is here, a PP is appropriate for the pair(s) that fouled the board.

As far as counting cards, both sides are at fault, but I would simply give a substitute board if time allows. If not, I would not penalise either team and would discard the result from the other room. They may have to use a different VP scale.

[Lanor Fow]

I'd have ruled slightly differently. Given the board is unplayable, I'd have thought we need to assign artificial scores.

In this case, with both sides being directly at fault, I'd assign ave-/ave-.

This assumes we can't substitute a different board in, and have the other table play it in time, which would be my preferred solution. In this case I might assign a PP to both sides.

[mycroft]

The Laws:

13A: Director Deems Normal Play
When the Director determines that one or more hands of the board contained an incorrect number of cards (but see Law 14) and a player with an incorrect hand has made a call, then when the Director deems that the deal can be corrected and played, the deal may be so played with no change of call. At the end of play the Director may award an adjusted score.
B: Adjusted Score and Possible Penalty
Otherwise when a call has been made, the Director shall award an adjusted score and may penalize an offender.
[...]
D: No Call Made
If a player is found to have an incorrect number of cards and no call has been made on his hand:

1: The Director shall correct the discrepancy and if no player will then have seen anothers card shall require that the board be played normally.
2: When the Director determines that one or more pockets of the board contained an incorrect number of cards and a player has seen one or more cards of another players hand, if the Director deems:
a: that the unauthorized information is unlikely to interfere with normal bidding or play, the Director allows the board to be played and scored. If he then considers the information has affected the outcome of the board, the Director shall adjust the score and may penalize an offender.
b: that the unauthorized information gained thereby is of sufficient importance to interfere with normal bidding or play, the Director shall award an artificial adjusted score and may penalize an offender.

So, it's quite likely that the hand can be played. If the Director deems otherwise, then they can either throw the board out, replace it, assign A-/A- (you should, in fact, count your cards before looking at them), or any of a number of things. Also, from the OP description, this board was fouled at someplace other than this table's teammates'. I think a penalty for making a board unplayable should be assigned to the table that fouled it as well.

[blackshoe]

The relevant law is

Quote

Law 13D2: When the Director determines that one or more pockets of the board contained an incorrect number of cards and a player has seen one or more cards of another player’s hand, if the Director deems:
{a} that the unauthorized information is unlikely to interfere with normal bidding or play, the Director allows the board to be played and scored. If he then considers the information has affected the outcome of the board, the Director shall adjust the score and may penalize an offender.
{b} that the unauthorized information gained thereby is of sufficient importance to interfere with normal bidding or play, the Director shall award an artificial adjusted score and may penalize an offender.

One player (the one with fourteen cards) has seen a card of another player's hand, so we need to know what that card was in order to determine what to do next. In the end, under sub-part {a}, either the result stands or the Director shall award an assigned adjusted score (see Law 12). Under sub-part {b}, the board is not played, and both sides get average minus, because both sides are at fault, since neither player counted his cards before looking at them. I might or might not issue PPs for the violation of Law 7B2, the failure to count their cards face down. Probably not, in a club game. A warning maybe. The wording of Law 7B2 does not suggest a penalty.

Note: in case {a}, I would instruct the players to call me at the end of the play (so I can do my job under that part). If you instruct them, as is usual, to call if they believe they've been damaged, you may not get called when they were damaged. In such a case letting the result stand would be a dereliction of the director's duty.

I see I cross posted with Mycroft. And I left out penalizing whoever fouled the board. I agree they should get a PP.

[rhm]

blackshoe, on 2014-March-17, 13:27, said:

The relevant law is
One player (the one with fourteen cards) has seen a card of another player's hand, so we need to know what that card was in order to determine what to do next.

The card was the ♠A

The original deal was:

---

In the closed room the contract was 6♣ made after a heart lead.

The team pair sitting North South was originally informed that there would be a 3 IMP penalty against them and the board thrown out, because North had looked at a card he was not supposed to.
However, this was later changed to an 11 IMP loss for North South, after this incident had been further researched, allegedly also on the internet.
Nobody else was penalized.
My question is, is this in accordance with the rules for such an incident.
It seems to me very harsh.

Rainer Herrmann

[Cyberyeti]

The 11 IMP penalty is absurd as 6N is cold with the clubs breaking.

[pran]

North has seen the ♠Ace and will know that this card belongs to East.

Obviously this information is of sufficient importance to interfere with normal bidding or play so:

If North has made any call at all on this hand then

Law 13A + B said:

A: When the Director determines that one or more hands of the board contained an incorrect number of cards (but see Law 14) and a player with an incorrect hand has made a call, then when the Director deems that the deal can be corrected and played the deal may be so played with no change of call. At the end of play the Director may award an adjusted score.
B: Otherwise when a call has been made the Director shall award an adjusted score and may penalize an offender.

and if North has not made any call then:

Law 13D2 said:

When the Director determines that one or more pockets of the board contained an incorrect number of cards and a player has seen one or more cards of another player’s hand, if the Director deems:
a. that the unauthorized information is unlikely to interfere with normal bidding or play, the Director allows the board to be played and scored. If he then considers the information has affected the outcome of the board the Director shall adjust the score and may penalize an offender.
b. that the unauthorized information gained thereby is of sufficient importance to interfere with normal bidding or play the Director shall award an artificial adjusted score and may penalize an offender

In either case the Director shall award an adjusted score.

What remains is the fact that the board has already been played in the other room, so we must consider also Law 86D. However, this Law explicitly applies only on the score awarded to a non-offending side, and as both sides here are offending we end up with awarding an artificial adjusted score -3IMP to each side (of course resulting in a split score).

[Trinidad]

rhm, on 2014-March-18, 02:39, said:

The team pair sitting North South was originally informed that there would be 3 IMP penalty against them and the board thrown out, because North had looked at a card he was not supposed to.
However, this was later changed to an 11 IMP loss for North South, after this incident had been further researched, allegedly also on the internet.
Nobody else was penalized.
My question is, is this in accordance with the rules for such an incident.
It seems to me very harsh.

Rainer Herrmann

No. Having 12 cards is equally bad as having 14 cards. Both sides are equally responsible. Both sides are offending, and as Pran has already said, the score on the board should be adjusted to -3 IMPs for each team. This means that the VP result will lead to a sum of less than 20.

In addition, the pairs that were responsible for the misboarding should be penalized.

I am astonished that a TD would rule that NS are entirely at fault "for having looked at a card he wasn't supposed to". How a TD can make up such an infraction (when there are specific laws for misboarding) is a mistery to me. I would penalize the TD two VPs for "looking out of the window during the TD course".

Rik

[gordontd]

Trinidad, on 2014-March-18, 04:59, said:

Having 12 cards is equally bad as having 14 cards.

It's not. Seeing a hand with 12 cards doesn't make the board unplayable. Seeing one with 14 cards usually does.

Note that I'm not saying the hand with 12 cards is non-offending.

This post has been edited by gordontd: 2014-March-18, 05:35

[Trinidad]

gordontd, on 2014-March-18, 05:28, said:

Trinidad, on 2014-March-18, 04:59, said:

No. Having 12 cards is equally bad as having 14 cards.

It's not. Seeing a hand with 12 cards doesn't make the board unplayable. Seeing one with 14 cards usually does.

Note that I'm not saying the hand with 12 cards is non-offending.

Please read "equally bad as" in my post as "as much of an infraction as".

Rik