[dickiegera]

Playing an howell movement and pairs play all 3 boards and later find out they played the wrong boards.

Who is at fault. This was the 2nd round.
Director gave both pairs average- and gave the 2 pairs who were not able to play boards average +

Was this correct?
Thank you

[jeffford76]

dickiegera, on 2012-June-10, 11:45, said:

Playing an howell movement and pairs play all 3 boards and later find out they played the wrong boards.

In this case the movement parameters should be altered to indicate that these pairs played these boards. You don't throw out bridge results. Pairs that don't get to play the boards later get average plus on them.

It's up to the director whether the pair that played the wrong boards gets a procedural penalty, but in my opinion they should as they have cause other players to miss getting to play boards.

[RMB1]

dickiegera, on 2012-June-10, 11:45, said:

Playing an howell movement and pairs play all 3 boards and later find out they played the wrong boards.

I was asked about a similar problem a few days ago; but not from the same country as the OP.

Both board sets were boards that had not been played before (feed in to a Howell) and the director had put the wrong set on the table, and neither side checked the guide card. In this case the director had many options open to him (the best being to play the movement with the boards sets swapped over) but he cancelled the results on three boards and gave less than average plus to the pairs at the table.

To answer the question in the topic title, if neither pair were not stationary (often the case at the feed in table in a full Howell) then the North-South pair arriving at the table are no more responsible for playing the correct boards than the East-West pair. That is to say, all the players were equally responsible.

[blackshoe]

I don't think country makes any difference — it's a matter of law, not regulation, and the law in this case is the same everywhere. Although I suppose there might be regulations about movements where neither pair at the table is stationary. I know of none in the ACBL though.

I would say to dickie that the ruling was not correct, particularly if the pairs involved were scheduled to play these boards later in the movement, as is most likely the case. The director should investigate how those boards came to be on that table. Did he put them there? This is director error, so both sides would be considered non-offending. Did another player put them there? Then he is culpable, and may be subject to a PP. In any case, if both pairs are deemed to be at fault, then I would say that both are partly at fault, and if you're going to award an ArtAS (which I don't think is appropriate here) then they both get Average.

If the pairs were scheduled to play the boards later in the movement, then the results they got here stand, and their scheduled later opponents both get average plus. There's a further problem: what happened at the table where these boards were scheduled to be played in round two? Why did no one at that table call the director when they didn't have the right boards? If at that table they played the boards that should have been played at the table in question, then the same principles apply: who incorrectly placed the boards, did anybody check, were the pairs involved scheduled to play the boards at a later time, had they (or one of them) already played the boards, etc.

I would say that the ruling Robin describes in his similar example was director error.

[bluejak]

While I agree that the results should not have been cancelled in the case cited, in general I think playing the wrong boards is player error in part at least because I have always assumed - and often announced - that if there are movement cards on the table both sides are responsible for making sure their opponents and boards are correct.

[blackshoe]

Certainly if you give such an instruction it has the force of law (see Law 8A1), but I do not think anything in the laws specifically suggests that both sides are responsible. There may be regulations to that effect, of course.

[gordontd]

blackshoe, on 2012-June-12, 09:03, said:

Certainly if you give such an instruction it has the force of law (see Law 8A1), but I do not think anything in the laws specifically suggests that both sides are responsible. There may be regulations to that effect, of course.

L7D?

[blackshoe]

No, Law 7D address the case where one pair is stationary, it says nothing about any other case. Although some, including David I think, have argued that 7D does not absolve moving pairs of all responsibility (a point with which I agree) it doesn't assign them any, either.

[bluejak]

I agree it is not a matter of Law. But it is custom & practice, and common-sense, that suggests having table cards and not using them is not an acceptable approach.