[FrancesHinden]

You and a colleague are directing a one day Swiss teams event, 7 board matches. Scoring is with bridgemates, meaning that the official score & any adjustments is produced and printed by the TDs. Boards duplicated across the field.

Your colleague is called by West, who explains (away from the table) that on his way back from the toilet, he stopped at the next table to collect their next board, and heard the players say 'making 12'

In passing, your colleague notes that West is a famous (bridge) lawyer, and that the NS team contains 3 EBU referees.

Your colleague tells West to play the Board out, and call her back at the end.
The auction progresses to a certain point, when your colleague is called back by West:

---

1♦ = natural unbalanced. 3♦ pre-emptive

West now says he can't continue the auction because of the UI. Your colleague tells him that's OK, stop bidding now, and the board will be scrapped.

This is the last match before the dinner break. Your colleague effectively scores the match as if this board were flat, so no imps on the board and it scored as a 7 board match with 6 results.

The opposing captain, who was sitting West at the other table, comes and finds you and your colleague during the break, and asks how you have ruled. Your colleague explains the above. You quickly say 'but we will give both teams +3imps because it wasn't your fault'

The opposing captain asks if you have considered Law 86d, as they had an unusually good result at the other table. You say that you can't give any more than 3 imps, because there is no way of knowing how the auction would have continued. The captain says they were certain to gain far more than that, because their result was 4hx-1, NS+100. You say you will have a look at it and let them know.

How do you rule?

p.s. it didn't happen at the time, but if you talk to NS at the table, they will suggest that if West bid 5H over 5D, one possible outcome is that North would make a forcing pass and South would bid 6D.

[Aardv]

From the point they'd got to, plausible results were 5D+1, 6D=, 5Hx-2, 6Hx-3, for scores of 620, 1370, 300, 500. IMP scores of 11, 15, 5, 9 NS. So it seems very generous to West's team to give them +3.

86D: "...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)."

There are two non-offending sides here, so I think "...should do so..." doesn't apply. But the laws at least give the Director permission to assign an IMP score if he thinks it right.

I do think it right. I'll assign NS +11 IMPS and EW -5 IMPS, which correspond to fairly likely better-than-par results at this table for each side, and conveniently have the same 6 IMP spread mismatch as the +3 for both sides I started with.

[edited for clarity in response to blackshoe's remark below]

[blackshoe]

That looks to me like a 16 IMP spread.

[Vampyr]

Why did the first West stop at the next table to pick up the next board instead of taking his seat and waiting for it to be passed? This is very unusual behaviour, and I think that the ruling should reflect the fact that the player placed himself somewhere where he would quite likely receive UI.

[Lanor Fow]

I don't think giving either side -5 IMPS is correct. In cancelling the board, and deeming it unplayable you should now be assigning artificial adjusted scores and no non offending side should get less than +3.

The white book states:

"For a team not at fault, they should get an assigned adjusted score based on their favourable
result obtained at the table and a normal result in lieu of the result not obtained; or AVE+."

in 8.86.1

law 16C doesn't doesn't allow a non artificial adjustment when the board has not been completed, and whilst 86D allows an adjusted score in IMPS if there is an unusually favourable result at the other table, so we can give NS more than +3imps, but the white book notes make it clear that EW should not get less than +3imp.

So applying this EW should get +3imps and NS should get 4hx-1 scored against a weighted score of normal results at the other table (I'd agree with Aardv about the possible results). I'll leave it to better players to decide what weighting, but it seems likely to be in the region of 10-13 IMPs to NS

[Vampyr]

Why do you think EW are non-offending?

[campboy]

I don't think it is legal to let play of the board go ahead and then stop it part-way through. The TD's has the option "before any call is made" to award an artificial adjusted score (16C2(d)). Once she's chosen option (c) and a call is made, she no longer has the option to go back and choose differently. She should get a table result and then adjust it if she deems it necessary.

[axman]

Vampyr, on 2015-April-16, 21:34, said:

Why did the first West stop at the next table to pick up the next board instead of taking his seat and waiting for it to be passed? This is very unusual behaviour, and I think that the ruling should reflect the fact that the player placed himself somewhere where he would quite likely receive UI.

From 16C1: 1. When a player accidentally receives unauthorized

What I am thinking is that W's encounter would not qualify as an accident.

and from 16C2© allow completion of the play of the board standing ready to award an adjusted score if he judges that unauthorized information may have affected the result; or

What I am thinking is that W has made a ruling (to cancel play) not supported in law. And the TD acted incorrectly in dealing with it.

and from 12A1:1. The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation committed by an opponent.

It appears to me that W's excursion to retrieve a board is a violation that the law fails to provide a remedy for; and thus, an adjusted score is warranted. Notably, the auction had progressed to the point that NS had run out of gas so it appears that 5D making whatever is the appropriate adjustment.

[barmar]

I don't know if it's a written regulation, but a common understanding in the US is that players should not be within 2 tables of where their teammates are playing. On the other hand, when playing in 3-way matches, caddies aren't used to move the boards -- when the first half is finished, the normal practice is for the EW pair to drop off the boards they just played at their teammates' table while they go to the third table.

[FrancesHinden]

barmar, on 2015-April-17, 08:39, said:

I don't know if it's a written regulation, but a common understanding in the US is that players should not be within 2 tables of where their teammates are playing. On the other hand, when playing in 3-way matches, caddies aren't used to move the boards -- when the first half is finished, the normal practice is for the EW pair to drop off the boards they just played at their teammates' table while they go to the third table.

The same boards are being played around the room - it's like a pairs movement with longer rounds in that you just get passed your boards by the next table as they are played.

[blackshoe]

campboy, on 2015-April-17, 07:17, said:

I don't think it is legal to let play of the board go ahead and then stop it part-way through. The TD's has the option "before any call is made" to award an artificial adjusted score (16C2(d)). Once she's chosen option (c) and a call is made, she no longer has the option to go back and choose differently. She should get a table result and then adjust it if she deems it necessary.

I agree.

FrancesHinden, on 2015-April-16, 19:08, said:

Your colleague is called by West, who explains (away from the table) that on his way back from the toilet, he stopped at the next table to collect their next board, and heard the players say 'making 12'

Your colleague tells West to play the Board out, and call her back at the end.

This is a ruling under Law 16C2{c}: "allow completion of the play of the board, standing ready to award an adjusted score if he judges that unauthorized information may have affected the result".

FrancesHinden, on 2015-April-16, 19:08, said:

The auction progresses to a certain point, when your colleague is called back by West:

West now says he can't continue the auction because of the UI. Your colleague tells him that's OK, stop bidding now, and the board will be scrapped.

This is the last match before the dinner break. Your colleague effectively scores the match as if this board were flat, so no imps on the board and it scored as a 7 board match with 6 results.

The opposing captain, who was sitting West at the other table, comes and finds you and your colleague during the break, and asks how you have ruled. Your colleague explains the above. You quickly say 'but we will give both teams +3imps because it wasn't your fault'

The opposing captain asks if you have considered Law 86d, as they had an unusually good result at the other table. You say that you can't give any more than 3 imps, because there is no way of knowing how the auction would have continued. The captain says they were certain to gain far more than that, because their result was 4hx-1, NS+100. You say you will have a look at it and let them know.

How do you rule?

The table director made an error when he told them to stop bidding, and that the board would be "scrapped". Now we're in 82C territory: "If a ruling has been given that the Director subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score, treating both sides as non-offending for that purpose."

Aside: West is mistaken. He certainly can continue the auction and play. The director instructed him to do so. I would not give him a PP or DP for failure to follow the TD's instructions, but I would tell him again to follow them, and also explain that per Law 16A, the overheard remark is extraneous and information from it cannot be used as a basis for any call (TD should have done that already).

Law 86D says "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 obtained 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 favorable to the non-offending side).

Now we have to figure out how to adjust the score. Is there an "offending side"? Well, ordinarily, overhearing something is not under control of the person who hears it, but in this case West departed from correct procedure when he stopped at the other table to pick up their next board. So West (call his team #1) is the offender here. OTOH, 82C tells us to treat everyone as non-offending. So, no offender. Agree with Lanor that team 1 should get +3. Following Aardv's analysis, team #2 getting +11 seems about right.