[BunnyGo]

At the club I've recently started going to, they have us set up two boards based on computer printouts. The printouts then tear away so we can insert the hands to each player so they can confirm we've done it correctly (some older players bid by looking at the inserts rather than the cards for vision reasons).

One day, my partner noticed (around round 9 of 12) that he was supposed to have the heart Ten, but instead had the Jack. The director asked another pair, who confirmed they played the hand with the Jack, but then switched the cards so that they were as the computer intended (so that partner knew where the Jack was, but I had no idea what card had been switched). It ended up mattering a lot (hearts were trump with the Jack offsides and king onsides) and based on the traveler, no one had played with the cards correct except for me.

What should have been done? Should the cards have been left alone since it was so late and just let me play the hand as the cards were? Should there be an adjusted score?

Thank you.

[bluejak]

You cannot compare scores on hands that are not identical, whatever the reason. Furthermore, I would shoot any pair that rearranged the cards rather than calling the TD and telling him. Ok, not shoot, but pretty close!

[blackshoe]

Whatever else the TD does, he should give a PP of at least twice the standard PP for the jurisdiction to the idiot(s) who switched the cards without calling the TD. No doubt their reaction will be "I'm never going to try to be helpful again!" So be it.

You have a fouled board. Law 87 applies. In particular, if at the end of the day no one but you played the hand in a particular form, and both you and your opponents were not at all at fault (which sounds like the case) then you both get average plus on the board.

[mrdct]

BunnyGo, on 2011-November-17, 17:39, said:

(some older players bid by looking at the inserts rather than the cards for vision reasons)

That pratice should be strongly discouraged as it's clearly in breach of Law 7B2 "Each player counts his cards face down to be sure he has exactly thirteen; after that, and before making a call, he must inspect the faces of his cards".

[Vampyr]

I always thought that curtain cards were an accident waiting to happen, and now an accident has happened!

Any way things will be OK once this club gets its dealing machine repaired.

[BunnyGo]

blackshoe, on 2011-November-17, 18:14, said:

Whatever else the TD does, he should give a PP of at least twice the standard PP for the jurisdiction to the idiot(s) who switched the cards without calling the TD. No doubt their reaction will be "I'm never going to try to be helpful again!" So be it.

You have a fouled board. Law 87 applies. In particular, if at the end of the day no one but you played the hand in a particular form, and both you and your opponents were not at all at fault (which sounds like the case) then you both get average plus on the board.

The director was the only one who switched the card. The hand had been mis-set up originally, and no one caught the mistake until round 9. Sorry if that was unclear. My partner and I decided to never tell him again after round 1 that there is a mistake.

[blackshoe]

So the "wrong" hand was played 8 times, the TD corrected it, and the ninth and subsequent rounds it was played in the "correct" form? How many additional rounds were there?

[bluejak]

Ok, if that is the case, then rounds 1 to 8 are played as one subfield and 9+ as another and the scores factored preferably using Neuberg. Good software will do this automatically.

I believe the TD was in error. If I have understood correctly, and this was a single section event, then why did he not just change the curtain card and leave the deal unchanged?

[gordontd]

This prompts me to ask another question of TDs about your practice. Imagine a board is played correctly for six rounds and then fouled, which you discover after the seventh round.

Do you leave the board in its new state so as to have two equal subfields, or do you correct the board and award artificial scores at one table?

[BunnyGo]

blackshoe, on 2011-November-18, 07:49, said:

So the "wrong" hand was played 8 times, the TD corrected it, and the ninth and subsequent rounds it was played in the "correct" form? How many additional rounds were there?

Mostly correct. After I called the TD back to complain that I went down in a contract that everyone else was making an overtrick on (based on the switched card) he then switched it back for rounds 10, 11, and 12. So I was the only person to play it in the "correct" form.

bluejak, on 2011-November-18, 07:53, said:

Ok, if that is the case, then rounds 1 to 8 are played as one subfield and 9+ as another and the scores factored preferably using Neuberg. Good software will do this automatically.

I believe the TD was in error. If I have understood correctly, and this was a single section event, then why did he not just change the curtain card and leave the deal unchanged?

Never heard of subfields, that's interesting.

This was a single session event (although the clubs here seem to keep running scores over a month long period in a way I haven't figured out yet), and I have no idea why the director ruled this way (but this club seems pretty lax in general, the other night I had to explain to the TD that while the declarer didn't have to tell me what her hand was, she hand to tell me her partnership's NT ranges after her partner couldn't remember them).

[blackshoe]

As I think I said before, if you were the only one to play it, you and your opponents should both get average plus. Everyone else is scored normally. IOW, there are two sub-fields, you're in one, everyone else is in the other.

Switching it back after you'd played the board is definitely director error.

[blackshoe]

gordontd, on 2011-November-18, 08:16, said:

This prompts me to ask another question of TDs about your practice. Imagine a board is played correctly for six rounds and then fouled, which you discover after the seventh round.

Do you leave the board in its new state so as to have two equal subfields, or do you correct the board and award artificial scores at one table?

I don't think it would occur to me to leave it in its new state. Not before I read your post, anyway.

[gordontd]

blackshoe, on 2011-November-18, 09:03, said:

I don't think it would occur to me to leave it in its new state. Not before I read your post, anyway.

Okay, a variant on this. Imagine you discover it after it's been played three times in the fouled state. Now you will necessarily have two sub-fields and no artificial scores. Do you leave it as it is so as to have six scores in each sub-field, or correct it and have nine in one and three in the other?

[bluejak]

gordontd, on 2011-November-18, 08:16, said:

This prompts me to ask another question of TDs about your practice. Imagine a board is played correctly for six rounds and then fouled, which you discover after the seventh round.

Do you leave the board in its new state so as to have two equal subfields, or do you correct the board and award artificial scores at one table?

Personally, the former. But I believe the EBU recommends the latter.

BunnyGo, on 2011-November-18, 08:35, said:

Never heard of subfields, that's interesting.

Law 87B explains them [without using the term]. So they are a matter of Law.

gordontd, on 2011-November-18, 09:26, said:

Okay, a variant on this. Imagine you discover it after it's been played three times in the fouled state. Now you will necessarily have two sub-fields and no artificial scores. Do you leave it as it is so as to have six scores in each sub-field, or correct it and have nine in one and three in the other?

Personally, I leave it: but again I think the EBU recommendation ....

[barmar]

Going back to the original situation, I don't think anyone has commented on the other mistake the director made. When the fouled board was discovered, he should NOT have corrected it at that table, because of the extraneous information that was provided to the player who originally held the Jack. Once the players have looked at their cards, they should play them.

It ended up being irrelevant, since the result at this table was irrelevant when they ended up in a 1-table subfield.