[jhenrikj]

Law 7 D says...

Quote

Any contestant remaining at a table throughout a session is primarily responsible for maintaining proper conditions of play at the table.

What is "proper conditions of play" exactly? Does this include who is putting the boards on the table?

In a Swiss team event, each match is one session. This means that both pairs at the table remain at the table throughout a session. Now, who is primarily responsible? Both? No one? Can we really have two pairs both being primarily responsible?

[axman]

jhenrikj, on 2012-April-19, 05:02, said:

Law 7 D says...



What is "proper conditions of play" exactly? Does this include who is putting the boards on the table?

In a Swiss team event, each match is one session. This means that both pairs at the table remain at the table throughout a session. Now, who is primarily responsible? Both? No one? Can we really have two pairs both being primarily responsible?

Perhaps this is not particularly helpful, in ST the entire team putatively starts at its home table and the EW pair 'moves' to its opponents' table.

PCoP include the proper board for the contestants is active and in proper orientation..

It ought to include ascertaining the correct contestants are present [implied by proper board] and the table being clear of clutter

[blackshoe]

Just to confuse things a bit more:

Quote

ACBL CoC for Swiss Teams: Whenever these, or other related conditions, refer to a match, this "match" conforms to the definition of "session" in the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge. Whenever these or other related conditions refer to a session, this "session" refers to a group of matches played in prompt succession.

Agree with the Ax as to what ought to comprise proper conditions of play, but I don't think it's defined anywhere.

[jhenrikj]

The problem arises by reading 7D literally. Since both pairs remain at the table the entire session, both pairs are primarily responsible, This means that when North puts the board on the table incorrectly orientated and after that north takes east cards and looks at them, if we are going to penalize a pair now we have to penalize EW as well since they are primarily responsible for the board being placed correctly orientated.

I don't like that interpretation. We would be much better off if we decided that, as in pair tournaments where both pairs at a table is moving, no pair is primarily responsible in a team game (or that we could write a regulation deciding who is responsible). Now we can penalize the offending side only, this feels much better.

[barmar]

I suspect the intent was simply to distinguish between stationary and moving pairs, and indicate that the stationary pairs are primarily responsible for ensuring that the right boards are played and in the correct directions. Note that this doesn't mean that the other pair is totally blameless for errors -- the "primarily" qualifier implies that others are also responsible, just not as much.

And since PCoP aren't defined, I'm going to assume that it refers to the requirements in the rest of Law 7.

[gnasher]

For events in England, the authorities have, with admirable attention to detail, considered the meaning of this law, and provided this guidance:

EBU Tournament Directors' Guide 7.4 said:

Responsibility for table: the role of North
Possibly because of some very old Laws there is an impression amongst some players that only North is allowed to do anything. They assume he has to score, look after the boards, put the board on the table correctly, move the boards and so on. Some people ascribe further responsibilities to North, such as looking after speed of play, deciding whether the board should stay in the centre of the table, and so on. How much of this is true?
According to the Law Book, only moving the boards is the specific responsibility of North [Law 8]. However, custom and practice, plus some local regulations, mean that scoring is normally done by North or South, and checked by East or West.
A contestant who remains at the table is primarily responsible for maintaining proper conditions of play. With a Howell-type movement, that could be North-South: it could be East-West: it could be neither. Anyway, the word 'primarily' means that the other side is not absolved from responsibility. If the board is put on the table so that the North cards are taken out of the board by the East player, both sides are at fault.

Sorry to point out the hole in the doughnut, but it would have been even better if this, especially the last sentence, had appeared in a publication which players were actually likely to read.

[AlexJonson]

I am happy to discover that everyone at my table is to blame.

Presumably we can play some Bridge and someone will sort it out in the scoring.

[gnasher]

This law and its interpretation are something of a surprise to me: I've always believed that North is responsible for managing the board both before and after play.

For years I've made a point of not putting the board on the table as East or West - if I find myself with a board under my control I carefully pass it to North for him to deal with. And only last week I told an East whom I believed to be usurping my authority to "Get your filthy hands off my boards". Oh well.

[jhenrikj]

gnasher, on 2012-April-19, 13:48, said:

This law and its interpretation are something of a surprise to me: I've always believed that North is responsible for managing the board both before and after play.

That was changed in the 1997 laws....

But the interpretation thar both is at fault is ridiculous. Lets assume we are playing a 64 board match divided into 4 stanzas of 16 boards (the definition states, each such stanza is one session ). After 12 boards, east goes to the bathroom, west takes the opportunity to go and get some coffee. When EW return they find that north has put the next board on the table incorrectly orientated and look at east cards. Now EW get penalized -1VP for this, does this seem reasonable?

[pran]

jhenrikj, on 2012-April-19, 23:43, said:

That was changed in the 1997 laws....

But the interpretation thar both is at fault is ridiculous. Lets assume we are playing a 64 board match divided into 4 stanzas of 16 boards (the definition states, each such stanza is one session ). After 12 boards, east goes to the bathroom, west takes the opportunity to go and get some coffee. When EW return they find that north has put the next board on the table incorrectly orientated and look at east cards. Now EW get penalized -1VP for this, does this seem reasonable?

Yes - if they too take opponents' cards from the board when they return to the table.

But assuming that EW just call attention to the irregularity when they return to the table they are certainly not at any fault.

[jhenrikj]

pran, on 2012-April-20, 00:52, said:

Yes - if they too take opponents' cards from the board when they return to the table.

But assuming that EW just call attention to the irregularity when they return to the table they are certainly not at any fault.

Of course any player who takes the wrong cards out of the board is an offender, but the current law can be interpreted as EW are primarily responsible for the boards being correctly orientated. If anyone is primarily responsible you can't penalize someone else for the irregularity without penalizing those who have the main responsibility, can you? If so, being primarily responsible have no meaning at all.

I want to be able to penalize the offender only if one side is clearly at fault, but the law does not allow me to to that if both sides are considered being primarily responsible.

[mjj29]

I think both the laws and regulations allow the TD common sense in this regard. If EW are at the table they are responsible for stopping N from putting the board the wrong way round. If both have left the table, clearly it's all North's fault. Particularly since they shouldn't be taking cards from the board without the opponents present.

[barmar]

I suspect that "remaining at the table" is supposed to refer to the assignment of players to tables, not whether they were physically at the table. For instance, in a Mitchell movement, all the N/S players are considered to remain at their tables throughout the session, even if they occasionally step away (for coffee, to use the restroom, etc.).

[pran]

barmar, on 2012-April-20, 14:01, said:

I suspect that "remaining at the table" is supposed to refer to the assignment of players to tables, not whether they were physically at the table. For instance, in a Mitchell movement, all the N/S players are considered to remain at their tables throughout the session, even if they occasionally step away (for coffee, to use the restroom, etc.).

I hope you do not consider N/S responsible ("at fault") in a Mitchell movement if E/W incorrectly for instance take cards from the N/S pockets while N/S for whatever reason have both temporarily left the table?

[blackshoe]

Nearly every ruling in the game might require some judgement. That's why we have TDs.

[jhenrikj]

The main question remains, are both pairs in a team game considered stationary or not?

[blackshoe]

"Any contestant…". The contestant in a team game is the team, and since the team is split between two different tables neither contestant is stationary in the meaning of Law 7D.

[barmar]

pran, on 2012-April-20, 14:56, said:

I hope you do not consider N/S responsible ("at fault") in a Mitchell movement if E/W incorrectly for instance take cards from the N/S pockets while N/S for whatever reason have both temporarily left the table?

Of course not. Although perhaps it's a bad idea for them both to leave, since it could allow the newly arrived EW to peek at all the cards. Although I suppose the same is true for NS when they receive a new set of boards while they're waiting for EW to arrive.

[jhenrikj]

blackshoe, on 2012-April-21, 09:21, said:

"Any contestant…". The contestant in a team game is the team, and since the team is split between two different tables neither contestant is stationary in the meaning of Law 7D.

Thanks

[barmar]

This seems like another law that could do with some clarification for the 2017 revision.