Wrong Board
Under Law 15B2, if a wrong board is played on a table where none of the four players has played the board previously, it is to be played and the score stands.
Under Law 15B3 an artificial adjusted score is to be awarded to a contestant deprived of the opportunity to earn a valid score.
A game is played with Barometer scoring, all tables playing the same board/s in every round. A complete set of boards has been placed at each table.
On table 1, where boards 1 and 2 are to be played in the first round, after playing board 1 North picks up board 3 by mistake, nobody notices until play is over. Under Law 15B2 the TD is to allow the score to stand. In the next round, where boards 3 and 4 are to be played, the EW who come to table 1 cannot play board 3 because NS have already played it, so EW get A+ and NS A-. So NS get two results on board 3, one the actual result which they got in the first round and another the adjusted score for the second round. Same with EW who have moved from table 1 to table 2, where board 3 cannot be played because EW have already played it.
Can the same pair be given two different results for the same board?
If the TD allows the first foursome to play board 2 later the number of scores will exceed the number of boards played.
Is this a real problem or have I got something mixed up?
Comments
Everybody only gets one score on Board 3. The two pairs who played it get the score they actually obtained when they played it. Even though the pairs against whom they should have played it get AV+ the pairs who played it in error do not get AV-. In order to score this you change the pairings for this board in the scoring program so that the pairs who actually played it are on one line with the score they actually obtained and the two who were unable to play it on another (even though they did not play each other on this board) with a score of AV+/AV+. On Board 2 it is either played by the two pairs who should have played it or they get AV-/AV-.
You may think this is an argument for Law 15 being changed again in 2027.
If you are very lucky you may be able to adjust the movement so that you can get the two pairs who haven't played board 3 to play it against each other while the other two pairs play board 2. This would happen if the table that played the wrong board is the stationary table in a Howell.
Otherwise, you do a similar thing for scoring - change the pair numbers for the board so that the two who don't play board 3 can be scored against each other and both given 60%. Those who didn't play board 2 can both be given 40%.
Law 15 was the first law I suggested changing to the WBFLC, on the grounds that it was the worst new law from 2017! I think it should have options.
Definitely agree.
I had to do this quite recently - I think it best to wait until the board is (not ) played at the other two tables - mark it as 'not played' and then adjust pair numbers (so the players who can't play the board, play each other and get AV+ each) at the end of the session.
No. As Paul said, EW get AV+ for board 3 but NS get no score.
What is interesting is what happens to board 2. If you do not allow them to play it, then both NS and EW (at table 1) have been deprived of the opportunity to earn a good score.
The White book is suprisingly silent on this (or I've missed it). It covers the situation for Teams (3.3.7) and Swiss Pairs (3.3.8) but not "normal" pairs.
Boards lost through slow play are scored AV+/AV- (WB 2.8.2 subnote 3) or some variation - but is this really slow play? It's more akin to not realising you have another board to play until the move is called.
Let's assume we do apply an artificial adjusted score.
If you deem NS to be at fault but not EW, then you should score board 2: NS AV-, EW AV+.
If you deem NS fully at fault, and EW partly at fault, then it should be NS AV-, EW AV.
If you deem both pairs fully at fault, then do you score it AV, AV (effectively ignoring it) or score it AV-, AV-?
If the former, then NS's score is affected by how culpable EW are, which seems wrong.
Thoughts?
Obviously they are both at fault and deserve Av- as I mentioned in my first post above. Serendipitously this balances out the two Av+ scores you gave to the other two pairs!