If you follow the Laws literally, the correct board is the board that was placed in the centre of the table prior to play (Law 7A).
If no board was placed there, then this was an infraction by the stationary pair (Law 7D), which tells us who to hold responsible – the fix then becomes the default fix in Law 12A (the Laws "do not prescribe a rectification for the particular type of violation committed" – the Law 7A violation – so the Director awards an adjusted score, although it is not clear on which board!). If both pairs are moving pairs, then both pairs are partially at fault. For what it's worth, although this seems to be what the Laws are literally indicating, I am not sure that it's a reasonable solution.
If trying to produce a practical rectification to the "no board was placed in the centre to indicate that it was being played" problem, rather than following the Laws literally, I would look to see who made the first call to see who is dealer, and use that to determine which board is being played (if there have been no calls yet there is nothing to rectify, and if there has been some call you can use it to work out who thought they were dealer); as long as there are fewer than 5 boards in the round this should uniquely indicate a board (unless the first call was out of turn for both of the possible boards, but then you have a clear offending side).
This also seems to fall within the category, envisaged by Law 90B, of things that are subject to procedural penalty, but it is up to the Director's discretion whether to impose one (Law 90A). By comparing with WB 2.8.2g, I would expect in England that it would be normal to give a warning the first time, and impose PPs if any of the players make similar "cards from the wrong board" mistakes later in the tournament.
If North or South are the dealers then the third hand to call. If East or West are dealers then the second hand to call. So on balance only North or South are playing the "wrong" board.
Given the state of play on the OP I expect the problem would be discovered as they were counting their cards, face down. Well, I can live in hope! But given they have taken cards from different boards they all probably have different system cards, talk about each board in depth after they have played it and never call the director for an irregularity. Ah! bless. Just a normal EBU affiliated bridge club then.
I wonder why many clubs have different coloured cards for consecutive boards?
(By default I would assume that the cards drawn out of the next board in sequence, or the lowest board to be played that round, or the lowest board not yet played at the table have been drawn out correctly - although you might have a dispute in half a web-mitchell.)
Funny isn't it but the laws make no mention of the "correct" board. There is no mention of how the boards for each round are to be played. Ais523 has mentioned Law 7A & 7D, I am not sure that not putting a board on the table would be considered an "infraction". So taking that further 7A only says "a board" so the question that needs to be looked at is where did South and West get their cards? The answer to that conundrum could take priority over Law 15A.
There are various other combinations in which the "wrong" cards are drawn from the wrong board so Law 15A could have a different effect on each of these.
Of course, the big question is how many times does this happen in all EBU clubs over a 12 month period. Weejonnie has given an idea why it shouldn't happen.
The time it happened to me as a player (with another senior TD in the other partnership) the first board of the set was put on the table and my partner and I took our cards from it. Possibly the table it came from were finishing late and had passed it over to let us start. While we were telling our opponents our system, the other board came across and was put on top of the pile of boards, nobody knows by whom, and the other pair took their cards from it. This was only discovered once the auction was underway and both boards were unplayable. Both pairs were considered to be at fault.
Comments
If you follow the Laws literally, the correct board is the board that was placed in the centre of the table prior to play (Law 7A).
If no board was placed there, then this was an infraction by the stationary pair (Law 7D), which tells us who to hold responsible – the fix then becomes the default fix in Law 12A (the Laws "do not prescribe a rectification for the particular type of violation committed" – the Law 7A violation – so the Director awards an adjusted score, although it is not clear on which board!). If both pairs are moving pairs, then both pairs are partially at fault. For what it's worth, although this seems to be what the Laws are literally indicating, I am not sure that it's a reasonable solution.
If trying to produce a practical rectification to the "no board was placed in the centre to indicate that it was being played" problem, rather than following the Laws literally, I would look to see who made the first call to see who is dealer, and use that to determine which board is being played (if there have been no calls yet there is nothing to rectify, and if there has been some call you can use it to work out who thought they were dealer); as long as there are fewer than 5 boards in the round this should uniquely indicate a board (unless the first call was out of turn for both of the possible boards, but then you have a clear offending side).
This also seems to fall within the category, envisaged by Law 90B, of things that are subject to procedural penalty, but it is up to the Director's discretion whether to impose one (Law 90A). By comparing with WB 2.8.2g, I would expect in England that it would be normal to give a warning the first time, and impose PPs if any of the players make similar "cards from the wrong board" mistakes later in the tournament.
If North or South are the dealers then the third hand to call. If East or West are dealers then the second hand to call. So on balance only North or South are playing the "wrong" board.
Given the state of play on the OP I expect the problem would be discovered as they were counting their cards, face down. Well, I can live in hope! But given they have taken cards from different boards they all probably have different system cards, talk about each board in depth after they have played it and never call the director for an irregularity. Ah! bless. Just a normal EBU affiliated bridge club then.
I wonder why many clubs have different coloured cards for consecutive boards?
(By default I would assume that the cards drawn out of the next board in sequence, or the lowest board to be played that round, or the lowest board not yet played at the table have been drawn out correctly - although you might have a dispute in half a web-mitchell.)
Funny isn't it but the laws make no mention of the "correct" board. There is no mention of how the boards for each round are to be played. Ais523 has mentioned Law 7A & 7D, I am not sure that not putting a board on the table would be considered an "infraction". So taking that further 7A only says "a board" so the question that needs to be looked at is where did South and West get their cards? The answer to that conundrum could take priority over Law 15A.
There are various other combinations in which the "wrong" cards are drawn from the wrong board so Law 15A could have a different effect on each of these.
Of course, the big question is how many times does this happen in all EBU clubs over a 12 month period. Weejonnie has given an idea why it shouldn't happen.
The time it happened to me as a player (with another senior TD in the other partnership) the first board of the set was put on the table and my partner and I took our cards from it. Possibly the table it came from were finishing late and had passed it over to let us start. While we were telling our opponents our system, the other board came across and was put on top of the pile of boards, nobody knows by whom, and the other pair took their cards from it. This was only discovered once the auction was underway and both boards were unplayable. Both pairs were considered to be at fault.