Playing a hand when told not to.
This came up at a directors' meeting we had today.
If you tell the room not to start playing another board, and they ignore you and start playing anyway, what are your options as director? Assume the action is deliberate.
I know you can assess procedural penalties, but I can't see anything that says I can stop them playing the board once they've started. (I may want to stop them playing because we have a curfew on the use of the room.)
Jeremy
Comments
Once you've announced that they should not play a board, it is no longer scheduled for them to play, so you can take it away. I suggest scoring it as Av- to both sides and giving them both a 40% PP for deliberately ignoring the instructions of the TD.
Yes it is no longer a scheduled board.
I would mark as not played and consider a procedural penalty.
Alan
OK now I know what I'm looking for, I've found this:
WB(2018)8.81.4.1:"As a matter of principle, a TD should not remove a board from a table because it is late once an auction has commenced, unless the table was told not to play the board. In the latter case a procedural penalty for both sides should be issued and the board cancelled."
If the board is cancelled I presumably can't give Av-/Av-, but can of course apply the procedural penalty.
On a linguistic note, the laws and WB seem to talk about movements rather than scheduled boards.
The board is cancelled in the sense that the TD decides that no result can be obtained (as per Law 12C2) and is scored AVE-/AVE-.
There was an earlier discussion about "not played". If the TD changes the movement (schedule) this should be a (re-)scheduling that applies to all tables, and the boards that are now scheduled not to be played should be scored as "not played" (not part of the movement). If the TD cancels the board at individual tables because they run out of time, the board was scheduled and cancellation is a matter for Law 12C2.
I think this was suggesting to cancel the board and award AVE-/AVE-. I think this is perhaps sloppy language, arising from when the standard procedural penalty was the same as the difference between AVE and AVE-.
Not sure you need all of this ... "the latter case" already refers to a table that was told not to play the board ... so:
In the latter case the board is cancelled and scored as AVE-/AVE- (Law 12C2), and a procedural penalty issued [the table ignored the TD's instruction] (Law 90B8).
I might even lose the bit [in square brackets]
Peter
Isn't a disciplinary penalty more appropriate for deliberately violating the TD's direct instructions?
Law 90B8 states a procedural penalty is appropriate, although WB(2018)2.8.2 states that "Deliberate actions are
covered under ‘Behaviour’ ", for which the suitable penalty is a disciplinary one. I would suggest that refusal to obey a TD's instruction is sufficiently serious to warrant a double procedural penalty, which is the same as a disciplinary.