POOT

AlanB

I was called to a table by North where there had been a pass out of turn by South. No problem you might think as the next hand (West) also passed thereby accepting the POOT. Unfortunately the previous board had been placed on top of the board being played and both South (who thought she was the dealer) and West had not noticed this. As often the case everyone was trying to talk at once. I calmed things down a bit by saying that as North called me then for the moment I only wanted to speak to him who then explained the situation. East and West both said they could not have put the previous board on top thereby causing the problem. So I asked North and South if they put the previous board on top. Both denied this.
I ruled that the bid out of turn should be accepted and that West had condoned this by passing and the bidding should continue around the table.
Was I correct ? Should North be penalised? After all he is responsible for the boards. If I wasn't correct what should have been my ruling? I gave East/West the opportunity to contest it at the end but neither did.

gordonrainsford

@AlanB said:
Was I correct ? Should North be penalised? After all he is responsible for the boards.

This is a common misconception. See White Book 8.7.3.

You are lucky they all had the same hands from the same board - I had this sittuation as a player in a Tollemache match when someone put a board on top of the other one after two of us had removed our hand, and the other two took them from the other board. Since this was not discovered until the auction was underway, both boards were unplayable. This was particularly embarrassing since one of my opponents was also an EBU panel TD!

But I think you were right. There was a call out of turn and it was condoned, even if both players were labouring under a misapprehension as to who the dealer was. Everyone should have known which board they were playing.

Might it have been a player from another table who moved a board late and put it on top of the other one/s?

16248

I always make it clear that players should never put boards on top of each other. Only one board actually on the table.
It makes a lot of situations easier.

JeremyChild

@16248 said:
I always make it clear that players should never put boards on top of each other. Only one board actually on the table.
It makes a lot of situations easier.

I think this is an excellent approach, but presumably it's a personal rule rather than anywhere in the laws?

16248

I always assumed it was common practice.

Senior_Kibitzer

As a player, I always request that only one board be on the table at any one time. There is some implication in Law 7 that when it says that a new board is to be placed in the center of the table, the law makers may have assumed that the board was not already on the table, and Law 15A is silent on this when it might have said something.

So, as far as I can see, the Laws say nothing on this, and as a TD I feel I can do no more than to recommend only one board on a table as being merely good practice.

AlanB

@gordonrainsford said:

@AlanB said:
Was I correct ? Should North be penalised? After all he is responsible for the boards.

This is a common misconception. See White Book 8.7.3.

You are lucky they all had the same hands from the same board - I had this sittuation as a player in a Tollemache match when someone put a board on top of the other one after two of us had removed our hand, and the other two took them from the other board. Since this was not discovered until the auction was underway, both boards were unplayable. This was particularly embarrassing since one of my opponents was also an EBU panel TD!

But I think you were right. There was a call out of turn and it was condoned, even if both players were labouring under a misapprehension as to who the dealer was. Everyone should have known which board they were playing.

Might it have been a player from another table who moved a board late and put it on top of the other one/s?

Thanks Gordon. I think your guess at might have happened is the likely one. Alan.

gordonrainsford

@Senior_Kibitzer said:
As a player, I always request that only one board be on the table at any one time. There is some implication in Law 7 that when it says that a new board is to be placed in the center of the table, the law makers may have assumed that the board was not already on the table, and Law 15A is silent on this when it might have said something.

So, as far as I can see, the Laws say nothing on this, and as a TD I feel I can do no more than to recommend only one board on a table as being merely good practice.

I have used that argument, about the language, to resolve a standoff in favour of the person who only wanted one board on the table.