Tales from a Charity Swiss Teams - hands from the wrong board
I'm called to a table to be told that both W and N have the H3.
As usual, someone had taken the hand from the wrong board.
In fact, EW had taken the hands from board 35, and NS from board 36. Both boards were in the centre of the table with 35 on top.
All players were adamant they had done nothing wrong, and when I suggested that perhaps board 36 had been on top when NS took their cards, and then the order "corrected", I was again met with vehement denials. It's also possible board 35 was elsewhere when NS took their cards, but it's unlikely in a Swiss event.
So to the point of law.
Neither board can now be played - but who is "at fault"? With board 35 being on top, is that enough to determine that NS got it wrong, or is it AV/AV?
(They also complained bitterly about not being able to play the boards, as if somehow it wasn't their fault. Is it possible to award AV-/AV-?)
Comments
I would be content that for both NS to have taken their cards from 36 requires some rearrangement of the boards. If EW stated that they arrived at the table with 35 on top and took their card out and did not notice that NS started bidding while there were still cards in the board then I would find EW not at all at fault. Otherwise I would want to award both sides less than average over the two boards AVE-/AVE- and then AVE/AVE.
If this is a Swiss Teams event, I would quickly go to the table where the team mates of both pairs are playing and if they haven't started Boards 35 or 36, I would introduce substitute hand dealt boards 35 and 36 to be played at both tables. If the boards have been played at that table, there is unlikely to be enough time for substitute boards and I'd give Av/Av as fault at the original table can't be determined. I'd also check (Law 86B) that the outcome on either board at the other table wasn't notably good or bad for either side, but you'd probably know about it anyway if someone starts moaning vociferously!
If this is a charity event, I'd be loathe to award less than Av/Av in this case.
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
They had already played 4 boards at this point.
On the subject of having multiple boards on the table, does anyone have any views on this? As a player, I prefer just one board on the table at a time. Law 7A starts "When a board is to be played, it is placed in the centre of the table .... " which implies that the board wasn't already on the table, but it's only an implication, so I don't think I can do more than recommend only one board on the table at a time, but I do think fewer mis-boardings happen with one at a time.
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
I can see (small) downsides.
1) They play them in the wrong order, and hence score against the wrong board
2) They forget there is another board to play
3) They are more likely to take the current (empty) board off the table (or at least are less likely to if there is a stack there)
On the whole I think one board at time is preferable.
When sharing boards, the stack of boards not currently being played is in a separate location between the sharing tables, and that seems to work quite well. At a club I used to play at, it was quite common for players to come up with a "1-table board share" where the boards not being played would be in a separate stack off to the side (typically not on the same table), and this never seemed to cause problems.