[blackshoe]

This came up at a local club yesterday (ACBL, though I don't think it matters).

A player came to the director after the session and reported that he played the same board twice - once as board 30 and once as board 32. The director checked, and compared the boards against the hand record, and in this one section of four, board 30 was indeed identical, incorrectly, to board 32. Board 32 contained the correct hands per the hand record, board 30 did not. I do not know if the director checked any other boards in that set. He did check board 30 in the other three sets, and it was correct per the hand record.

Asked why he didn't call the director at the time, the player said "I wanted to, but the other three players at the table insisted it was not the same board".

As the director, what ruling[s] would you consider making, what ruling would you actually make, and what advice, if any, would you give this player?

[Cascade]

blackshoe, on 2014-January-15, 16:23, said:

This came up at a local club yesterday (ACBL, though I don't think it matters).

A player came to the director after the session and reported that he played the same board twice - once as board 30 and once as board 32. The director checked, and compared the boards against the hand record, and in this one section of four, board 30 was indeed identical, incorrectly, to board 32. Board 32 contained the correct hands per the hand record, board 30 did not. I do not know if the director checked any other boards in that set. He did check board 30 in the other three sets, and it was correct per the hand record.

Asked why he didn't call the director at the time, the player said "I wanted to, but the other three players at the table insisted it was not the same board".

As the director, what ruling[s] would you consider making, what ruling would you actually make, and what advice, if any, would you give this player?

Its not the same board. Board 30 is east dealer and nil vul and board 32 is west dealer and ew vul. These different conditions make it different even if the cards are identical.

Yes a mistake has occurred if board 30 was supposed to be different. Just score it in a separate section.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2014-January-15, 16:23, said:

This came up at a local club yesterday (ACBL, though I don't think it matters).

A player came to the director after the session and reported that he played the same board twice - once as board 30 and once as board 32. The director checked, and compared the boards against the hand record, and in this one section of four, board 30 was indeed identical, incorrectly, to board 32. Board 32 contained the correct hands per the hand record, board 30 did not. I do not know if the director checked any other boards in that set. He did check board 30 in the other three sets, and it was correct per the hand record.

Asked why he didn't call the director at the time, the player said "I wanted to, but the other three players at the table insisted it was not the same board".

As the director, what ruling[s] would you consider making, what ruling would you actually make, and what advice, if any, would you give this player?

Establish which pairs have played the faulty board 30 and whether they played board 30 or board 32 first.

The scores obtained on the board these pairs played last are simply cancelled and replaced by Ave+/Ave+

Law 87 applies for board 30.

I would just thank the player for drawing my attention to the situation. He is certainly not to blame in any way for not "blowing the whistle" during the event.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2014-January-15, 17:49, said:

Establish which pairs have played the faulty board 30 and whether they played board 30 or board 32 first.

The director concluded that the board had been mis-duplicated, so every pair in that section who played board thirty would have played the faulty one. Some of those would not have played 32, and some who played 32 would not have played 30. Still, that's a lot of artificial adjusted scores.

[blackshoe]

Cascade, on 2014-January-15, 17:36, said:

Yes a mistake has occurred if board 30 was supposed to be different. Just score it in a separate section.

Not sure what you mean.

[chasetb]

This is time-intensive, but I would look through every score to see who played what. If a pair only played one of the two boards, the result stands. If a pair played both, the result stands for whichever of the boards they played first, and they get an AVE for the second. So, if a pair played 32 before 30, then their result for 32 stands and they get an AVE for 30.

I would thank the player for being honest with me, tell him/her the next time it happens, to call/see the director as soon as it happens, and I would probably give an Ave+ for that pair for the 2nd board. I like to reward honesty.

On a side note, in a 299er game (basically a beginner game, my partner at the time needed silver and I was a ringer), I once received a hand halfway through the session that looked the exact same as one I had in the first round. The director checked, and said while 2 or 3 spots were different, the shape was the exact same for me. A table had mis-duplicated the board so E and W were switched and N and S were switched. The result ended up standing, but I thought it was amusing.

[blackshoe]

How are the players at fault for this?

Note: this is ostensibly an open game, but this particular section is one of two 299er sections. There is always one "open" section, which most of the 299ers avoid like the plague. Occasionally (last Tuesday was one of those days) there are two open and two 299er sections. Overall scores across all four sections are awarded.

[Cascade]

blackshoe, on 2014-January-15, 20:08, said:

Not sure what you mean.

You might not need to do anything. I falsely assumed across the field scoring. If not just score normally. Its Just a curiosity that the cards are identical. They are different boards.

[Trinidad]

Isn't this what Neuberg was invented for?

Rik

[RMB1]

Cascade, on 2014-January-16, 01:10, said:

You might not need to do anything. I falsely assumed across the field scoring. If not just score normally. Its Just a curiosity that the cards are identical. They are different boards.

I think that someone who plays both boards has extraneous information about the other hands when they get the same hand for the second time. It is far more likely the hand has been mis-duplicated than they have been dealt the same hand twice and this is what the players will assume. Then we have to rule under Law 16C.

[blackshoe]

RMB1, on 2014-January-16, 01:19, said:

I think that someone who plays both boards has extraneous information about the other hands when they get the same hand for the second time. It is far more likely the hand has been mis-duplicated than they have been dealt the same hand twice and this is what the players will assume. Then we have to rule under Law 16C.

In fairness, while I don't have any actual evidence, it's my general impression of the field in that section that the guy who reported the problem is likely the only one who noticed. So while the law says they all have UI, the reality is that almost all of them don't remember the previous instance of the hand, so they don't have any I at all.

[GreenMan]

Somewhere I read about a U.S. Team Trial where a board got played twice in succession, rotated 90 degrees (there was an arrow switch, or something), by the same players; I think the contracts were different, but the same hand was exposed as dummy both times, and none of the four players noticed till afterward. It was VERY late in the event and everyone was tired.

[pran]

chasetb, on 2014-January-15, 21:37, said:

This is time-intensive, but I would look through every score to see who played what. If a pair only played one of the two boards, the result stands. If a pair played both, the result stands for whichever of the boards they played first, and they get an AVE for the second. So, if a pair played 32 before 30, then their result for 32 stands and they get an AVE for 30.

Ave+ - not Ave !

[chasetb]

pran, on 2014-January-16, 02:49, said:

Ave+ - not Ave !

Ok, I am a new director, and I don't have access to a rule book right now. Why Ave+ and not Ave ?

[Trinidad]

pran, on 2014-January-16, 02:49, said:

Ave+ - not Ave !

Neither. Use Neuberg since the misboarded board was played more than once.

(Or do you want the pairs who took 9 tricks in 2♠ to get the same Ave+/Ave as the pairs who took 8 tricks in 2♠?)

Rik

[pran]

chasetb, on 2014-January-16, 03:00, said:

Ok, I am a new director, and I don't have access to a rule book right now. Why Ave+ and not Ave ?

Trinidad, on 2014-January-16, 03:16, said:

Neither. Use Neuberg since the misboarded board was played more than once.

(Or do you want the pairs who took 9 tricks in 2♠ to get the same Ave+/Ave as the pairs who took 8 tricks in 2♠?)

Rik

When a deal is played twice by the same player, even when the second time under a different "name" and/or with the same player seated in a different position, the second "attempt" to play the board is void.

Before 1997 Law 6D2 said:
No result may stand if the cards are dealt without shuffle from a sorted deck or if the deal had previously been played.

This caused (secretary bird) discussions about the legality of tournaments where the same board is played at different times at different tables, so in 1997 the words "in a different session" were added to the Law with the unfortunate effect that there is no longer any clear prohibition in the laws from playing the same deal twice as two different boards in the same single-session event.

However, the intention is clear, and when situations like the one in this thread occurs all results obtained on a second play of the same deal are (still) void and must be cancelled.

As for the question of Ave+ rather than Ave you need only look up Law 12C2a: [...] average plus (at least 60% in pairs) to a contestant in no way at fault.

[Cascade]

RMB1, on 2014-January-16, 01:19, said:

I think that someone who plays both boards has extraneous information about the other hands when they get the same hand for the second time. It is far more likely the hand has been mis-duplicated than they have been dealt the same hand twice and this is what the players will assume. Then we have to rule under Law 16C.

Presumably you would rule the same way if they really did get the same cards. although that seems wrong to me. On the other hand they really did get the same cards.

[barmar]

Cascade, on 2014-January-16, 06:00, said:

Presumably you would rule the same way if they really did get the same cards. although that seems wrong to me. On the other hand they really did get the same cards.

If it was just their hand that was the same, not the whole deal, and they misplay as a result, I think that's their own fault.

However, I suspect that they'll be able to tell from the auction whether the other hands are the same. It's just too unlikely that the other hands will be different, yet still result in an auction consistent with the previous one. Not impossible, but I think I'd give the player a pass.

[pran]

barmar, on 2014-January-16, 10:56, said:

If it was just their hand that was the same, not the whole deal, and they misplay as a result, I think that's their own fault.

However, I suspect that they'll be able to tell from the auction whether the other hands are the same. It's just too unlikely that the other hands will be different, yet still result in an auction consistent with the previous one. Not impossible, but I think I'd give the player a pass.

There is of course no cause for action if just one hand is identical to any hand in a different deal however unlikely that is when the other hands are unique. This is one of the reasons why players should refrain from whistle-blowing just because they recognize their own hand.

Players are expected to play bridge assuming no irregularities whether or not they feel that they replay a deal they have already seen. But they are also expected to draw the director's attention to any suspected irregularity.

[barmar]

What the player should do is call the director without telling the others at the table why he's doing it. The TD can then determine whether the whole deal is a repeat. If it is, he can discard it; if not, play continues and the other players have no extraneous information.