Discussion:
unusual happening
(too old to reply)
Douglas Newlands
2019-03-15 08:30:35 UTC
Permalink
I got called to a table at about trick 5 when they finally noticed that
the north hand was still in the board. Not a great problem as the Laws
cover it.
The unusual aspect was that north wasn't still clutching her hand from
the previous board.
Somehow she had managed to extract her hand from the next board while
moving boards and putting one on the table.
A quick look at her quitted tricks showed no significant cards so I
could just tell them to play the next one and let me know if anyone
thought they had a problem but nobody did.

doug
ais523
2019-03-15 08:44:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Newlands
I got called to a table at about trick 5 when they finally noticed that
the north hand was still in the board. Not a great problem as the Laws
cover it.
The unusual aspect was that north wasn't still clutching her hand from
the previous board.
Somehow she had managed to extract her hand from the next board while
moving boards and putting one on the table.
A quick look at her quitted tricks showed no significant cards so I
could just tell them to play the next one and let me know if anyone
thought they had a problem but nobody did.
This is covered by Law 15A2a, which applies when a player holds the
cards from the wrong board and both members of the partnership have
made a call in the auction. The board is cancelled, and an adjusted
score awarded (probably Av+/Av- in practice). Law 15A3 says that when
cards are taken by one player from a board not yet played, you need to
adjust the score on the board from which the cards were taken too,
unless the offender's calls on that board's auction end up being
repeated (in the sense of "the calls have the same meaning", not
necessarily literally the same) in the auction on that board.
(Presumably the intent is to remove the impact of the offender's
partner having gained knowledge from the offender's auction last
time.) The Law doesn't require cancellation of the board, though, so
presumably the adjustment would just be to remove any advantage that may
have been gained.

Unauthorised information also exists, but as you mention, it's unlikely
to hae a significant impact if the offender's just played a few
insignificant cards.
--
ais523
Loading...