Robert Frick | 1 Jul 03:56 2015

Kibitzer notices mistaken explanation


No questions here, it was just a ruling I never expected to make. The WBFLC minuted that the requirement to
give the opponents the correct explanation of the partnership agreement took precedence over the other
laws. We know why they did that.

But it means, as I interpret it, that a kibitzer should correct a mistaken explanation. (Yes, you can find
laws against that, but they don't take precedence.)

So I was just doing my normal whining and I never expected to meet this ruling. Then last week a kibitzer (a pro
watching two clients) came up to me and asked if he should correct a mistaken explanation by declarer.

It actually worked out well! I think the opponents were happy to just play bridge. No one got punished and I
think everyone was happy.

Bob
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

Petrus Schuster OSB | 28 Jun 11:49 2015
Picon

card played from dummy

Hello all,

National Mixed Championships, Board 9, E ist declarer in 3NT.

           92
           87
           KQ4
           J87632

  QJ4                A875
  Q632               AJ5
  A6                 T32
  Q954               AKT

           KT63
           KT94
           J9875
           -

East is the weakest player in the field and very nervous, North an expert  
feeling his age, and there is little love lost between the two ladies.

After a diamond lead and return, East wins the second trick in dummy and  
plays a club to his ace (South throwing a spade).

Trick 4:

Club 10, spade; declarer says "club" and after about one second dummy puts  
the C5 into the played position. After another 2 or 3 seconds (undisputed)  
declarer says "queen". North plays the jack.
(Continue reading)

Richard Hills | 20 Jun 14:35 2015
Picon

Home Alone

Thursday morning Butler pairs, one-winner movement. The opponents are playing the Aussie version of Standard American. Board 18, Dlr: E, Vul: N-S.


You, East, hold:

AT764
J7
AJ43
43

As dealer you elect to Pass. So now South opens the bidding with 1C, announced by North as, "At least three clubs." Pass from West, followed by 2C from North. This is alerted and explained as Inverted Minor (denying a 4-card major, promising at least 4 clubs,  and also promising game-invitation or game-force values).

What call do you make now?

Best wishes,

Richard Hills
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Richard Hills | 14 Jun 12:44 2015
Picon

Fantastic Four

During last Thursday's walk-in Butler pairs (FYI a two winner Mitchell movement) partner received a not-really-urgent but extended phone call, absenting himself from the playing area to avoid annoying other contestants. Growing impatient my RHO summoned the Director, requesting the TD use the fantastic Law Four to appoint himself as a temporary substitute.


The Director agreed. During the auction the TD chose a marginal overcall of 2C, on a hand for which my real partner would have automatically passed. I chose an equally marginal competitive raise to 3C. As a result the opponents stopped in game. Had they had the normal uncontested auction they would have easily reached their cold slam.

Should partner have received a procedural penalty? Should the Director have adjusted the score against himself?

How would you rule?

Best wishes,

Richard Hills
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Robert Park | 14 Jun 03:18 2015
Picon
Picon

Somewhat strange ruling today

We had a ruling today that I have never seen before, and that seems 
rather peculiar:

The setting is an ACBL 2-winner club game with 8 and a half tables, and 
we had a late play scheduled for board 15. Prior to the final round, the 
director informed us that board 15 was being changed to a "no-play," and 
that it would have no effect on our score. We said that we preferred to 
play the board, and he restated that it would be a "no-play" and not 
affect our score. We protested again and said we wanted a score on the 
board. He said, "OK, you have an average minus."

At the end of the game, we learned that the pair we were to play against 
had the final sit-out, and they wanted to leave early.

As it turned out, none of this affected our standing (we were 1st), but 
it was close (the director actually assigned a "no-play" rather than an 
average minus).

A good or bad score on the board might have affected not only our 
standing, but that of others.

How would you have ruled?
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

Volker Walther | 14 Jun 00:25 2015
Picon

Re: L13A&B vs L13F

Am 13.06.2015 um 15:26 schrieb ton:
> 
> Wolter writes:
> 
> Suppose we have a N14,E12,S13,W13 hand.
> If the TD makes an attempt to repair the hand, he usually will create
> additional information, for North because he will know one of Easts Cards.
> This information is AI according to 16A1c, but UI according to 13E (again it
> turns out that you have to read the complete paragraph).
> 
> ton:  
> Why is that information (knowledge of a replaced card) AI according to
> 16a1c? 
> 
> If your answer is that the card was replaced using a legal procedure then my
> answer is that an illegal procedure does not become legal after an
> assessment of a rectification. L16C makes completely clear that such
> knowledge is UI. 
> 
> ton

You are completely right. (especially since 13E only deals with UI for
south.)

Volker Walther (aka Wolter)

> 
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> Blml <at> rtflb.org
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
> 

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

Olivier La Spada | 7 Jun 00:50 2015
Picon

The second life of Rachel

Several times I get calls from Swiss players asking me to solve directing problems.
Most of the time it is very easy to answer but sometimes I am faced with new situations.
Here is one I just received.
 
Playing 2C, the declarer starts by ruffing 3 Spades and 3 Diamonds.
On the 7th trick, he played a fourth Spade intending to ruff but instead of a trump he played the DQ.
He gets a bit confused and let the opponent lead for the 8th trick.
At the 13th trick, every player had 1 card left in their hand except the declarer who had 2 (CA and DA).
By checking the tricks, they found that DQ has been played on trick 9 (and nobody noticed this!).
 
I already gave my answer but I promised him that I will ask other specialists.
 
Olivier La Spada


Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! est active.


_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Richard Hills | 6 Jun 18:14 2015
Picon

Eat hot neutrons, ectoplasmic scum!

"Eat hot neutrons, ectoplasmic scum!" was one of very many quotable lines from the classic comedy Ghostbusters. (The movie is now being remade, but with a twist of an all-female cast.)


A primary infraction of a Deceptive Hesitation With A Singleton is easy for a Director to rule. But what about a secondary ectoplasmic (((( hesitation with a singleton )))) - is that an infraction or a non-infraction? To show what I am driving at, here is an indicative hypothetical example:

You are a defender, and at trick three you are due to follow suit with a singleton. Instead of playing the card in tempo, you:

(a) place the singleton face down in front of you,
(b) announce "I am not thinking about this trick",
(c) spend five minutes thinking about trick six, and
(d) only then flip your singleton face up so that trick three can be completed.

You have not deceived declarer about your singleton, but you have ectoplasmically deceived declarer as to whether or not your real problem is at trick four or alternatively at trick six.

Infraction or non-infraction?

Best wishes,

Richard Hills
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Olivier La Spada | 2 Jun 00:46 2015
Picon

L13A&B vs L13F

Hello everybody.
 
I am a new member of this mailing list and it is my first experience in writing to it. I do not exactly know how it works but I will try my best....
 
On a pair tournament last year, I had to face this situation :
Board 20, West Dealer, All.
N : Q75/A93/AK4/AT64
E : A964/AKJT54/J2/83
S : JT/8762/Q9753/QJ
W : K832/Q/T86/K9752
 
Bidding went : P – 1NT – 2H – all pass
Lead was SJ
 
After three tricks, I have been called because when N led the HA, the declarer get confused because she also had it.
The fact was that that card belonged to the previous board.
I asked the declarer to come with me at my desk and I asked her if she would have bid without that HA. Answer was no.
Then Applying L13F, I asked her to put back that card in the previous board and let the play continue.
The result was 7 tricks and a 33% for the non offending side.
 
My problem was to deal with two ways of directing this case.
Should I use L13A and B and give an adjusted score (due to the fact that the call would not have been made),
or should I use L13F with the argument that this law fits exactly with such situations.
It is not entirely clear for me which approach has the priority.
 
Thanks for your help.
 
Olivier La Spada
 


Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! est active.


_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Jim Fox | 1 Jun 18:15 2015
Picon
Picon

Re: Extra Board?

Thanks, this in fact is what the director did, although there was some of the usual griping from a couple of
players - "What if we don't finish all 8",  "Why should I have to play faster", etc from a couple of players.

Mmbridge

-----Original Message-----
From: blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Herman De Wael
Sent: 06/01/2015 2:30 AM
To: Bridge Laws Mailing List
Subject: Re: [BLML] Extra Board?

Since the boards were dealt at the table, the players must have thought 
the board they were playing was one "intended for them in this round". 
So all eight boards are equal and there is no way to distinguish one 
from the others.
So all 8 boards should count.
Herman.

Jim Fox schreef:
> I'm going to try to be specific enough in this description, so all understand.  Please remove all
preconceptions about how Swiss Teams SHOULD be run and try to follow.
>
> The boards are not duplicated and are shuffled before each round at each table.
>
> All of the matches in every round were intended to consist of 7 boards (each played at the two tables
involved in the match). There were extra boards at various tables in round 1, but players were alerted to
only play 7 if there were more than 7 and did so.
>
> In the second round an extra board was inadvertently left at a table, so that there were 4 boards at each
table in the match.  They were duly shuffled and played (4 at each table).  When the boards were moved
simultaneously to the other table (of the match) midway through the match, both tables discovered that
there were 8 boards in play.
>
> At this point, the director was called.  How should he proceed (after stating that "mistake(s) were made").
>
> This is my last description of what happened.  Please respond to what actually happened with the boards,
not what you think SHOULD have happened. :)
>
> Mmbridge
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Stefanie Rohan
> Sent: 05/31/2015 5:04 PM
> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [BLML] Extra Board?
>
> I don't understand. There were extra boards at all the tables, and they weren't collected by the director
during the first round? And the director didn't know which boards were to be played in the second round? And
how were boards left on the table from one round to the next? Normally the director collects the boards from
the first round before distributing the boards for the second round.
>
>
>
>> On 31 May 2015, at 18:42, Jim Fox <jimfox00 <at> cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> One more try.
>>
>> Each of the 8 boards was played at one table, none of the 8 boards were
>> played at both tables.
>>
>> At that point, the director was summoned.  What should the director do at
>> that point, IF anything.
>>
>> Mmbridge
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org] On Behalf Of
>> Sven Pran
>> Sent: 05/31/2015 11:46 AM
>> To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List'
>> Subject: Re: [BLML] Extra Board?
>>
>> Sounds like Director's error to me.
>>
>> But: How many boards were actually played at the affected tables in the
>> first round?
>>
>> If 8 boards were played and thus inadvertently 8 boards were also played in
>> the second round then let all 8 boards count also for the second round.
>>
>> If only 7 boards were played in the first round you know which board is
>> "extra", it is the board that was not played in the first round and
>> unfortunately not removed from the tables.
>>
>> I would be very surprised if you are unable to figure out a solution that
>> will appear "fair" to everyone, if so I would say that you have no choice
>> other than the disastrous one to cancel the round at all affected tables.
>>
>>> -----Opprinnelig melding-----
>>> Fra: blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org] På vegne av
>> Jim
>>> Fox
>>> Sendt: 31. mai 2015 16:47
>>> Til: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List'
>>> Emne: Re: [BLML] Extra Board?
>>>
>>> The boards were only placed in the first round and were to be used at the
>> same
>>> original two tables for the rest of the event.  That is normal in the type
>> of event
>>> and venue being discussed.
>>>
>>> The extra board was INADVERTANTLY left at the two tables in question for
>> the
>>> second match.  Due to the last minute change in the number of boards per
>>> round, the director(s) hastily moved boards around from the original
>>> configuration.  The director did NOT know which boards were scheduled to
>> be
>>> played and in point of fact, did NOT "overtly" schedule any boards at any
>> table
>>> for the second match.
>>>
>>> Mmbridge
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org] On Behalf Of
>>> Sven Pran
>>> Sent: 05/31/2015 3:42 AM
>>> To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List'
>>> Subject: Re: [BLML] Extra Board?
>>>
>>> Didn't the TD himself know which 7 boards he scheduled to be played and
>> didn't
>>> he (more or less clearly) announce which boards that were?
>>>
>>> You now seem to describe a Director who placed (at least?) 8 boards on an
>>> exchange table and announced "play seven of these at your own choice"?
>>>
>>>> -----Opprinnelig melding-----
>>>> Fra: blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org] På vegne
>>>> av
>>> Jim
>>>> Fox
>>>> Sendt: 31. mai 2015 02:59
>>>> Til: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List'
>>>> Emne: Re: [BLML] Extra Board?
>>>>
>>>> Which of the 8 boards is "extra"; all were played once, but not played
>>>> yet
>>> at the
>>>> other table.
>>>>
>>>> Mmbridge
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org] On Behalf
>>>> Of Sven Pran
>>>> Sent: 05/30/2015 2:11 PM
>>>> To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List'
>>>> Subject: Re: [BLML] Extra Board?
>>>>
>>>> Jim Fox
>>>>> In a recent Swiss Teams, due to a last-minute change in the number
>>>>> of
>>>> boards
>>>>> per round from 8 to 7, the numbers of the boards placed for each
>>>>> match
>>>> were
>>>>> not the usual sequence of 7 numbers of which the highest was an even
>>>> multiple
>>>>> of 7, but mismatched boards with an extra board placed in some
>> matches.
>>>>>
>>>>> For the first match of the day, everybody was aware not to play the
>>>> "extra"
>>>>> board (highest number), but inadvertently, some "extra" boards were
>>>>> left
>>>> on
>>>>> tables for the second round.
>>>>>
>>>>> In at least one match, four boards were played at each table of the
>>>>> match
>>>> (for a
>>>>> total of eight different boards), which was only discovered when the
>>>> boards
>>>>> switched tables simultaneously.  In all the other matches only seven
>>>> boards
>>>>> were played.
>>>>>
>>>>> The director was duly summoned.  What is the proper way to handle
>>>>> this situation?
>>>>
>>>> [Sven Pran]
>>>> If I understand you correctly the answer is simply: Discard (and
>>>> ignore
>>> any
>>>> results on) the "extra" board.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Blml mailing list
>>>> Blml <at> rtflb.org
>>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Blml mailing list
>>>> Blml <at> rtflb.org
>>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Blml mailing list
>>> Blml <at> rtflb.org
>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Blml mailing list
>>> Blml <at> rtflb.org
>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Blml mailing list
>> Blml <at> rtflb.org
>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Blml mailing list
>> Blml <at> rtflb.org
>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> Blml <at> rtflb.org
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> Blml <at> rtflb.org
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Jim Fox | 1 Jun 01:21 2015
Picon
Picon

Re: Extra Board?

Ok, I guess enough said, but as I stated in an earlier post the numbers of the boards did not make sense.  I guess
the rule below can be applied easily as long as it CAN be determined what are the "scheduled boards".

Let's say the board numbers at the table were 9 -14, and two board 8's.  8,9,10,11 played at one table and
boards 8,12,13,14 played at the other table. Do you automatically eliminate board 14 even if one team made
a hard-to-bid slam?

Mmbridge

-----Original Message-----
From: blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org] On Behalf Of David Grabiner
Sent: 05/31/2015 6:27 PM
To: Bridge Laws Mailing List
Subject: Re: [BLML] Extra Board?

Here is the ACBL's answer, from "Conditions of Contest for Swiss Teams"

http://www.acbl.org/acbl-content/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Swiss-Teams.pdf

"A board not scheduled for play will not be counted even if played at both 
tables."

Thus, in your situation, if the match is supposed to be boards 1-7 but both 
tables have played boards 1-8, the score on board 8 does not count.  If the 
situation was caught midway through (after one table had played boards 5-8), 
board 8 is not played at the first table.  The match result will be based on 
boards 1-7 if the second table finishes them all; if the second table can only 
play boards 1-3, board 4 is thrown out as well (and presumably no penalty to 
either team, since the second table played seven boards in the time allotted to 
play seven boards).

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jim Fox" <jimfox00 <at> cox.net>
To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" <blml <at> rtflb.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2015 5:29 PM
Subject: Re: [BLML] Extra Board?

> I'm going to try to be specific enough in this description, so all understand. 
> Please remove all preconceptions about how Swiss Teams SHOULD be run and try 
> to follow.
>
> The boards are not duplicated and are shuffled before each round at each 
> table.
>
> All of the matches in every round were intended to consist of 7 boards (each 
> played at the two tables involved in the match). There were extra boards at 
> various tables in round 1, but players were alerted to only play 7 if there 
> were more than 7 and did so.
>
> In the second round an extra board was inadvertently left at a table, so that 
> there were 4 boards at each table in the match.  They were duly shuffled and 
> played (4 at each table).  When the boards were moved simultaneously to the 
> other table (of the match) midway through the match, both tables discovered 
> that there were 8 boards in play.
>
> At this point, the director was called.  How should he proceed (after stating 
> that "mistake(s) were made").
>
> This is my last description of what happened.  Please respond to what actually 
> happened with the boards, not what you think SHOULD have happened. :)
>
> Mmbridge
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org] On Behalf Of 
> Stefanie Rohan
> Sent: 05/31/2015 5:04 PM
> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [BLML] Extra Board?
>
> I don't understand. There were extra boards at all the tables, and they 
> weren't collected by the director during the first round? And the director 
> didn't know which boards were to be played in the second round? And how were 
> boards left on the table from one round to the next? Normally the director 
> collects the boards from the first round before distributing the boards for 
> the second round.
>
>
>
>> On 31 May 2015, at 18:42, Jim Fox <jimfox00 <at> cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> One more try.
>>
>> Each of the 8 boards was played at one table, none of the 8 boards were
>> played at both tables.
>>
>> At that point, the director was summoned.  What should the director do at
>> that point, IF anything.
>>
>> Mmbridge
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org] On Behalf Of
>> Sven Pran
>> Sent: 05/31/2015 11:46 AM
>> To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List'
>> Subject: Re: [BLML] Extra Board?
>>
>> Sounds like Director's error to me.
>>
>> But: How many boards were actually played at the affected tables in the
>> first round?
>>
>> If 8 boards were played and thus inadvertently 8 boards were also played in
>> the second round then let all 8 boards count also for the second round.
>>
>> If only 7 boards were played in the first round you know which board is
>> "extra", it is the board that was not played in the first round and
>> unfortunately not removed from the tables.
>>
>> I would be very surprised if you are unable to figure out a solution that
>> will appear "fair" to everyone, if so I would say that you have no choice
>> other than the disastrous one to cancel the round at all affected tables.
>>
>>> -----Opprinnelig melding-----
>>> Fra: blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org] På vegne av
>> Jim
>>> Fox
>>> Sendt: 31. mai 2015 16:47
>>> Til: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List'
>>> Emne: Re: [BLML] Extra Board?
>>>
>>> The boards were only placed in the first round and were to be used at the
>> same
>>> original two tables for the rest of the event.  That is normal in the type
>> of event
>>> and venue being discussed.
>>>
>>> The extra board was INADVERTANTLY left at the two tables in question for
>> the
>>> second match.  Due to the last minute change in the number of boards per
>>> round, the director(s) hastily moved boards around from the original
>>> configuration.  The director did NOT know which boards were scheduled to
>> be
>>> played and in point of fact, did NOT "overtly" schedule any boards at any
>> table
>>> for the second match.
>>>
>>> Mmbridge
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org] On Behalf Of
>>> Sven Pran
>>> Sent: 05/31/2015 3:42 AM
>>> To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List'
>>> Subject: Re: [BLML] Extra Board?
>>>
>>> Didn't the TD himself know which 7 boards he scheduled to be played and
>> didn't
>>> he (more or less clearly) announce which boards that were?
>>>
>>> You now seem to describe a Director who placed (at least?) 8 boards on an
>>> exchange table and announced "play seven of these at your own choice"?
>>>
>>>> -----Opprinnelig melding-----
>>>> Fra: blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org] På vegne
>>>> av
>>> Jim
>>>> Fox
>>>> Sendt: 31. mai 2015 02:59
>>>> Til: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List'
>>>> Emne: Re: [BLML] Extra Board?
>>>>
>>>> Which of the 8 boards is "extra"; all were played once, but not played
>>>> yet
>>> at the
>>>> other table.
>>>>
>>>> Mmbridge
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces <at> rtflb.org] On Behalf
>>>> Of Sven Pran
>>>> Sent: 05/30/2015 2:11 PM
>>>> To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List'
>>>> Subject: Re: [BLML] Extra Board?
>>>>
>>>> Jim Fox
>>>>> In a recent Swiss Teams, due to a last-minute change in the number
>>>>> of
>>>> boards
>>>>> per round from 8 to 7, the numbers of the boards placed for each
>>>>> match
>>>> were
>>>>> not the usual sequence of 7 numbers of which the highest was an even
>>>> multiple
>>>>> of 7, but mismatched boards with an extra board placed in some
>> matches.
>>>>>
>>>>> For the first match of the day, everybody was aware not to play the
>>>> "extra"
>>>>> board (highest number), but inadvertently, some "extra" boards were
>>>>> left
>>>> on
>>>>> tables for the second round.
>>>>>
>>>>> In at least one match, four boards were played at each table of the
>>>>> match
>>>> (for a
>>>>> total of eight different boards), which was only discovered when the
>>>> boards
>>>>> switched tables simultaneously.  In all the other matches only seven
>>>> boards
>>>>> were played.
>>>>>
>>>>> The director was duly summoned.  What is the proper way to handle
>>>>> this situation?
>>>>
>>>> [Sven Pran]
>>>> If I understand you correctly the answer is simply: Discard (and
>>>> ignore
>>> any
>>>> results on) the "extra" board.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Blml mailing list
>>>> Blml <at> rtflb.org
>>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Blml mailing list
>>>> Blml <at> rtflb.org
>>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Blml mailing list
>>> Blml <at> rtflb.org
>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Blml mailing list
>>> Blml <at> rtflb.org
>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Blml mailing list
>> Blml <at> rtflb.org
>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Blml mailing list
>> Blml <at> rtflb.org
>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> Blml <at> rtflb.org
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> Blml <at> rtflb.org
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
> 

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

Gmane