[blackshoe]

At the moment defenders' irregularity is discovered, declarer's expectation in the hand is 95% of a top. It makes no sense to me to give declarer anything less than that, nor to give defenders any more than the 5% they've earned. Look at it from the declarer's viewpoint. Defenders screwed up because (apparently) they didn't count their cards like they were supposed to. Then they compounded the screwup by defending very poorly. If the TD then gives the offending side an undeserved windfall of 40% of a top, well, I would expect just about any declarer to be upset by that. I know I would be.

[shyams]

I see the injustice in reducing a 95% score for the NOS to a 60% but would it not make sense for the Director to check the corrected hand for West?
e.g. West led a club from (12 card hand) ♠ Kxx ♥ Kx ♦ xxx ♣ xxxx and the debacle ensued (E/W headed for a near zero).
But, if the hand was ♠ Kxxx ♥ Kx ♦ xxx ♣ xxxx, West might have led a low spade. This might change the subsequent defense -- perhaps the other suit lead is a 'guiding beacon' to average defence

I do not know if my suggestion is relevant in a Laws sense, but I think the Director should at least look at the corrected West hand before ruling that N/S keep the 95% score.

[Vampyr]

shyams, on Feb 10 2010, 04:19 PM, said:

But, if the hand was ♠ Kxxx ♥ Kx ♦ xxx ♣ xxxx, West might have led a low spade. This might change the subsequent defense -- perhaps the other suit lead is a 'guiding beacon' to average defence

I do not know if my suggestion is relevant in a Laws sense, but I think the Director should at least look at the corrected West hand before ruling that N/S keep the 95% score.

West should gets no sympathy from me. He should have counted his cards. Why should he be given the benefit of having started with his hand intact?

In the situation that Shyam suggests, perhaps NS now get an undeserved windfall. But this is what happens when the opponents screw up.

[bluejak]

I agree with shyams. We should stop letting our heart decide our rulings, and go by the Laws. We can assign is we believe we know what would have happened, and we cannot if we do not. Stop thinking 'windfall', which is another word brought in by American professionals to excuse some of their more dubious activities. If the hand is substantially different then declarer was never getting 95% on the correct hand.

[mycroft]

iviehoff, on Feb 10 2010, 03:10 AM, said:

mycroft, on Feb 9 2010, 06:04 PM, said:

iviehoff: I don't see anywhere in the parts of L13 that you quoted where "no result can be obtained" or that an *artificial* assigned score must be awarded.  I don't see anywhere in L12C2a where it says that the director must award an artificial score in this situation, either, given that a result can easily be obtained - pick the best/worst/correct card in East's hand to give West for T13 and see what happens.

12C2a doesn't use the word "must". But it does says "In such a situation, the TD does this". Which surely amounts to compulsion. The wording does not admit the possibility that the TD doesn't.

I agree with your statement, but I do not (necessarily) agree with the premise. I think that L13A says that "when the Director deems that the deal can be corrected and played" he can so correct and have it played; standing by to award an adjusted score (note, not necessarily an artificial adjusted score) if it turns out his decision that it could be corrected and played was wrong. I see no time limit on that ruling (up to "play completed" of L13C), so this could still be done at trick 13. Move a/the right card from East to West, find out if E/W are going to take the last trick, and score it up.

A result can be obtained, quite easily in fact, and a reasonable one at that - yes, E/W could have got a better score if they had 13 cards each at the start of play, but if *both players of the pair* are not going to follow L7B2, that's their tough luck.

Quote

As I said first time around, I agree that it is perfectly possible to assign an adjusted score in this situation, some of the time, ie, provided that the misplaced card is sufficiently irrelevant for enough of the action to give the TD a reasonable idea of what is likely to happen. So the ability of the TD is not always impeded by informational problems. The impediment is the wording of 12C2a, which says quite clearly what the TD does in certain situations, and which is utterly consistent with the final sentence of 12C1a.

See above. "[A] result can [] be obtained", legally and simply, by following L13A (L13C does not apply as T13 hasn't been completed). Therefore, we are in L12C1 terrirory (whether or not the card is "relevant" - I know the headings are not part of the Laws, but "normal play" can be continued even if, with the right card *and having seen it through the play* (which we can't assume for this West - he only saw 12 cards through the play as it was!), the defence may have been less bad.), not L12C2 (and, as it turns out, we don't have to award an adjusted score at all).

[pran]

bluejak, on Feb 10 2010, 06:28 PM, said:

I agree with shyams.  We should stop letting our heart decide our rulings, and go by the Laws.  We can assign is we believe we know what would have happened, and we cannot if we do not.  Stop thinking 'windfall', which is another word brought in by American professionals to excuse some of their more dubious activities.  If the hand is substantially different then declarer was never getting 95% on the correct hand.

Consider West starting with his 12 cards and consequently making his very unsuccessful opening lead. The argument above is that if West had had all his 13 cards then declarer would never have his 95% expectation so it is not correct to rule an assigned adjusted score of 95% to declarer.

However, say that the missing card is not held by any of the other three players. (It may for instance be found on the floor or left in the board.) This does not change the situation as far as North, South or West is concerned but now Declarer will have his 95% score without any discussion.

What is the argument for denying him this 95% score only because East has contributed to the irregularity by not counting his cards? Such an argument has certainly no foundation in Law 12 or 13 (as already documented here)

[blackshoe]

We seem to all be thinking of different hypothetical things leading to one defender having too few cards and one too many.

What actually happened? What facts did the TD's investigation unearth? Without those facts, any ruling is a guess.

[bluejak]

pran, on Feb 11 2010, 12:07 AM, said:

What is the argument for denying him this 95% score only because East has contributed to the irregularity by not counting his cards? Such an argument has certainly no foundation in Law 12 or 13 (as already documented here)

I do not know. I have not seen that argument proposed by anyone.

[pran]

bluejak, on Feb 11 2010, 12:43 AM, said:

pran, on Feb 11 2010, 12:07 AM, said:

What is the argument for denying him this 95% score only because East has contributed to the irregularity by not counting his cards? Such an argument has certainly no foundation in Law 12 or 13 (as already documented here)

I do not know. I have not seen that argument proposed by anyone.

You agreed with shrams who apparently suggested that declarer should be denied his 95% score if West's completed hand could have resulted in a less disastrous opening lead?

Or wasn't that what you meant?

[bluejak]

I agreed with shyams that we needed the evidence of the hand.

If you cannot assign, then you cannot assign, and assigning when it is illegal because the opponents did something silly is just not legal.

[pran]

bluejak, on Feb 11 2010, 02:34 PM, said:

I agreed with shyams that we needed the evidence of the hand.

If you cannot assign, then you cannot assign, and assigning when it is illegal because the opponents did something silly is just not legal.

HUH?

Law 12C1A: When after an irregularity the Director is empowered by these laws to adjust a score and is able to award an assigned adjusted score, he does so. Such a score replaces the score obtained in play.

West and East both violated law 7B2, eventually causing the obtained result on the board to be cancelled and requiring the Director to award an adjusted score.

However, play on the board had progressed to such a state that the Director was fully able to rule an expected result and award a corresponding assigned adjusted score. He doesn't need to know what card was missing in West's hand for this and is fully empowered to base his ruling on the assumption that West would have selected the same opening lead even with a complete hand, or alternatively that the card initially missing in West's hand would not be found anywhere, making it a clean cut case for Law 14 (leaving West with his 12 cards).

The fact that West has played the board with only twelve cards is his headache, there is no reason why the rectification shall be less favourable for the non-offending side just because the missing card happened to be found among East's cards as his fourteenth card, an evidence that not only West, but also East had violated Law 7B.

[bluejak]

Assigning is not a random guess based on what you want, but on the evidence. If you are going to ignore the evidence of the actual card, fine, but that is not the correct ruling. If it is not credible that the play would have gone the same [or similar] way with the card transferred then to rule it has is not acceptable.

I am pleased that you quoted the Law, though I cannot see why. It contains the words "is able to" which you seem to be ignoring.

[blackshoe]

I think folks have missed something here. West doesn't have a card to lead. East has two cards. So the first question is how many cards are among the quitted tricks? There are twelve such tricks; there should be 48 such cards. If there are not, the pack was quite possibly defective from the start. In that case, the board must be cancelled, as Law 1 has been violated. Since no result can be obtained with a defective pack, the TD should apply Law 12C2 (Artificial Adjusted Score) considering both sides not directly at fault (unless there's some evidence we haven't heard yet).

Let's assume, though, that the pack was not defective. Where is West's 13th card? Some folks here seem to think it's one of the two cards in East's hand, but that's not necessarily the case. The TD needs to investigate (I hope there are hand records) and determine where West's 13th card actually is. If it's among the quitted tricks, then Law 67 comes into play. If it's in East's hand, then the TD puts it back where it belongs. It seems highly likely to me that the TD should then rule under Law 13A, and highly unlikely (but still I suppose possible) that he should rule under 13B. In either case there remains one unanswered question: How did a card from West's hand end up somewhere else? What happened, who's at fault, and what laws do we apply to that?

It is possible, by the way, that there have been multiple infractions here. For example, the pack was defective, containing only 51 cards, which explains why West is short one, but East failed to play a card to one of the completed tricks. Seems unlikely, but it's another thing the TD should investigate.

[pran]

There is one very general question that has stayed in my mind for some time. Maybe it should be the object of a new thread, I don't know:

An irregularity has occurred and a particular rectification is (more or less) obvious.

Is it possible, or shall it be possible within the laws of bridge that an added second irregularity by the same offending side can result in a combined (total) rectification less favourable to the non-offending side than the rectification for the first irregularity alone?

In the actual case the"first" irregularity discovered is that West started with only 12 cards while the other three hands each (could have) had 13 cards. The rectification for this irregularity is easy (Law 14): West shall be considered having had his missing card all the time, and declarer receives his expected score of a (near) clean top as the play of the board has gone.

The "second" irregularity discovered is that East has an excess card. Shall this discovery be sufficient to jeopardize the rectification above and turn it into a mere A+ artificial score?

Notice that the situation for the Director when determining the "expectation" on the board, and thus the damage to NOS, is the same in both cases.

[axman]

axman, on Feb 9 2010, 04:36 PM, said:

bluejak, on Feb 8 2010, 08:05 PM, said:

A correspondent [who failed to work out how to register] sent this to me.

South is declarer in 3NT and thanks to the worst defence ever she wins the first 9 tricks and is expecting 95%+.  However, West is on lead to trick 13 but has no cards left to lead!  East has two cards remaining.

However, the situation that is the subject of this thread has no provision to correct the hands before proceeding.

I apologize for the above rubbish. Indeed L14B provides for finding the missing card which presumably will lead to the 14th card [and any other incorrect card] somehow finding its proper home. As such there is a lawful mechanism for correcting the hand forthwith, of which blackshoe has mentioned various issues.


I'll add that where deciding the fairness of completing play I point to the scenario where the missing card is found among a 13 card hand and its restoration then makes the 13 card hand deficient [which may or not may make a trick defective]. In such case supposedly L67 deals with it prior to T13. I might suggest that such a resolution is less than satisfactory in the fairness department since there was no mechanism for the player to avoid this plight. This speaks to the inept provisions of L67; and possibly to reasoning that such a case is valid grounds to rule that completing play is unfair and thus the hand unplayable.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on Feb 12 2010, 01:51 AM, said:

If it is not credible that the play would have gone the same [or similar] way with the card transferred then to rule it has is not acceptable.

I think that this is true, in a way; there is now the possibility of a revoke as well. This may well nudge the NOS's score to 100%.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on Feb 11 2010, 10:29 PM, said:

Where is West's 13th card? Some folks here seem to think it's one of the two cards in East's hand, but that's not necessarily the case. The TD needs to investigate (I hope there are hand records) and determine where West's 13th card actually is.

Check the curtain card?

[bluejak]

Where are we? The planet Zarg?

In the real world, when a player has 14 cards and his partner 12, then we know here his 14th card has come from: his partner's hand.

[mycroft]

As far as I'm concerned, it's credible that if the card was in West's hand, that it was hiding behind another one. After all, were that true, he wouldn't have noticed; he didn't count the hand as it was, he didn't freak on the distribution, he just didn't see it. Therefore, it is credible that the defence would be the same, no matter what the 13th card is.

Same goes if he pulled 12 cards out of the board at the start and left the last one in there (I've seen this - and I've seen it go to trick 2, at least, if not 12).

Call me a student of Kaplan, I guess. I have no sympathy, except for what I've already stated (I'm not checking for revokes). Even less sympathy than if the card had been stuck or left in the board, because his partner can't follow Laws (or count) either.

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on Feb 14 2010, 08:40 PM, said:

Where are we? The planet Zarg?

In the real world, when a player has 14 cards and his partner 12, then we know here his 14th card has come from: his partner's hand.

The only thing we know from the facts given is that at trick thirteen one player has no cards left and his partner has two. However likely it is that the player with two has, somewhere, one of his partner's cards, it is not a certainty - and it is certainly not a certainty that the player's missing card is one of the two remaining in the partner's hand. I'm not going to make a ruling on the basis of what somebody thinks is the only possibility in the "real world", I'm going to investigate what actually happened. If I can't determine the facts to my satisfaction, I'll make a ruling that allows play to continue (Law 85B). What that ruling may be I can't say in this case.