[jcrosa]

In a teams match, the following occurred at one table in the open room:

• By some bidding misunderstanding, East-West were playing a partial in a hand with slam potential.
  
• The declarer was in the process of claiming after just a few rounds, when he found out that dummy was one card short. The TD was called at this point.
  
• The TD confirmed that dummy (West) had in fact only 12 cards in total. It turned out that South had 14 cards. No one at the table could explain when and how the extra card had come to rest in the South hand. However, South (a very experienced player) said he was sure that he had counted is hand before the bidding ("as always").

The TD established afterwards that the hand had already been played at the closed room table, with East-West reaching the slam (missed at several other tables; the hands were the same for all the matches).

The TD decided on an adjusted artificial result of -3 IMP for each team, considering, on the facts as presented, that both West and South were at fault for not counting the cards (or counting them incorrectly).

The TD decided not to take into account the result at the other table, considering that there was no non-offending side.

Any comments on this ruling?

[campboy]

No doubt the TD determined the facts as best he could. If West and South began the board with the incorrect number of cards that is the correct ruling. I expect I would have come to the same conclusion as he did.

[aguahombre]

Two teams playing each other each get minus IMPS as the result for this board. How is that different from them just not playing the board?

[jnichols]

aguahombre, on 2011-June-03, 09:04, said:

Two teams playing each other each get minus IMPS as the result for this board. How is that different from them just not playing the board?

If the IMPS for this match are converted to Victory Points then the total VPs awarded for the match will be a bit less than if the board was simply "not played" or "average" (zero imps each way).
If IMPS are used later for tie-breaking then again the result is a bit less.

[aguahombre]

I guess I was confused. I thought VP's were based on margin of victory and that 14-0 got the same as 17-3.

[pran]

aguahombre, on 2011-June-03, 09:18, said:

I guess I was confused. I thought VP's were based on margin of victory and that 14-0 got the same as 17-3.

For simplicity say that the match (not counting the fouled board) ended with a tie 20 - 20 in IMPS.
With the artificial adjusted score on this board each team "loses" the match 17 - 20 which converts to a match result of (for say 16 boards match) 14 - 14.

If instead the match ended 30 - 10 one team would win 27 - 10 while the other team would lose 30 - 7, which similarly converts to a match result of 19 - 10.

Clear?

[campboy]

Yes, you work out your VPs by adding together your team's plus or minus IMPs on each board and comparing the total with the VP scale. Your opponents do the same for theirs. Because of the average-minus board the totals will no longer balance.

(If it is a knockout match, of course, this makes it possible for both teams to lose. What normally happens then is that the team which lost by a smaller margin goes through, i.e. it is the same result as it being ave/ave.)

[RMB1]

campboy, on 2011-June-03, 16:17, said:

(If it is a knockout match, of course, this makes it possible for both teams to lose. What normally happens then is that the team which lost by a smaller margin goes through, i.e. it is the same result as it being ave/ave.)

I think "normally" is an underbid: isn't this a consequence of Law 86 B:

Quote

Non-balancing Adjustments, Knockout Play
When the Director awards non-balancing adjusted scores (see Law 12C) in knockout play, each contestant’s score on the board is calculated separately. The average of the two scores is then assigned to each contestant.

[cloa513]

What if they both counted their cards correctly at the start but one dropped a card (not being aware of it) on the other's hand and the other picked it up in his hand? Say during the tension of the opening lead.

[nige1]

South counted his cards before the bidding. After some tricks had been played, he found an extra card.

• If the extra card was among the unplayed cards in South's hand that points to a mistake by South.
• If the extra card was among South's played tricks, then the director should at least consider the possibility of a lucky accident by West.

[aguahombre]

Would we consider the reputation of West when deciding it was a lucky accident?

[iviehoff]

No one has mentioned 86D, and that is correct, assuming we have rigorously checked that the most likely explanation is that S and W both failed to count their cards properly. It is worth rehearsing why this is correct. The relief under 86D (some recognition for the good score by EW in the closed room) is only available to a non-offending side, and since both sides are offending there is no relief.

[bluejak]

aguahombre, on 2011-June-03, 17:06, said:

Would we consider the reputation of West when deciding it was a lucky accident?

You can consider any material facts you like. But the TD made a sensible ruling after his decision as to what happened, and we are asked to comment on the ruling. Perfectly reasonable is the only comment that occurs to me.

[aguahombre]

why would anyone give bluejack's last comment a minus??? it is on topic and not nasty in any way.

Maybe the minus function should go away.

[blackshoe]

Because they have a new toy, want to play with it, and are ignoring its actual purpose.

No, it shouldn't go away. People should use it sensibly.

[aguahombre]

Ok. doesn't much matter to me whether it is there or not. I like using the pluses, but think words are better to express dislike of some presentation and why one dislikes it.

[jcrosa]

Thanks all for your comments so far.

Now on to part 2 of the story.

The N-S team appealed the TD decision, directly to the (national) Board of Justice, which attends to all appeals when, as was the case, there is no Appeals Committee nominated for the tournament. The appeal was submitted late, for which reason the Board couldn't accept it. Nevertheless, the Board thought it a good idea to analyze the case all the same and put forward its views, if it could have been accepted for appeal.

What follows is (a free translation of) an extract of the results of that analysis, as publicized by the Board of Justice. Your comments will, once again, be much appreciated.

(...) Law 13 C clearly establishes that "when it is determined after play ends that a player’s hand originally contained more than 13 cards with another player holding fewer, the result must be cancelled and an adjusted score awarded", any offending contestant being also liable to a procedural penalty.
This precept is complemented by Law 86 D which determines that, in teams contests, the result obtained at the other table must be taken into account.
However, Law 12 B states that the purpose of an adjusted score is to redress damage made to a non-offendig side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction.
All along said Law 12 C, the main idea one retains is that the artificial score has the purpose of re-establishing, with equity, the conditions of play at the table, eliminating any advantage of one of the sides, in detriment of the other.
The punishment of the committed infraction is processed through procedural penalities and not through the artificial score, which has a different purpose.
Therefore, in this case, aside from the mandatory cancelation of the hand and from the optional procedural penalities to the infractors, either the result from the other table is considered, by applying the score adjustment with the purpose established by Law 12 B 1, or, not considering the result at the other table, for any reason (as, for instance, the hand not having already been played at that table), there is no case for a score adjustment.

[pran]

jcrosa, on 2011-June-15, 04:20, said:

Thanks all for your comments so far.

Now on to part 2 of the story.

The N-S team appealed the TD decision, directly to the (national) Board of Justice, which attends to all appeals when, as was the case, there is no Appeals Committee nominated for the tournament. The appeal was submitted late, for which reason the Board couldn't accept it. Nevertheless, the Board thought it a good idea to analyze the case all the same and put forward its views, if it could have been accepted for appeal.

What follows is (a free translation of) an extract of the results of that analysis, as publicized by the Board of Justice. Your comments will, once again, be much appreciated.

(...) Law 13 C clearly establishes that "when it is determined after play ends that a player’s hand originally contained more than 13 cards with another player holding fewer, the result must be cancelled and an adjusted score awarded", any offending contestant being also liable to a procedural penalty.
This precept is complemented by Law 86 D which determines that, in teams contests, the result obtained at the other table must be taken into account.
However, Law 12 B states that the purpose of an adjusted score is to redress damage made to a non-offendig side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction.
All along said Law 12 C, the main idea one retains is that the artificial score has the purpose of re-establishing, with equity, the conditions of play at the table, eliminating any advantage of one of the sides, in detriment of the other.
The punishment of the committed infraction is processed through procedural penalities and not through the artificial score, which has a different purpose.
Therefore, in this case, aside from the mandatory cancelation of the hand and from the optional procedural penalities to the infractors, either the result from the other table is considered, by applying the score adjustment with the purpose established by Law 12 B 1, or, not considering the result at the other table, for any reason (as, for instance, the hand not having already been played at that table), there is no case for a score adjustment.

You haven't referred what assertation was made by N-S with their appeal, and from the extensive ruling by the board it would seem that there was no such assertation but just a request for a second ruling.

However, Law 13C is clear and unambiguous (an artificial adjusted score must be awarded) and Law 86D is also clear (as both sides are at fault there is no reason for any adjustment from the result in the other room).

If South wanted to be heard on his assertation that he had counted his cards the simple answer is that he could not account for how the 14th card came to his disposition. And the important fact is that he did dispose of 14 cards, apparently without being aware of it (in tiime).

[bluejak]

aguahombre, on 2011-June-08, 10:38, said:

Ok. doesn't much matter to me whether it is there or not. I like using the pluses, but think words are better to express dislike of some presentation and why one dislikes it.

Now I have done it! I have accidentally given this post a minus - and I cannot find a way to delete that minus! Sorry, aguahombre.

[bluejak]

It looks to me as though the National body needs a competent TD to explain thew Laws to them. This was a simple Law 13C case and all the verbiage is unnecessary.