CMOTDib

Absolutely spot on. "Cats and Herding" again

Going back to the OP I just wonder whether Law 7B2 has been overlooked. That is really the first irregularity, North couldn't have properly counted their cards "to ensure they have exactly 13 cards". I suspect most players would point out at some stage that dummy has more than the required cards showing (well I live in hope!). The director takes away the extra card and now Declarer and one opponent has to be fairly smart to notice which card is missing (yes players can be astute but even so most have too much to worry about to notice that [will I catch my bus?; is it coffee after this board?; did I turn the outside light on so that I can see the key hole?]. Declarer is the important one and they are unlikely to know which opponent has the duplicate card. Obviously if someone says "dummy and I have the Ace of Spades" then everyone knows where it is. Law 13 C seems to be saying "well you got yourselves into this mess, now get yourselves out of it", which seems to me to be reasonable. I would also like to see the Hands (with North with the extra Ace of Spades) where E/W will have been damaged. Don't forget North has managed to probably "overbid" their hand (yes many are rabid under bidders and may be ok) and poor old South is probably playing a contract that they will never make. At the other extreme if the duplicate card is 2 clubs in a major suit contract then it is unlikely to change the result of more than 99% of the plays.

My sympathy goes to the director. As a friend once said “directing is like herding cats”. My thoughts are that where possible I always get the scorer to do a screen print of the movement so that I have something to refer to, just in case! I don’t know the precise movement being used but I will assume a 6 table Mitchell with pair 12 the phantom pair. If pair 6 in round 1 put their numbers/names in on table 6 BM then their names will be allocated to the North South Pair (6). There should be no option to enter the East West Pair details. So for the rest of the movement they are still pair 6 as far as the scoring program and the Bridgemates are concerned. After the end of Round 2 gently guide them back to North South according to the places they have been allocated at table 6. Next ask Pair 1 on Table 1 why they didn’t call the director when they were unable to enter the result for the first board (Board 5) or even Board 6 or Board 7 or Board 8. After the game I would suggest to Pair 1 & Pair 6 that they perhaps aren’t suited to being North South and probably ban them from those seats for three weeks. Next, have a break from play and take time to think. Tell the room that there is a problem and you need them to wait quietly. Round 1 has been scored correctly and is in the BM and Scoring program (As far as we are aware!). Round 2 we have Pair 1 playing Pair 6 on Boards 5 to 8 and according to Law 15 those scores should stand. However, they are not scheduled to play one another so we have to alter those in the scoring program after the game. Pair 1 and 6 must give the scorer the results of those boards. Pair 6 should have played Pair 11 on Boards 1 to 4! So why didn’t Pair 11 scream out that they had no opponents? Round 3 Pair 6 are due to play Boards 5 to 8 against Pair 10 but that can’t happen now. So the quick and easy bit is to allocate 60%/60% for boards 1 to 4 for pairs 6 & 11 on the table 6 BM. Tell everyone to play Round 3 and on Table 6 for boards 5 to 8 allocate 50%/50%. Let Pair 6 and Pair 10 play a “friendly” for Boards 5 to 8 understanding that the scores don’t count. The 60/60 and 50/50 is just to get the BM moving on to the next round. Rounds 4; 5 & 6 should be ok (but keep an eye on Pair 6! Tell the rest of the room what you are doing At the end of the session help the scorer to change Boards 1 to 4 from Pairs 6 N/S and 11 E/W to Pair 10 N/S and 11E/W and leave the 60/60 score (Law15B). Now go to Boards 5 to 8 and change Pairs 6 N/S and Pair 10 E/W to Pair 1 N/S and Pair 6 E/W and insert the correct scores rather than the 50/50 that is there. I would publish the scores as they are and say it is the best that I can do. Not sure that there is sufficient to say there is enough boards switched to give a one winner rsult. Whatever you do will look a little odd but given how some pairs have no idea how to follow a movement then I doubt they will “see” the oddity. If you are not content then you could just see if you can change it to a one winner Mitchell without any switches but I can’t see that working. It is just the best of a bad job. I know this is well after the event but it will help when it happens again in the near future. By the way how was this resolved at the time? And yes I have had to do something similar and the best thing is that you don't show any panic whatsoever!

First off, what a mess! Second I think the director might need to see all the hands for this. Anyway I am assumimg (as most people have said because of the lack of first hand evidence) that when East changed the 7 Diamonds with the 9 Clubs that North had played and had no idea that there had been an irregularity. Otherwise we have to consider what to do with East playing out of rotation. Because West has played the 6 of Clubs the revoke by East (on the second trick) is established (Law 63A1). As such it cannot be changed (Law 63B). Therefore we have to wind it all back and leave 7 Diamonds as a quitted trick (2). Now the 9 Clubs has to be played on the third trick. Note that the trump played on the 6 Clubs is a revoke but not established (law 63 A1) the trump played is now a major penalty card (with all the usual restrictions). Now we get into Donald Rumfeld Country as we don't know what we don't know. I assume Declarer or dummy won the third trick and should have been allowed to play on after the rogue amendments had been resolved. At the end of play the director has a one trick transfer (law 63A2)but only if the defenders win a trick. However, because of the breech of Law 66 and Law 63B a long with UI (7 Diamonds),the Director could consider law 12A1. In this case, as there would appear to be an error, I think the director should have referred themselves to Law82B1 and adjusted accordingly(however, without seeing all the hands one can never be sure of the result). As someone has already mention a penalty would be appropriate for East/West. Probably one of those "noteworthy adjustments" that should be made known to other directors in that club so that they look out for the same problem by the same player/partner. One never knows but someone else might say "they did it the other day when I was directing/playing". Directing can be a nightmare! It's the people, you know! The cards never give any trouble.

Slightly off the current discussion. If RR thought that the dummy was incorrectly faced then shouldn't RR have called the director as it is an irregularity as far as he is concerned, Law 41D? If we get passed that point then Law 16B1(b) requires we find the action that a significant proportion of the class of player in question would take. Given those involved we might have a great deal of difficulty finding people of the category of CHCH and RR never mind SB. Having heard all the "evidence" what I think is immeterial. I also wonder if there is some thought needed as to why SB played the Spade King and then didn't "reserve his rights" Law 16B2 immediately when CHCH didn't lead back a Spade. The opps would then call the director Law 16B2. SB must have has some expectation that a spade would be returned. SB must have been aware that unauthorised information "was used" at that point and an irregularity had occurred. So did SB continue hoping to get it right and if he didn't then a director call would/might remedy the situation. Should Law 11 be enforced? If so can someone tell me who is the "ignorant" one. There seems to be several "forfiture of rights" going on in this opening post. Also I think Law 11B needs consideration. I must admit I don't think I will come across this at club level as most would not have the knowledge required to understand RR's comment about trumps on the right or CHCH's understanding of the lead and Play of the King of spades implications. That said I am interested enough to wait for what others would rule.

So what redress did North South get? From the OP North South would ended up with the result at the table -140, rather than +100 or +50 at other tables. East west get -100, the result that the director deems they should have reached without any irregularity.

Ok I will probably get this all wrong. But here goes 1) The Introduction to the Laws in part says “The purpose of the Laws remains unchanged. They are designed to define correct procedure and to provide an adequate remedy for when something goes wrong. They are designed not to punish irregularities but rather to rectify situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged.” 2) The normal accepted definition of Ignorance is “lack of knowledge” and in bridge terms this would be “for correct procedure”. In the opening post the first irregularity was the inadmissible bid of the Double. This irregularity was spotted by South but then an Infraction occurred because no one called the director. The auction proceeded because South told East what to do based on their Knowledge. That knowledge lacked the full correct procedure that the director would make, so South was “ignorant” when making that statement and East acted on it and South condoned it. They might have bid to game had the first irregularity not occurred, but that point is well gone! So the table result was a gain to East West because of the subsequent action of South (an opponent) as a result of their “ignorance”. So East West get an amended score of -100, to take away their accrued advantage. North South retain the score achieved at the table. You can’t give them a second bite at the cherry. Next time they might call the director as soon as! In example 4 of the WBFLC commentary. The irregularity was a revoke by East and the director was not called so there was also an infraction. North told East what to do and East complied but North had a lack of knowledge “ignorance” of the laws and as a result they had a bad result. East West gained an advantage due to North’s “ignorance” (and their subsequent action) by not realising that the revoke is not established. So East West lose their accrued advantage and North South retain the table result. In both cases North South got a bad result due to their own “ignorance” and East West accrued an advantage due to “ignorance” of their opponents, and also their own ignorance. This sort of follows on from Law 72 C, in that Law the Director “determines” if there is known damage but in Law 11 it is made a “directive”. It is the only way to remedy the situation. The director can’t go back to the first irregularity as too much water has gone under the bridge. Again East West might call the director as soon as next time. Had East in the OP said it’s ok He knows what to do and he replaces the inadmissible double with a legal bid East West reach the unmakeable contract and go one off. There is no damage to North South and if they call the director they might both get a procedural penalty Note that the director could still give all four Pairs a procedural penalty under Law 90A & B. I would, particularly North South in the OP, as it would appear South has issued a threat “I will call the director if you don’t do as I say” and could have cause embarrassment Law 74 and an adjusted score was the result. Why has no one commented on this? Dealing with the lastest points raised - there is no 'side who did not call the TD in time' (both sides failed to do so)—Yes that is the problem so think about what or who caused the board to continue and get the “wrong” result. - either side could gain an advantage from the sequence of events as compared to what would have happened had the TD been called. It is too late for the director, that boat sailed so now we have to look for the remedy. - it was the failure to play the first penalty card than caused the second penalty card, not 'ignorance' of the obligation to do so ----There is no first or second penalty card mentioned in example 4 of the commentary. North was ignorant of the laws and thought he could tell East what to do and got it wrong. As stated East/West gain an advantage because of North’s action in telling East what to do and then condoning it. - it is not clear which side 'committed the irregularity' or indeed which of the many irregularities this refers to. Well see above. Either North or South in the two examples have taken a course of action that has resulted in a bad board. We are concerned with the remedy for not calling the director at the correct time which resulted in the “wrong” result. It is too late to sort the irregularity of the revoke or inadmissible double. Sorry if this is too long.