Count your cards

[Sigi_BC84]

Hi,

 

from a local club tournament this afternoon:

 

In round one, where the boards had not been shuffled yet, the best pair in our club (one being a true star player) sit down against two senior players. The deck is shuffled and the cards are being dealt. Uneventful auction leading to 4♠, a few tricks are played, then a claim for plus one. So far so good. Result and distribution are recorded on the traveller and the board goes back to the counter.

 

Next round, next pair, picks up the same board. Uneventful auction, 4♠, claim after trick five, result written down, you know the story.

 

During the third round, the next table getting to play this board notices that one side has 14-12 cards, the other side having 13-13. Investigating the traveller they find that this actual distribution of the cards has been written down on the traveler and both pairs before them didn't find anything unusual about the hand at all.

 

The board got scored 40/40 for all four pairs playing it in rounds one and two and redealt for the rest of the field.

 

I think that's quite a priceless mishap, to say the least...

 

--Sigi

 

(To the defense of the star players it has to be said that they both had 13 cards.)

[Free]

Why do the pairs with 13-13 cards get punished? They counted their cards, the opps didn't. It doesn't matter what happens during play, the mistake already took place and opps should be punished, not them...

 

How can one be punished for not counting the dummy's cards? Poor players don't even count their partner's cards, why would they start with dummy's?? Don't understand the ruling (but perhaps because I'm not a TD). :D

[Sigi_BC84]

Why do the pairs with 13-13 cards get punished?  They counted their cards, the opps didn't.  It doesn't matter what happens during play, the mistake already took place and opps should be punished, not them...

In the first board it's a clear-cut case, because the opps didn't check properly that the information that was recorded on the traveller was correct. Both sides have their share of responsibility for correctness of that information.

 

Apart from that I think that it can be expected that such an error doesn't go unnoticed. Either you or your partner didn't count their cards, or dummy comes down with too many/too few cards or declarer is the only person with a card missing (fell under the table etc.) and there is an early claim. That last possibility is the trickiest, I think in that case the defending pair shouldn't be punished, unless there was something really obviously wrong with the claim (because of missing card(s)) that they didn't notice.

 

But that's just my common sense evaluation, I don't know the exact laws that apply here, maybe an experienced TD can shed some light on this...

 

--Sigi

[42]

What a mess...

 

We have several rules that apply here:

1. German "Turnierordnung"

§ 12 (2) (shortened...)

North has to write down the correct score, lead, distribution etc., East must control

 

§ 27 falsified board

(1) the guilty pair shall get penalty points up to 50% of a topscore

(5) 2 scores before detecting the falsification:

- all 4 pairs get 60% (if equal score like we have here)--> has to be corrected when guilt is clear

(7) - guilty pair(s) get 40%

 

§ 28 (5) (7): complicated stuff for scoring: Ave +, Ave - and how to build it because round average for the pair is important, too *sigh* Here one is VERY happy to have a validated PC score program......

 

2. German "Turnier-Bridge-Regeln von 1997"

§ 7 B. 1. Players have to count their cards before bidding

 

§ 13 wrong number of cards

A. (3) the cards were uncorrectly dealt --> new dealing

C. has one player more and another player less cards after the hand was finished, the result must be cancelled --> the guilty players CAN be punished (§ 90, also § 23 Turnierordnung)

 

§ 87 falsified board

B. how to score

 

§ 88 --> 60% (or their played round-average, when higher than 60%) for the pair that did not do anything wrong

 

 

Which pairs are guilty?

--> both pairs at table 1 because a.) 1 pair didn't count their cards, b.) N wrote down the wrong distribution and E didn't control correctly

--> 1 pair at table 2 that didn't count the cards. When the distribution is written down, I don't know any E who controls this again in practise (only when it was a very interesting hand in any way), E normally only controls the score and pairnumber etc. But the rules don't say that it has not to be done, too :( 40% for all 4 might be ok... I would decide 3 times 40%, 1 time 60%

 

The board must be redealt.

 

The TD should give penalty points and can decide who earns most :)

 

Sorry for my English today, it is hard to translate rules :)

Caren

 

PS: I have most of the time the rules in my bag when going to a tournament B) I am not sure but I think you can download them on the DBV-homepage

[Sigi_BC84]

PS: I have most of the time the rules in my bag when going to a tournament B) I am not sure but I think you can download them on the DBV-homepage

We've got the rulebooks in the club, and I've got them at home as well, I was just being too lazy to look it all up :-). Usually other people in the club care about such decisions...

 

Anyway this is an interesting case that could be used in a TD examination as well, probably :-).

 

--Sigi

[Free]

Technicaly, North wrote down the correct distribution, and East confirmed. The only problem is that it's an impossible distribution which nobody noticed. Is East still at fault? B)

[42]

PS: I have most of the time the rules in my bag when going to a tournament :) I am not sure but I think you can download them on the DBV-homepage

We've got the rulebooks in the club, and I've got them at home as well, I was just being too lazy to look it all up :-). Usually other people in the club care about such decisions...

 

Anyway this is an interesting case that could be used in a TD examination as well, probably :-).

 

--Sigi

lollll you were too lazy and I stepped into this trap... I thought you had a real problem and spent precious minutes trying to solve it :(

 

To free: I think correct distribution implies also 13 cards for each player B)

[Sigi_BC84]

Technicaly, North wrote down the correct distribution, and East confirmed. The only problem is that it's an impossible distribution which nobody noticed. Is East still at fault? B)

LOL; Frederic, I think you would make for a great lawyer :-).

 

--Sigi

[Sigi_BC84]

lollll you were too lazy and I stepped into this trap... I thought you had a real problem and spent precious minutes trying to solve it B)

Actually my main motivation for the post was to share an entertaining story. I appreciate you having looked it up, it was interesting after all to see the facts -- and it would have taken me probably much longer than you to find the relevant rulings.

 

--Sigi

[mrdct]

I didn't realise there were still bridge clubs in the world where boards are shuffled and dealt. Haven't dealing machines made it to the New World yet?

[Elianna]

I've played in clubs in both US and Israel, and only one has had predealt hands, and that one only has on fridays and Saturdays, and on special occasions.

 

In fact, the night I direct has predealt hands, and I have gotten players complaining to me about that, asking when they'll get to shuffle cards, and asking me to take a poll of my players to see what they prefer.

[mr1303]

Just out of interest, why does anyone have to write down the distribution? That never has to happen at any bridge club I've played at, even those that don't use pre-dealt boards.

[P_Marlowe]

Just out of interest, why does anyone have to write down the distribution? That never has to happen at any bridge club I've played at, even those that don't use pre-dealt boards.

It makes live for the TD simpler,

assuming the hand gets played on

a reasonable number of tables, errors

happen, and they can be corrected more

easily.

 

Marlowe

[coyot]

I didn't realise there were still bridge clubs in the world where boards are shuffled and dealt. Haven't dealing machines made it to the New World yet?

This is funny... you probably haven't realised that there are also smalled and poorer countries and smaller and poorer clubs. We're the biggest club in the biggest town in our country and the attendance for our Sunday afternoon (social) bridge events is between 5 and 12 tables. That certainly does not justify wear and tear on the dealing machine, which costs about about 2500 entry fees for this event :P.

 

We're using pre-dealt hands for any big or long-run events. We own one of the three or four dealing machines in the country (with about 15 bridge clubs in here).

 

To answer mr1303: writing down the lay of cards on the traveller may be pretty useful, especially if the field is composed of:

- pairs that tend to analyze each board

- pairs where dummies smoke a lot, therefore leaving the table, the declarer having to play the dummy.

 

These two are the most common causes of mislaid cards and having the traveller with the distribution saves the TD a whole lot of investigation when trying to restore the hand :)

[Sigi_BC84]

I didn't realise there were still bridge clubs in the world where boards are shuffled and dealt.  Haven't dealing machines made it to the New World yet?

Old Europe here.

 

I am happy to provide you with payment details so you can transfer the approx. 3,000 EUR necessary for our club to buy a dealing machine.

 

--Sigi

[Sigi_BC84]

Just out of interest, why does anyone have to write down the distribution? That never has to happen at any bridge club I've played at, even those that don't use pre-dealt boards.

It's really convenient to have the distribution on the traveller if you want to go over the hand after the event, to see how well you have performed. That way you don't have to get the actual board and take out the hands.

 

It's also useful if you want to take a board "home with you", for example to post a problem here on the forums. You just have to take the traveller, because it's got the distribution written down on it.

 

In case of problems the TD has a reference point regarding the distribution as well.

 

--Sigi

 

(Apart from all that, the regulations demand that you write it down :-)