14 - 12

[gordontd]

Law 12 applies whenever the Director considers awarding an adjusted score; this law instructs him how he shall proceed.

 

It instructs the Director when awarding an artificial adjusted score to give at most 40% (A-) to a side at fault. Here both sides in case were at fault, therefore the correct ruling would be A- A- without any question about "damage".

L12C2a

When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained [and see C1(d)] the Director awards an artificial adjusted score according to responsibility for the irregularity: average minus (at most 40% of the available matchpoints in pairs) to a contestant directly at fault, average (50% in pairs) to a contestant only partly at fault, and average plus (at least 60% in pairs) to a contestant in no way at fault.

If both sides are at fault they must both be partly at fault - it can't be completely one side's fault and completely the other side's fault.

[blackshoe]

The law doesn't say "completely at fault," it says "directly at fault".

 

In making rulings, directors (and posters here, whether directors or not) would do well to state the chain of logic and law which leads them to the ruling. Including, where they are germane, assumptions about what happened (see Laws 84 and 85). Note that "what happened" at the table is the starting point for any such chain.

 

Regarding Law 12, there must be a legal reason to reach this law. Either another law points us here, or normal play of the board is not possible, or there has been an illegal rectification, or there is a judgement that the legal rectification is insufficient compensation. The law also specifically prohibits the TD from adjusting the score on the ground that (paraphrasing) he doesn't think the legal rectification is "fair".

It is definitely not possible to correct the card after it has actually been played to a trick.

 

Oh? What of law 67B2{a}?

[PeterE]

In my eyes there are 2 possible ways to handle this situation:

 

A. Law 13 A: "[...] the Director deems that the deal can be corrected and played [...]".

If the TD proceeds this way, he gives the ♥7 to the dummy and exchanges it with one of defender's cards in hand. The last two tricks will be played. 10 tricks to both sides.

 

B. If the TD deems that correcting already played cards is not (longer) possible (btw: it would be interesting to hear a decision on that point by some LC), he follows

Otherwise when a call has been made the Director shall award an adjusted score and may penalize an offender.

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.

In order to do equity, and unless the Regulating Authority forbids it, an assigned adjusted score may be weighted to reflect the probabilities of a number of potential results.

As the (only) potential result was 10 tricks the TD awards 10 tricks to both sides.

[bluejak]

I thought I made my position clear, but since some of the posts assume I meant the complete opposite of what I thought I said :( , I shall just say it again in a different way.

 

In my view, when a player has 14 cards at trick 11 and another player has 12 cards at trick 11 then they had 14 cards and 12 cards respectively when they took them out of the board. I do not believe payers steal cards accidentally from the dummy.

 

Law 13A says if a deal can be corrected and played .... In my view and my consultants' view it is impossible to do so once a player has "played" a card that was not part of his hand. Thus the moment this happens it becomes a Law 13B case and an adjusted score is awarded.

 

Since the hand could not be completed, Law 12C2A applies: it is not possible to award an assigned score.

 

Under Law 12C2A it is extremely common, and happens many many times that both sides are considered directly at fault. When neither side has counted its cards correctly Ave-/Ave- is standard, Ave/Ave is very very generous.

[blackshoe]

Okay, David, now I understand where you're coming from.

 

I still think that the TD at the table needs to investigate thoroughly, not just assume that because it's 12-14 at trick twelve, it was 12-14 when they took their cards out of the board.

 

I suppose that a defender who cannot tell the difference between 2 and 3 cards at trick 12 cannot tell the difference between 12 and 13 at the start. :rolleyes:

 

I'm not entirely sure I agree with you (and your consultants) regarding which part of Law 13 to apply, but I'm not entirely sure I disagree either. I'll have to think about it.

 

It occurs to me, regarding your last point, that if either player had managed to count his cards correctly, he would have called attention to the problem before play started, the hands would have been corrected, and we would not have arrived at this situation at trick twelve. So I agree both sides were directly at fault.

[Sven Pran]

It is definitely not possible to correct the card after it has actually been played to a trick.

 

Oh? What of law 67B2{a}?

You can reach Law 67 from Law 14B1 but not from Law 13.

 

Law 14 only applies when no hand held more than 13 cards, and thus does not apply here.

 

regards Sven

[bluejak]

I am not suggesting ever that a TD does not investigate, and no doubt sometime there will come a case where a TD is convinced a card was stolen from dummy. But I believe it so very unlikely that he can assume it was not unless he finds strong evidence that it was.

[blackshoe]

You're probably right, David. Nonetheless, I believe it is better not to make assumptions early on, lest they prejudice the investigation. No doubt that's due to my early training in science. :(

[kevperk]

What about the argument that each is only partly at fault, since counting by either side would catch the problem without the other counting? I think this is espoused by those who think the scores should add to 100% most of the time.

 

Kevin

[bluejak]

If you do not count your cards correctly, and the board is unplayable as a result, you are directly at fault since if you had not infracted, the board would not have been lost.

 

Nowhere is it suggested that boards should normally add up to 100%.

[gordontd]

The trouble is that "directly at fault" & "partly at fault" are not mutually exclusive categories.

[gordontd]

Nowhere is it suggested that boards should normally add up to 100%.

I thought custom & practice suggested that they should, unless there has been an outside agency (eg the director, or players from another table) involved.

[blackshoe]

Nowhere is it suggested that boards should normally add up to 100%.

Well, nowhere except in the ACBL's (probably illegal) footnote to Law 12C2{c}, which says

In ACBL sanctioned events, when there is a non-offending and an offending contestant, the non-offending contestant receives the score specified by 12C2{c} above. Their opponents shall receive the difference between that score and 100%, regardless of their score on the other boards of that session. For example, if the non-offending contestant receives 64% on the adjusted deal, the offending contestant receives 36%.

Compare the ACBL version with the WBF version of the laws.

[PeterE]

:) :ph34r: :ph34r: Of course it's illegal, but who cares? :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r:

[blackshoe]

Certainly not ACBL management, who maintain they can do whatever they damn well please.

 

The point is that if you're directing in the ACBL, you're stuck with this "rule", like it or not.

[bluejak]

Nowhere is it suggested that boards should normally add up to 100%.

I thought custom & practice suggested that they should, unless there has been an outside agency (eg the director, or players from another table) involved.

I think you have missed what is said.

 

Custom & practice, and what TDs in England are taught, is that the score on boards should not be more than 100% unless an outside agency is involved.

 

But it is perfectly normal and relatively common for it to be less than 100%.