Poor old declarer!

[bluejak]

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.

[ynrobinson]

Is it not the individual's responsibility to count the cards in his hand? Without knowing the laws, I'd guess that the first 12 tricks stand, and declarer gets the 13th trick by default because defenders screwed up not to count their cards. If the player with 14 cards is on lead, maybe let him play what he has, even if it's a winner. If analysis shows that EW benefited from the 14-12 split, throw out the hand, but OP says EW played poorly so that's not a consideration.

[iviehoff]

Without knowing the laws, I'd guess that the first 12 tricks stand, and declarer gets the 13th trick by default because defenders screwed up not to count their cards.

You guess wrong. Law 13A to 13C says (I present 13A merely so that the "otherwise" at the start of 13B can be understood):

 

A. Director Deems Normal Play

When the Director determines that one or more hands of the board

contained an incorrect number of cards (but see Law 14) and a player with

an incorrect hand has made a call, then when the Director deems that the

deal can be corrected and played the deal may be so played with no change

of call. At the end of play the Director may award an adjusted score.

B. Adjusted Score and Possible Penalty

Otherwise when a call has been made the Director shall award an adjusted

score and may penalize an offender.

C. Play Completed

When it is determined after play ends that a player’s hand originally

contained more than 13 cards with another player holding fewer (but

see Law 13F), the result must be cancelled and an adjusted score awarded

(Law 86D may apply). An offending contestant is liable to a procedural

penalty.

 

There is nothing of relevance to the present case in L14, L13F or L86D.

 

So it doesn't matter whether this case is thought to be 13B or 13C, the result is the same: hand cancelled, artificial adjusted score (A+/A-), and possible procedural penalty for the offenders. The offenders may include people who didn't count the hand, and people at another table who misboarded the hand. (If it became apparent when trying to reboard the hand that in fact a defender played two cards to a trick and his partner none, then the ruling would be rather different, but that is very unlikely.)

 

Whilst that might look a bit unfair on the fellow who looked like he was heading for a top, the fact is that he wasn't playing the correct hand. And what happened with these misboarded cards might not bear on what might have happened with the correct cards. So that is why the law is as it is.

[jvage]

Where in the laws did you find that the adjusted score must be an artificial (A+/A-) adjusted score?

 

John

[greenender]

Laws 12A2 and 12C2 seem to cover it. The provisions of Law 13 quoted above seem to make it clear that normal play of the board is deemed impossible.

[bluejak]

Two things.

 

First, let us read Law 12C1A carefully!

 

Second, not only is Jon one of the most knowledgeable and sensible of the posters here, and at San Remo, so if he is worried, so should you be, but the correspondent who posed the problem was on the staff at San Remo!!!!!!!

[iviehoff]

I must confess I thought this an open and shut case.

 

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.

 

12C2a

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...

 

Clearly the Director is not "able" (12C1a) to award an assigned adjusted score, because 12C2a says he mustn't, and because the final sentence of 12C1a would not be satisfied if he tried to apply 12C1a when 12C2a says he mustn't. So actually the important thing is to read 12C2a carefully, because then you realise there is no point thinking too deeply about 12C1a.

 

But, yes, I can see that the cards might be such that, without the prohibition at 12C2a, one might sometimes be able to say enough about what would have happened to assign an adjusted score, if the misplaced card had in fact been irrelevant to enough of the action.

[bluejak]

The clearest and easiest case of an assigned score with no result happened in the EBU Congress in Birmingham, where a certain young lady, having complained about the heat all day [including when other contestants thought it was cold] suddenly announced she felt sick and left the room with four cards to play, and when she was about to get a dreadful score. After ten minutes she returned and continued.

 

The TD gave her the score she would have got four cards later.

[mycroft]

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.

 

I'm going to be nice to West - I'm not going to check for revokes.

 

It's not clearcut, obviously, but the additional wording in the new L12C1a ("and is able to award") makes it clearer than before that when the laws do not specify which kind of adjusted score to give, the director should try to give a L12C1 score, and avoid L12C2 scores.

[axman]

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.

This is a bit difficult to describe so please be forgiving.

 

When the issue is too many or too few cards in a hand the law provides different remedies to make the hands otherwise correct for different class of situations. As in, if this that and the other then X; if that this and the other then Y; if the other that and this then Z; and so forth....

 

However, the situation that is the subject of this thread has no provision to correct the hands before proceeding. Given the edict of that which is not provided by law is extraneous relegates leaving the cards as is until at least the next round on which occasion the counting of the cards before looking at the faces might lead to correcting who has what.

 

As much as I [in the capacity of the TD] want forthwith to restore the hands, ascertain that there hadn’t been some other fouling, and determine the culprits whether they sit at this table or are somewhere else, the law does not provide to do so at this time. But what the law does provide for is awarding an adjusted score.

 

I take note that being unable to correct the cards there is no mechanism to complete normal play of the board. The situation here has been provided for by L12A2 via L13B; and as L12A2 provides the indemnity to the defenders and L12B2 admonishes to not manipulate the scores, there is no provision for use of L12A1 form of score adjustment.

 

 

Being done with that I have been mulling over [addressing the concern originally indicated] the idea that there may be nothing inherently wrong with and everything right in providing [a] for immediate restoration of the hand for the TD to rule as to his perception of fairness in continuing [c] under certain circumstances [including the above] permit the NOS to petition that the hand be completed [without indemnity for extraneous information that arises from the restoration] in spite of the TD’ s assessment.

 

The basis for these thoughts arise from the notion that the offenders should have prevented the problem prior to looking at their cards and thus are culpable; and any miscues or errant actions are the consequence of their own misunderstanding. It being right that they prosper or wither at their own hand. Notably, as demonstrated above, to be suitable such provisions would require far more than a couple of sentences.

[jeremy69]

The TD gave her the score she would have got four cards later.

 

Oh no, he didn't! (although he should have). What's more she qualified for a competition she would have missed if she had got the score she was about to receive. Fortunately it made no difference to her opponents.

[blackshoe]

Those who are saying the hand is "deemed unplayable" on the basis of the OP are jumping the gun. The TD must investigate, and the correct ruling cannot be determined until the results of that investigation are known.

 

I agree with John on the question of assigned vs. artificial score.

[bluejak]

The TD gave her the score she would have got four cards later.

Oh no, he didn't! (although he should have). What's more she qualified for a competition she would have missed if she had got the score she was about to receive. Fortunately it made no difference to her opponents.

Did he not? Shoot him! That's what comes of using me as a scorer not a TD! :D

 

Ah, well, misinformed again. Still, it was a good example of what the ruling should have been.

[RMB1]

Did he not?  Shoot him!  That's what comes of using me as a scorer not a TD!  :D

 

Ah, well, misinformed again.  Still, it was a good example of what the ruling should have been.

I'm surprised as well!

I thought I had persuaded the TD he could give an assigned adjustment.

Sometimes our colleagues will not be told. :)

[campboy]

I don't think the case of the lady who abandoned her hand is the same thing at all. There no result has been obtained; so what? We can still give an assigned adjusted score.

 

In this case, however, no result can be obtained; there is no legal procedure which will allow play to be completed.

[bluejak]

The fact that the cases have some similarity does not mean that I, or anyone else, thinks they are identical, since they clearly are not. In neither case could the hand be completed - that is the similarity, even though the reasons are different. So can we assign a score in either case? I specifically said the Birmingham case was easy, but does that mean it is not possible in the Irish case?

[iviehoff]

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.

 

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.

 

I thought the general principle was that one applied the laws that are written, not the laws one things should be written, unless the laws that are actually written have some inconsistency or incompleteness.

[pran]

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.

 

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.

 

I thought the general principle was that one applied the laws that are written, not the laws one things should be written, unless the laws that are actually written have some inconsistency or incompleteness.

I completely agree.

 

Law 13B states that the Director shall award an adjusted score, not neccessarily artificial.

 

Law 12B1 states that The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred

 

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) allows the Director to use judgment, rule what result he considers likely had the irregularity not occurred, and award the corresponding assigned adjusted score when as here this is more favourable than A+ for the non-offending side.

[campboy]

In neither case could the hand be completed - that is the similarity, even though the reasons are different.

But that is precisely what I was disagreeing with; in the Birmingham case the hand could be completed, it just wasn't. Declarer was perfectly capable of continuing play. So I think it is legal to assign a score in that case, but not the Irish one.

[RMB1]

I think play could be completed even in the Irish case. At any point before trick 13, declarer or defender could claim/concede and the opponents agree. Play ceases and the board is scored, regardless of how many cards the defenders hold.

 

I know "intent of the laws" is a minefield but I am sure that the laws intend that the TD award an assigned adjusted score when he knows what to assign.

[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]

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: 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.

 

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).