Poor old declarer!

[blackshoe]

I give up. Apparently there is no difference between "fact" and "assumption". You guys have fun. I'm out of this one.

[pran]

I give up. Apparently there is no difference between "fact" and "assumption". You guys have fun. I'm out of this one.

Have we at any time been offered the suggestion that the board was fouled so that the thirteen cards held by North and South respectively and the twelve cards originally held by West were not correct?

 

I haven't bothered to engage in speculations along such a line which to me would mean a complete derailment of the case. (If the board was fouled then of course no result can stand, this is too basic to waste time on. If the board was not fouled we indeed have enough information to rule.)

 

Sven

[axman]

I must challenge all those who argue that the Director should investigate what would probably have happened had no irregularity taken place, and award an assigned adjusted score accordingly:

B. Objectives of Score Adjustment

1. The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a nonoffending

side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending

side through its infraction. 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 – but see C1.

How do you know whether damage has occurred if you are going to completely ignore what would have happened without the infraction?

 

C. Awarding an Adjusted Score

1. [c] 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.

You are suggesting that only potential results that include the irregularity are to be included?

 

Do you normally give assigned scores with no consideration whatever for what would have happened without the irregularity?

At the completion of trick 12 the situation (as known to us) is that West has started off with only 12 cards from the beginning. The play is about to be completed; essentially is is completed when there is only one trick left to play.

 

At this stage declarer has an expectation of (at least) a 95% score on the board, the fact that West does not have a 13th card to lead does not change this expectation in any way unfavourable to declarer.

 

Now a new irregularity is revealed: East has an extra card, and the Director must of course also handle this irregularity.

 

If the Director now rules that the final rectification should result in any score less favourable to the non-offending side than the above expected 95% score obtained at the table then this ruling actually damages the non-offending side and therefore is a violation of Law 12 by the Director!

 

A second violation of law by an already offending side in a first violation of law cannot justify a total rectification less favourable to the non-offending side than the rectification had only the first violation of law occurred.

I don't particularly like it when, in a fit of stupor, I go about apologizing for producing rubbish when in fact my apology was not supported by the facts- it was [the apology] that was rubbish.

 

As for this situation it has been suggested that it is lawful that NS receive a score for taking at least 9 tricks; as I attempted to patiently explain, once the TD has been called the law provides that once ascertaining the facts of the hypothetical then the cards are returned forthwith to the pockets 14/12 and all and an artificial score is awarded. Me [as in TD]- I am assessing a 50% PP for W not counting his cards [due to an adjusted score] and the same for E- which works out to be about the same as what some jurisdictions assess for misduplication.

 

It then behooves the TD to stay close for the next round so that he can get this board 'started' first and make sure the cards are counted- and then he can lawfully go about his figuring out how to restore the board while the other boards are being finished.

 

Now there is no one who thinks these shenanigans are more preposterous than I so others should realize that their mention is not made lightly, and certainly not in jest. The law could easily have been written 'if an incorrect card is found in a hand it shall be corrected' rather than taking the difficult pains to construct it as is.

 

As for the hapless NS who have been deprived of their share of the tops being dispensed by EW I can explain that the ruling was rigorous as provided by law which is [the law] quite wrong headed; and that the best** way to try to get satisfaction is to take it up with the WBF.

 

** not that it will turn out to be at all satisfying

[Vampyr]

A second violation of law by an already offending side in a first violation of law cannot justify a total rectification less favourable to the non-offending side than the rectification had only the first violation of law occurred.

I hope that this will satisfy those who think that EW should get the benefit of having defended with their correct hands.

[bluejak]

Perhaps so if I had the faintest idea what this is about.

 

Are you suggesting the hand was played for the first eleven tricks with 51 cards, and then and only then a card fell off a passing flying pig and landed in the player's hand?

 

If not, what "first" violation and what "second" violation?

[pran]

Perhaps so if I had the faintest idea what this is about.

 

Are you suggesting the hand was played for the first eleven tricks with 51 cards, and then and only then a card fell off a passing flying pig and landed in the player's hand?

 

If not, what "first" violation and what "second" violation?

I am "suggesting" that until trick 12 the board was for all practical purposes indeed played with 51 cards, and the initial situation when West had no card to lead to trick 13 was a clear cut Law 14 case. This was the original irregularity.

 

According to the prescriptions in Law 14 the Director made (I assume) a search for the missing card and found it (again I assume) in possesson of East. (Both my assumptions are based on the facts presented with the OP and I have not noticed any fact contradicting these)

 

Had the card not been found at all, or found anywhere else (except of course in possession of North or South), we would still have had a clear cut Law 14 case with no question of awarding any adjusted score (other than possible rectifications as prescribed in Law 14).

 

However, as the card was found with East the case is changed into a Law 13 case, and now we have evidence of a second irregularity, also committed by a player (East this time) on the offending side in the original irregularity. We cannot tell the exact nature of this irregularity, it may be a violation of Law 7 or it may be a violation of some other law(s).

 

But can this second irregularity by the same offending side justify an eventual assigned adjusted score that is less favourable to the non-offending side than the score would have been without this second irregularity?

 

I shall never unerstand such a possibility.

 

Finally, let me call attention to the minutes from Beijing Oct 10th 2008 where we have a resolution on multiple revokes:

 

Law 64C – If there are two revokes on the same board the equity in the case of the second revoke is determined by reference to the position after the first revoke.

 

Although this resolution is not explicitly relevant to our case it makes it clear (at least to me) that equity in the case of multiple irregularities shall be considered for each new irregularity by reference to the position following the last previous irregularity.

[bluejak]

It was not played "for all practical purposes" or in any other way with 51 cards: it was played with 52 cards throughout.

 

If we assume that one player started with 12 and one with 14 then there was a violation at the start of not counting cards. There was no violation at trick 11: that is ridiculous.

 

The only argument that has any validity of a "second violation" is the fact that both members of a partnership did not count their cards correctly, which if you are pedantic is two violations. But it would only have relevance if you were issuing PPs, perhaps if these players habitually fail to count their cards and had been warned: then you might give them a PP each, or a double PP for the pair.

 

But for rectification purposes this is a Law 13 case and always was.

 

Yes, ok, Ed, if after investigation you find the obvious has happened: I am not arguing that one in 10000 times something different has happened or that you should not investigate. But I think this hand worth discussing on the basis that the obvious has occurred, and there was no second violation at trick 11.

[blackshoe]

On the assumption that both East and West failed to count their cards, and that one started the hand with 12 and the other 14, then yes, it's a straight Law 13 case. First though, I want to know how the situation came about. Since we're making assumptions, I'll assume that the hand was misboarded at the previous table. I will find out who's at fault, and they will get a PP(Warning), at least. EW at this table will get a PP(Warning) or more as well, for failing to count their cards. Then I will try to identify which card in East's hand belongs in West's. I will try to apply Law 13A first, only going to 13B if absolutely necessary. Since we're making assumptions, I'll assume that West's missing card is one of the two unplayed cards in East's hand. I'll tell him to give it to his partner, and his partner to lead it. And, most likely, the table result will stand.

[Vampyr]

The only argument that has any validity of a "second violation" is the fact that both members of a partnership did not count their cards correctly, which if you are pedantic is two violations.

I am certain that this is what Sven meant, and I think that it is a valid argument.

[bluejak]

A valid argument for what? Two failures to count cards are going to get two PPs, if you like, but it does not mean you deliberately rule under the wrong Law as has been suggested.

 

:)

 

The reason that I assume 12/14 means a card has shifted is because it very nearly always is, so it is a valid assumption when giving advice on a forum. However, the assumption that the particular card is one of the two left is very unlikely indeed.

[axman]

The only argument that has any validity of a "second violation" is the fact that both members of a partnership did not count their cards correctly, which if you are pedantic is two violations.

I am certain that this is what Sven meant, and I think that it is a valid argument.

Given the premise that the board has been previously played the thing that is certain is that after twelve tricks one player holds no cards and his partner 2 cards. It is a valid conclusion that one card/ [or more than one card] are in different hands than when played previously.

 

While it is no particularly great crime to not count one’s cards before looking at them, it is a great crime to look at one’s cards when you possess other than the requisite 13 because of the likelihood of fouling a scheduled comparison that could easily have been prevented.

 

In this case there is a very strong likelihood that E and W have committed the great crime of looking at their cards when they did not hold the requisite 13.

 

But that does not mean that there hasn’t been collateral crime. Twelve tricks having been completed there is the possibility [that is highly probable] that other even greater crimes have been committed; a player [be it E or N or S] that wound up with W’s card may have played it to a previous trick thereby making the trick defective; and poor W may well have discarded on a trick when had he instead possessed his 13th card he could have followed suit.

[pran]

The only argument that has any validity of a "second violation" is the fact that both members of a partnership did not count their cards correctly, which if you are pedantic is two violations.

I am certain that this is what Sven meant, and I think that it is a valid argument.

That is precisely what I meant, and while disregarding any interest at all in the PP question I cannot accept any Director ruling that there was only one irregularity in this situation. East and West have both independently committed violations of laws.

 

What is pedantic is that we cannot tell for sure exactly which law each of them has violated. However, I don't see how this is material as far as Declarer (NOS) is concerned.

 

But I notice with interest that because of the two independent violations of laws by the same side David finds it correct to rule a less favourable result to the non-offending side than the automatic ruling had East's violation not been discovered.

 

(East could for instance have disposed of his extra card somehow, or he might even never have had that extra card in his hand and thus not committed any second violation).

[lamford]

The reason that I assume 12/14 means a card has shifted is because it very nearly always is, so it is a valid assumption when giving advice on a forum.  However, the assumption that the particular card is one of the two left is very unlikely indeed.

I agree that it is overwhelmingly likely that the players started with 12 and 14, allthough one playing two to a previous trick and one zero is also possible. At my club, it could be one person playing two cards to two tricks and none to three tricks as well!

 

However, being pedantic, the probability of the card from the wrong hand being one of the two remaining cards is around 2/13, surely, (just based on the statement that someone has 2 cards left and his partner none) which is not "very unlikely indeed".

[campboy]

However, being pedantic, the probability of the card from the wrong hand being one of the two remaining cards is around 2/13, surely, (just based on the statement that someone has 2 cards left and his partner none) which is not "very unlikely indeed".

1/7, assuming the person with two left started with 14.

[bluejak]

The reason that I assume 12/14 means a card has shifted is because it very nearly always is, so it is a valid assumption when giving advice on a forum.  However, the assumption that the particular card is one of the two left is very unlikely indeed.

I agree that it is overwhelmingly likely that the players started with 12 and 14, although one playing two to a previous trick and one zero is also possible. At my club, it could be one person playing two cards to two tricks and none to three tricks as well!

 

However, being pedantic, the probability of the card from the wrong hand being one of the two remaining cards is around 2/13, surely, (just based on the statement that someone has 2 cards left and his partner none) which is not "very unlikely indeed".

Of course it is very unlikely: one time in eight, I believe. If you had two lines of play, one a one in eight chance, one a seven in eight chance, and nothing to choose between them, you would be perverse, to put it mildly, if you chose th one in eight chance. Therefore, if you had no other way of finding out, to presume that one of the two cards left was the card, rather than one of the eleven previously played, is a very silly approach.

 

:)

 

Now we have a suggestion that if we assume the deck has 51 cards we would do something, therefore that I am suggesting we give declarer a worse score because it has 52 cards. That is beyond belief. Of course we rule differently in different circumstances, and a suggestion that we decide how we rule because of the results of a totally different situation ruled under a different Law is pointless and of no practical use, and no competent TD will consider it for a moment.

 

:ph34r:

 

let us start again, hopefully without the foolish and/or irrelevant flights of fancy.

 

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.

First, we find out what happened, as Ed points out. We do not rule on presumptions unless we cannot decide otherwise. In practice, findings of fact are often based on judgement. Let us suppose for argument's sake, that we find a specific card is missing from one hand and has appeared in the other hand. Other possibilities are wildly unlikely. That does not mean they do not happen. It means that what discussing what to do in a forum it is better to make certain assumptions than refuse to answer the question because of wildly unlikely possibilities.

 

Now, on that assumption, and if no-one has noticed anything strange, it is a reasonable deduction that they started with 12 and 14 cards. For a card to move during a hand is prcactically unheard of, with the exception of dummy's cards, which have moved before now. But we are dealing with defenders here.

 

Were there two violations? Yes, if you like. It makes no difference, apart from the possibilities of PPs. We all know when we would give a PP, and in this case you give PPs or not, it does not really affect anything.

 

We then look up the Law. Since there were 52 cards in the hand throughout it is a Law 13 case. Comparisons with Law 14 get us nowhere, since it is not a Law 14 case: you might just as well compare what would have happened if there was a bid out of turn. Since it did not happen there is no reason for such a comparison.

 

So, we look at Law 13. Has a call been made by a hand containing an incorrect number of cards? Yes, clearly since it is trick 13. So it is not Law 13D.

 

Play had not finished, so it is not Law 13C.

 

How about Laws 13A and 13B? As a generality, Law 13A is rarely applied once the auction has got very far, but it could be. I suppose the TD could decide which card was to be moved, and especially if it happens to be one of the two remaining cards, move it. But in general, I doubt he would get much support for this, since the general approach is to move cards if they have not affected matters much, primarily moving them early in the auction only. Of course, it is easier to move a card nowadays, since you can apply Law 13A and still change your mind and award an adjusted score at the end.

 

The simple solution is to award an adjusted score under Law 13B, as I am sure in practice most TDs would.

 

So, how do we award an adjusted score? Perhaps we should read Law 12, yes? Or should we just make our own rules up? Go on: try reading the Law!

[pran]

The simple solution is to award an adjusted score under Law 13B, as I am sure in practice most TDs would.

 

So, how do we award an adjusted score?  Perhaps we should read Law 12, yes?  Or should we just make our own rules up?  Go on: try reading the Law!

That is exactly what I have wanted to do all the time. The question has been which score to award (and why).

 

First of all we have Law 12A2: The Director awards an artificial adjusted score if no rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board

 

I see no reason to rule that the play already done on this board was not "normal" unless the Director finds that the "misplaced" card was a direct cause for "the worst defence ever". We haven't been given any information to this effect. And there is no restriction in Law 13B against awarding an assigned adjusted score.

 

Consequently, I consider the Director able to award an assigned adjusted score corresponding to the result on the board as it has been played, see 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.

 

I have a huge problem understanding why the Director should ignore "the worst defence ever" when deciding on which adjusted score to award.

 

(And I have a problem understanding why the additional violation of law apparently committed by East shall have a positive effect for the offending side when it comes to rectification. Shall East/West be favoured by the card missing in West turning up undetected in East's hand instead of being found on the floor or anywhere else?)

[bluejak]

I have a huge problem understanding why the Director should ignore "the worst defence ever" when deciding on which adjusted score to award.

So have I. Who said we should ignore it?

 

And I have a problem understanding why the additional violation of law apparently committed by East ....

On the other hand, this is still a waste of time: there were two violations, simultaneously, and Law 13 deals with them. It is this strange idea of two violations at different times that seems nonsensical.

[blackshoe]

I think perhaps we should look at it this way: there have been two violations by one contestant (EW), sure. The fact that there were two does not, says Sven, affect the principle that NS (the NOS) are due an adjustment to their expectation had their been no infractions, which in this case was 95% of the MPs. I agree. Does anyone not?

[lamford]

However, being pedantic, the probability of the card from the wrong hand being one of the two remaining cards is around 2/13, surely, (just based on the statement that someone has 2 cards left and his partner none) which is not "very unlikely indeed".

1/7, assuming the person with two left started with 14.

I know it is not very relevant, but I disagree, and now I think my original figure of 2/13 is probably wrong too! Say that on the previous board we know that one card of West's was put back in East's hand after the deal was played. What is the probability that it remained unplayed after 12 tricks had been played the next time it is played? We must assume East would not revoke if he could play the transferred card. On some occasions, therefore, East would be forced to play the transferred card, on others he would have a choice and would use bridge ability (allied to his undoubted counting ability) to decide. I gave up on trying to assess the true probability, and bitterly regret raising the subject! As Catherine Tate might say, "Am I bovvered?"

 

But back to the problem in question. Bluejak is right that it is just a Law 13 case, as it is almost inconceivable that there were not 52 cards present throughout, unless it is the Magic Circle Annual Pairs. I would, however, regard the chances of FUBARation (with apologies to any scrabble players, as I know it is not allowed) being during the play as signficant in comparison with the 12-14 starting layout theory, based on my experience of the ineptitude of bridge players. So, the director makes a decision about what happened in accordance with 85A1, and then applies the Laws. I guess I am just agreeing with everyone.

[pran]

I think perhaps we should look at it this way: there have been two violations by one contestant (EW), sure. The fact that there were two does not, says Sven, affect the principle that NS (the NOS) are due an adjustment to their expectation had their been no infractions, which in this case was 95% of the MPs. I agree. Does anyone not?

Thanks. At last I feel that some people begin to grasp what I have tried to express through a variety of examples and references.

 

And yes, I feel that several people have expressed their disagreement by wanting to evaluate what might have happened had both West and East had their correct hands all the time, before they decide on an adjusted score.

 

IMHO these people fail to realize that the true expectation for NOS had no irregularity taken place is still the 95% score "caused by the worst defence ever".

[bluejak]

No, we do not fail to realise any such thing. We just apply the Laws, which you seem unprepared to do. TDs apply Laws, such as Law 12C, not just rule as they feel seems fair.

[pran]

No, we do not fail to realise any such thing.  We just apply the Laws, which you seem unprepared to do.  TDs apply Laws, such as Law 12C, not just rule as they feel seems fair.

Did the poor old declarer keep the 95% score that was her expectation had no irregularity occurred?

 

(I do not consider "the worst defence ever" an irregularity)

[bluejak]

Suppose you hold

 

KJT

652

KJ53

Q3

 

and lead the ♦3 against 3NT.

 

But in fact, without the irregularity, your hand is

 

KQJT

652

KJ53

Q3

 

Convince me that the defence would be the same. No, not would, might.

[mycroft]

"would"? No.

 

"might"? How often have you put your hand down after the auction to write down the contract, brought it back up, and got 3=3=4=2? Now you, and I, and everyone here, will almost always see that the hand's wrong, but we also count the hands face down before we look at them, and count the distribution once we've sorted it (I've caught it a couple of times myself just turning them over).

 

This West did neither. Is he going to notice? Or is he going to notice that he's sorted the ♠Q as the ♣Q (well, this time he will. Okay, the ♠J for the ♣J)?

 

As far as I'm concerned if he didn't notice he was playing with a 12-card hand until trick 12, he's not going to notice that the SQ is stuck behind the D5 either.

 

That's "might" for you. Is it enough? Don't know.

[Vampyr]

Suppose you hold

 

KJT

652

KJ53

Q3

 

and lead the ♦3 against 3NT.

 

But in fact, without the irregularity, your hand is

 

KQJT

652

KJ53

Q3

 

Convince me that the defence would be the same.  No, not would, might.

The defense won't be the same. So what? Are you going to give the OS a more favourable score than the one that was obtained after the irregularity?