Poor old declarer!

[pran]

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.

Consider West starting with his 12 cards and consequently making his very unsuccessful opening lead. The argument above is that if West had had all his 13 cards then declarer would never have his 95% expectation so it is not correct to rule an assigned adjusted score of 95% to declarer.

 

However, say that the missing card is not held by any of the other three players. (It may for instance be found on the floor or left in the board.) This does not change the situation as far as North, South or West is concerned but now Declarer will have his 95% score without any discussion.

 

What is the argument for denying him this 95% score only because East has contributed to the irregularity by not counting his cards? Such an argument has certainly no foundation in Law 12 or 13 (as already documented here)

[blackshoe]

We seem to all be thinking of different hypothetical things leading to one defender having too few cards and one too many.

 

What actually happened? What facts did the TD's investigation unearth? Without those facts, any ruling is a guess.

[bluejak]

What is the argument for denying him this 95% score only because East has contributed to the irregularity by not counting his cards? Such an argument has certainly no foundation in Law 12 or 13 (as already documented here)

I do not know. I have not seen that argument proposed by anyone.

[pran]

What is the argument for denying him this 95% score only because East has contributed to the irregularity by not counting his cards? Such an argument has certainly no foundation in Law 12 or 13 (as already documented here)

I do not know. I have not seen that argument proposed by anyone.

You agreed with shrams who apparently suggested that declarer should be denied his 95% score if West's completed hand could have resulted in a less disastrous opening lead?

 

Or wasn't that what you meant?

[bluejak]

I agreed with shyams that we needed the evidence of the hand.

 

If you cannot assign, then you cannot assign, and assigning when it is illegal because the opponents did something silly is just not legal.

[pran]

I agreed with shyams that we needed the evidence of the hand.

 

If you cannot assign, then you cannot assign, and assigning when it is illegal because the opponents did something silly is just not legal.

HUH?

 

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.

 

West and East both violated law 7B2, eventually causing the obtained result on the board to be cancelled and requiring the Director to award an adjusted score.

 

However, play on the board had progressed to such a state that the Director was fully able to rule an expected result and award a corresponding assigned adjusted score. He doesn't need to know what card was missing in West's hand for this and is fully empowered to base his ruling on the assumption that West would have selected the same opening lead even with a complete hand, or alternatively that the card initially missing in West's hand would not be found anywhere, making it a clean cut case for Law 14 (leaving West with his 12 cards).

 

The fact that West has played the board with only twelve cards is his headache, there is no reason why the rectification shall be less favourable for the non-offending side just because the missing card happened to be found among East's cards as his fourteenth card, an evidence that not only West, but also East had violated Law 7B.

[bluejak]

Assigning is not a random guess based on what you want, but on the evidence. If you are going to ignore the evidence of the actual card, fine, but that is not the correct ruling. If it is not credible that the play would have gone the same [or similar] way with the card transferred then to rule it has is not acceptable.

 

I am pleased that you quoted the Law, though I cannot see why. It contains the words "is able to" which you seem to be ignoring.

[blackshoe]

I think folks have missed something here. West doesn't have a card to lead. East has two cards. So the first question is how many cards are among the quitted tricks? There are twelve such tricks; there should be 48 such cards. If there are not, the pack was quite possibly defective from the start. In that case, the board must be cancelled, as Law 1 has been violated. Since no result can be obtained with a defective pack, the TD should apply Law 12C2 (Artificial Adjusted Score) considering both sides not directly at fault (unless there's some evidence we haven't heard yet).

 

Let's assume, though, that the pack was not defective. Where is West's 13th card? Some folks here seem to think it's one of the two cards in East's hand, but that's not necessarily the case. The TD needs to investigate (I hope there are hand records) and determine where West's 13th card actually is. If it's among the quitted tricks, then Law 67 comes into play. If it's in East's hand, then the TD puts it back where it belongs. It seems highly likely to me that the TD should then rule under Law 13A, and highly unlikely (but still I suppose possible) that he should rule under 13B. In either case there remains one unanswered question: How did a card from West's hand end up somewhere else? What happened, who's at fault, and what laws do we apply to that?

 

It is possible, by the way, that there have been multiple infractions here. For example, the pack was defective, containing only 51 cards, which explains why West is short one, but East failed to play a card to one of the completed tricks. Seems unlikely, but it's another thing the TD should investigate.

[pran]

There is one very general question that has stayed in my mind for some time. Maybe it should be the object of a new thread, I don't know:

 

An irregularity has occurred and a particular rectification is (more or less) obvious.

 

Is it possible, or shall it be possible within the laws of bridge that an added second irregularity by the same offending side can result in a combined (total) rectification less favourable to the non-offending side than the rectification for the first irregularity alone?

 

In the actual case the"first" irregularity discovered is that West started with only 12 cards while the other three hands each (could have) had 13 cards. The rectification for this irregularity is easy (Law 14): West shall be considered having had his missing card all the time, and declarer receives his expected score of a (near) clean top as the play of the board has gone.

 

The "second" irregularity discovered is that East has an excess card. Shall this discovery be sufficient to jeopardize the rectification above and turn it into a mere A+ artificial score?

 

Notice that the situation for the Director when determining the "expectation" on the board, and thus the damage to NOS, is the same in both cases.

[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.

 

However, the situation that is the subject of this thread has no provision to correct the hands before proceeding.

I apologize for the above rubbish. Indeed L14B provides for finding the missing card which presumably will lead to the 14th card [and any other incorrect card] somehow finding its proper home. As such there is a lawful mechanism for correcting the hand forthwith, of which blackshoe has mentioned various issues.

 

 

I'll add that where deciding the fairness of completing play I point to the scenario where the missing card is found among a 13 card hand and its restoration then makes the 13 card hand deficient [which may or not may make a trick defective]. In such case supposedly L67 deals with it prior to T13. I might suggest that such a resolution is less than satisfactory in the fairness department since there was no mechanism for the player to avoid this plight. This speaks to the inept provisions of L67; and possibly to reasoning that such a case is valid grounds to rule that completing play is unfair and thus the hand unplayable.

[Vampyr]

If it is not credible that the play would have gone the same [or similar] way with the card transferred then to rule it has is not acceptable.

I think that this is true, in a way; there is now the possibility of a revoke as well. This may well nudge the NOS's score to 100%.

[barmar]

Where is West's 13th card? Some folks here seem to think it's one of the two cards in East's hand, but that's not necessarily the case. The TD needs to investigate (I hope there are hand records) and determine where West's 13th card actually is.

Check the curtain card? ;)

[bluejak]

Where are we? The planet Zarg?

 

In the real world, when a player has 14 cards and his partner 12, then we know here his 14th card has come from: his partner's hand.

[mycroft]

As far as I'm concerned, it's credible that if the card was in West's hand, that it was hiding behind another one. After all, were that true, he wouldn't have noticed; he didn't count the hand as it was, he didn't freak on the distribution, he just didn't see it. Therefore, it is credible that the defence would be the same, no matter what the 13th card is.

 

Same goes if he pulled 12 cards out of the board at the start and left the last one in there (I've seen this - and I've seen it go to trick 2, at least, if not 12).

 

Call me a student of Kaplan, I guess. I have no sympathy, except for what I've already stated (I'm not checking for revokes). Even less sympathy than if the card had been stuck or left in the board, because his partner can't follow Laws (or count) either.

[blackshoe]

Where are we? The planet Zarg?

 

In the real world, when a player has 14 cards and his partner 12, then we know here his 14th card has come from: his partner's hand.

The only thing we know from the facts given is that at trick thirteen one player has no cards left and his partner has two. However likely it is that the player with two has, somewhere, one of his partner's cards, it is not a certainty - and it is certainly not a certainty that the player's missing card is one of the two remaining in the partner's hand. I'm not going to make a ruling on the basis of what somebody thinks is the only possibility in the "real world", I'm going to investigate what actually happened. If I can't determine the facts to my satisfaction, I'll make a ruling that allows play to continue (Law 85B). What that ruling may be I can't say in this case.

[bluejak]

Of course you are going to investigate: that is the right and proper thing to do. But for the purposes of comments in a forum, since we know what you will find out - that it came from partner's hand - it is not unreasonable to say how you would rule if this is what you are going to find out.

[blackshoe]

I once "knew" that my reproduction of the Michelson--Morley experiment would show, as did the original experiment, that the speed of light is a close approximation to 186,000 miles per second. Imagine my surprise when I fed the data into my calculator, and the answer was.... 29 miles per hour! Yes, I had overlooked something. :rolleyes:

 

The odds are pretty good that you're right David - but they aren't 100%.

 

I think that if we're going to guess what the ruling should be, assuming certain facts not in evidence, we should specify that's what we're doing. More importantly, it is the process by which the TD arrives at a ruling that is important, at least IMO, in these forums, rather than a particular ruling based on some assumption that, however likely, may in the end turn out not to be true.

[pran]

The fact is that West started off with only 12 cards and that this was discovered when he had no card to lead to trick 13.

 

So far this is a clear-cut law 14 situation with an automatic rectification which would give declarer (South) a score of about 95%.

 

However, when the case was initially investigated it was immediately revealed that East had started with 14 cards. This changed the case to a Law 13 situation requiring the Director to cancel the result obtained (or just about to be obtained) on the board and award an adjusted score.

 

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.)

 

This law instructs the Director to award an assigned adjusted score here because play had progressed to a state where a result can certainly be determined. (And this result has in no way been influenced by any irregularity from the non-offending side.)

 

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:

 

Is it really their opinion that because an excessive card was found in East's hand (proving that a second violation of Law 7B has been committed by the same offending side) the Director shall award an adjusted score less favourable for the non-offending side than the score had there been no such second irregularity?

 

My understanding of Laws 13 and 12 in a situation like this is that they in no way prevent the Director from awarding the same score (or even a score better for NOS) that would have been the result of a pure Law 14 irregularity so long as no irregularity has been committed by the non-offending side.

[Vampyr]

I once "knew" that my reproduction of the Michelson--Morley experiment would show, as did the original experiment, that the speed of light is a close approximation to 186,000 miles per second. Imagine my surprise when I fed the data into my calculator, and the answer was.... 29 miles per hour! Yes, I had overlooked something. :)

 

I fail to see how this is a reflection on anyone else participating in this forum.

 

The odds are pretty good that you're right David - but they aren't 100%.

 

I think that if we're going to guess what the ruling should be, assuming certain facts not in evidence, we should specify that's what we're doing.

Yes, there is a chance that, on the same board, the appearance of a card in a player's hand and the disappearance of a card in another player's hand happened independently. But most people who encounter this problem will do so in David's real world, so it seems rather a waste of time to divert the discussion into one of discovering where the cards came from/went.

[blackshoe]

The fact is that West started off with only 12 cards and that this was discovered when he had no card to lead to trick 13.

Correct.

 

[snip]However, when the case was initially investigated it was immediately revealed that East had started with 14 cards.

 

Not correct. The only fact in evidence regarding East's hand is that after trick twelve he had two cards remaining.

 

This changed the case to a Law 13 situation requiring the Director to cancel the result obtained (or just about to be obtained) on the board and award an adjusted score.

 

No. It may be unlikely, but it is certainly possible that 13A can be applied, and no adjustment necessary. For example, West's missing card turns out to be one of the two still held by East, and the fact it was in the wrong hand for twelve tricks makes no difference to the play.

 

[snip]Is it really their opinion that because an excessive card was found in East's hand (proving that a second violation of Law 7B has been committed by the same offending side) the Director shall award an adjusted score less favourable for the non-offending side than the score had there been no such second irregularity?

 

The fact that West has two cards at trick 13 does not prove any such thing. Your "proof" is an assumption on your part.

 

Of note is that fact that Law 13 uses the phrase "award an adjusted score" several times, but the phrase "award an artificial adjusted score" (emphasis mine) only once - and that one does not apply to this case. So I agree that an artificial adjusted score is not appropriate.

[blackshoe]

Yes, there is a chance that, on the same board, the appearance of a card in a player's hand and the disappearance of a card in another player's hand happened independently. But most people who encounter this problem will do so in David's real world, so it seems rather a waste of time to divert the discussion into one of discovering where the cards came from/went.

It's not a diversion. The very first thing the TD should do when called for an irregularity is to investigate what happened. There's a lot of "we don't need to investigate, we already know" in this thread. We don't know — some of us are making assumptions. However likely those assumptions are to be correct, they're still assumptions.

 

This is, among other things, a teaching forum. We do not want to teach inexperienced directors that the way to deal with an irregularity is to guess what happened. We do not want to teach them the old Kaplan "rule": "decide what ruling you want to make, and then find a law to support it". We want to teach them the right way to make a ruling — and the right way is to investigate and find out the facts, not to make assumptions.

[bluejak]

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?

[axman]

Yes, there is a chance that, on the same board, the appearance of a card in a player's hand and the disappearance of a card in another player's hand happened independently. But most people who encounter this problem will do so in David's real world, so it seems rather a waste of time to divert the discussion into one of discovering where the cards came from/went.

It's not a diversion. The very first thing the TD should do when called for an irregularity is to investigate what happened. There's a lot of "we don't need to investigate, we already know" in this thread. We don't know — some of us are making assumptions. However likely those assumptions are to be correct, they're still assumptions.

 

This is, among other things, a teaching forum. We do not want to teach inexperienced directors that the way to deal with an irregularity is to guess what happened. We do not want to teach them the old Kaplan "rule": "decide what ruling you want to make, and then find a law to support it". We want to teach them the right way to make a ruling — and the right way is to investigate and find out the facts, not to make assumptions.

blackshoe has said much in this thread that is well worth listening to. I would like to add a couple of things.

 

Issuing a ruling without establishing the reasoning and the facts upon which the reasoning is based is among the gravest disservices that a TD/adjudicator can do to players. WIthout this information the player becomes an out of control locomotive without a compass. ANd with them the avenue is paved to correct wrongs that do occur. iow the route to avoiding infractions is to give rulings for the the right right reasons because players learn what is important.

 

Somewhat recently I responded to a skip bid UI case where I essentially said that it was important to investigate the facts because as the case was presented it had been asserted that there was UI a fact because an opponents accused the player was slow- while omitting the circumstances surrounding the accusation [that would shed light upon its validity]. For stating the importance of determining the facts needed to draw conclusion I was castigated.

 

Sometimes the best way to establish the facts is to reenact and get agreement/ establishment how far from agreement the sides are. To draw conclusions about players' assertions concerning the roads not taken it often is imperative to establish what systemic agreements to all actions were- not merely to one or two actions.

 

Gratitude to Ed for his persistence against withering fire. As for this case we do not know if cards fell from a couple of pockets and they didn't get restored to the correct pockets, or sloppiness at the previous table saw cards shift when returned to pockets, or even if a player at the table moved the cards. That is why it is important to investigate first, yet not be surprised when E has W's thirteenth card- rather than taking a card directly from E to W only to discover at the end that the TD fouled the board for everybody.

[pran]

However, when the case was initially investigated it was immediately revealed that East had started with 14 cards.

Not correct. The only fact in evidence regarding East's hand is that after trick twelve he had two cards remaining.

If East started with 13, not 14 cards we have no problem because then Law 14 applies and the rectification is automatic: Declarer receives his 95% score. (Of course Law 67 might possibly also seem applicable, but this law cannot upset the automatic rectification prescribed in Law 14)

 

This changed the case to a Law 13 situation requiring the Director to cancel the result obtained (or just about to be obtained) on the board and award an adjusted score.

No. It may be unlikely, but it is certainly possible that 13A can be applied, and no adjustment necessary. For example, West's missing card turns out to be one of the two still held by East, and the fact it was in the wrong hand for twelve tricks makes no difference to the play.

True, and that is precisely why I want the adjusted score ordered (and authorized) by Law 13 to be at least as favourable to the non-offending side as the score resulting from an automatic rectification according to Law 14.

Even a possible ruling that the surplus card eventually found in East's hand has had any impact on the play should not be material in this respect; East held this card because of his own separate violation of Law 7, or alternatively his violation of some other law.

 

[snip]Is it really their opinion that because an excessive card was found in East's hand (proving that a second violation of Law 7B has been committed by the same offending side) the Director shall award an adjusted score less favourable for the non-offending side than the score had there been no such second irregularity?

The fact that West has two cards at trick 13 does not prove any such thing. Your "proof" is an assumption on your part.

East - not West. Why he had an extra card at trick 13 doesn't really matter: Either he had it from start, in which case Law 13 applies and East has (separately) violated Law 7, or he started off with 13 cards, in which case Law 14 applies (and East has violated some other law during the play).

 

Of note is that fact that Law 13 uses the phrase "award an adjusted score" several times, but the phrase "award an artificial adjusted score" (emphasis mine) only once - and that one does not apply to this case. So I agree that an artificial adjusted score is not appropriate.

Not only is an artificial adjusted score inappropriate, but I see no legal reason for the Director to award an assigned adjusted score less favourable to the non-offending side than the score that would be automatic if ruled entirely under Law 14. The only way Law 13 can come into the picture is by a different violation of Law 7 committed by the offending side. Such an additional violation of law by the offending side should not possibly result in a final result on the board less favourable to the non-offending side than the result had this additional violation of law not occurred.

 

The Director is fully able to determine a result on the play after 12 tricks have been played. Law 12 instructs him when able to award an assigned adjusted score to do just that.

[pran]

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.