Hidden dummy card

[McBruce]

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=st4hqj65daj92cqt5&w=sq972h9dq8654ck42&e=sa83h73dkt7caj976&s=skj65hakt842d3c83]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

Dealer East opened 1♣. South overcalled 1♥. West made a negative double. North made a support-showing 2♣ cuebid. East made a lead-directing double and South bid 4♥.

 

West began with a club to the ten and jack. East returned a club to the king and West returned a club to the queen and ace, ruffed by South. South now led a small spade from hand, seeing a singleton ten in dummy, the 4♠ hidden behind the Q♥. One of the defenders, probably West, won the trick and returned a trump, but South began crossruffing spades and diamonds. By the time the missing card appeared with four tricks left, South had revoke-ruffed three spades in dummy and could actually ruff the T♠ in hand, losing only two clubs and a spade.

 

How do you rule (without 12C1c)? All four players are fairly experienced and this is a Flight A IMP League match between two teams who probably won't win the league but will compete reasonably well.

[RMB1]

Without the revoke the defence would win two spade tricks. So I assign a result of NS 9 tricks under Law 64B3 and Law 64C.

[lamford]

Without the revoke the defence would win two spade tricks. So I assign a result of NS 9 tricks under Law 64B3 and Law 64C.

But only if West did go in with the queen when the spade was led towards the "singleton" 10. So, the "probably West" in the OP, is quite important. Otherwise, the revoke would not have gained, which is the requirement for the award of an adjusted score.

[pran]

Without the revoke the defence would win two spade tricks.  So I assign a result of NS 9 tricks under Law 64B3 and Law 64C.

But only if West did go in with the queen when the spade was led towards the "singleton" 10. So, the "probably West" in the OP, is quite important. Otherwise, the revoke would not have gained, which is the requirement for the award of an adjusted score.

The important thing is "what happened".

 

What West "might" have done (resulting in a less favourable result for his side) had the second spade in dummy not been hidden cannot be argued for a 64C adjustment less favourable to the defending side.

 

This question can, however, be argued for an additional adjustment because the hiding of the card in dummy was a separate irregularity possibly also damaging the defending side.

[barmar]

Law 64A1 says that 2 tricks are transferred to the NOS because dummy won the trick on which it revoked, and the revoking side won a subsequent trick. 64B2 prevents rectification for the subsequent revoke-ruffs. So I rule down 2.

 

Since with normal play the defense would get at most 2 spade tricks, depending on whether declarer guesses the ace correctly, so would go down at most 1, 64C doesn't come into play.

 

I don't see how the hidden card damaged the defenders. What might the have done differently had they seen 2 spades in dummy? If declarer had led dummy's spade it gives East a problem, he has to decide whether to go up or give declarer a guess. But that never happened, so the defense wasn't damaged.

 

BTW, why did declarer need to ruff spades 3 times? Didn't East's Ace fall on the 2nd ruff, so the King was good? But I guess he couldn't ruff the hidden card in hand without first shortening himself. :lol:

[Fluffy]

when I was younger dummy's revokes carried no penalty since it was everyone's fault for not counting its cards, when has it changed?

[mjj29]

when I was younger dummy's revokes carried no penalty since it was everyone's fault for not counting its cards, when has it changed?

It has not, the automatic penalties do not apply for revokes from dummy or penalty cards (64B3), but equity may be restored (64C) if the NOS are damaged.

[lamford]

Law 64A1 says that 2 tricks are transferred to the NOS because dummy won the trick on which it revoked, and the revoking side won a subsequent trick.  64B2 prevents rectification for the subsequent revoke-ruffs.  So I rule down 2.

 

Since with normal play the defense would get at most 2 spade tricks, depending on whether declarer guesses the ace correctly, so would go down at most 1, 64C doesn't come into play.

 

I don't see how the hidden card damaged the defenders.  What might the have done differently had they seen 2 spades in dummy?  If declarer had led dummy's spade it gives East a problem, he has to decide whether to go up or give declarer a guess.  But that never happened, so the defense wasn't damaged.

 

BTW, why did declarer need to ruff spades 3 times?  Didn't East's Ace fall on the 2nd ruff, so the King was good? But I guess he couldn't ruff the hidden card in hand without first shortening himself. :lol:

I disagree. Robin is right that Law 64B3 applies. It might have been more interesting if declarer had led the spade from dummy. Dummy breached Law 41D:

 

"After the opening lead is faced, dummy spreads his hand in front of him on the table, face up, sorted into suits <snip>." The OP tells us that a spade was among the hearts, so dummy breached this Law.

 

If, after declarer had led the spade from dummy, East had risen with the ace, and the TD decided that he might have played low had dummy not committed the infraction of 41D, and declarer might have misguessed spades, then, under 12A1, the TD is empowered to award an adjusted score:

 

1. The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation committed by an opponent.

 

But I might be completely wrong ...

[bluejak]

I am somewhat confused. People talking about not allowing someone to play a ♠Q when they might have and so forth, not to mention penalty tricks for a revoke.

 

So, correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me:

 

There is an infraction of Law 40D when dummy put his hand down. Since there is no rectification in that Law, Law 12A1 applies, and we adjust through Law 12C1E.

 

There is an infraction of a revoke. Per Law 64B3 there are no penalty tricks, so any rectification is through Law 64C, and we adjust through Law 12C1E.

 

So, what is the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred? And we really need the most favourable result that was likely had neither irregularity occurred. That is what the defence gets.

 

Similarly, for declarer, he gets the most unfavourable result that was at all probable.

 

Now, as far as I can see, this leads to nine tricks in both cases. What have I missed?

[McBruce]

OK, get ready to pounce...

 

I ruled +620 to N-S. What nobody seems to have considered is that having already lost two club tricks, no declarer in his right mind leads a small spade from KJxx towards Tx. If we are trying to restore equity, the question we should ask is: without the ORIGINAL infraction (dummy hiding the 4♠), what line(s) would declarer take (consider)?

 

So the result comes down to which card declarer plays from hand when spades are first led from dummy. Outside the ACBL, TDs would probably give a weighted score, and as I looked at the hand I wished I had this option. But the more I looked, the more it seemed to me that low to the jack (or running the ten) was at most 10%. There are very few combinations of the outstanding cards to make an opening bid in the East hand, unless East has the ace of spades. The vast, vaster-that-vast majority of the possible hands East can have for the opener include the ace of spades, and after the defense locates the club honours for declarer it is even more unlikely that West has the ace and East has the queen. I felt that all four players at the table were good enough declarers to recognize this.

 

The standard for the non-offenders is the most favourable result that is at all likely. I don't think 10% comes close to that, and I think it is probably closer to 5%. Similarly, the standard for the offenders is the most unfavourable result that was at all probable, and I think at 80-20 I would adjust, but this is a near certainty.

 

The result at the other table (which I did not check until I'd made the ruling) was 110 to East-West in 3♣, so the ruling cost the non-offenders' team (who won the match) about 2VP (versus the consensus ruling of down one).

 

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it. Have at me.... ;)

[RMB1]

But declarer did lead a small spade from KJxx.

 

I ruled on Law 64C alone. Prior to the revoke declarer has already lost a spade to the queen and without the revoke he will lose another spade (to the ace).

 

Why should declarer benefit from a ruling based on dummy hiding the small spade. If you are ruling that declarer will get spades right witihout the hidden spade then the hidden spade has not damaged the defenders and there is no adjustment for that infraction.

 

What has damaged the defenders is ruffing a spade when there should still be a spade in dummy. This infraction occured after a small spade from KJxx had lost to the queen and the adjustment should be on the basis of what happened subsequent to a second small spade being lead from hand.

[PeterE]

I totally agree with Robin (as usual ;) ).

Furthermore your (Bruce) approach is flawed, wrong and illegal.

 

When (if) you restore equity using Law 64 C you do not restore equity of the whole hand but only at the moment of the (respective) revoke. Everything prior to that moment will not be changed.

[McBruce]

I disagree. There are multiple infractions here, the hiding of the card by dummy, and the various revokes made by declarer as a result. It is 100% certain that the revokes would not have happened but for the original infraction of the card being hidden. How is it equity if we cherry-pick which infraction to adjust for and ignore others? How is it equity when we ignore the one infraction that started it all?

[PeterE]

1. For the infraction committed by dummy there will be no equity! Here it has damaged declarer only and declarer is the same (offending) side as dummy is.

 

2. As evidence for "my" approach take two parts of WBF LC Minutes that - though not addressing this scenario explicitely - show, how Law 64 C has to applied.

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.

When both sides have revoked on the same board (Laws 64B7 and 64C), each revoke is examined separately in assessing the equity when that revoke occurs.

[bixby]

Hmmm . . . . let's consider this hypothetical case:

 

732

63

6532

A52

 

AK4

A54

A8

J10987

 

The contract is 3NT and the opening lead is the SQ. Declarer wins in hand, despairs of making the contract, and runs the CJ, losing to East's Queen. East returns a spade, which declarer wins in hand. Now declarer holds his breath as he runs the C10 successfully. Declarer plays to the CA, comes back to the DA, and runs the remaining clubs, discarding two diamonds from dummy. On the second diamond discard, however, the CK is discovered under dummy's diamonds!

 

Now what? Without the original infraction, declarer would have cashed the CAK, successfully dropping the CQ (opponent's clubs were 2-2), and would have made the contract, with 5 clubs, 2 spades, and the red Aces.

 

I don't see how we can award declarer 9 tricks. Law 12B provides:

 

"Objectives of Score Adjustment

1. The objective of a score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction."

 

Even though hiding the CK was an infraction, the damage was suffered by the offending side, not the non-offending side. I don't think we adjust to take away the damage suffered by the offending side. There's no law against running the CJ at trick two, and that's what declarer did. We don't give him back that trick. So I say declarer is down one.

[lamford]

There is an infraction of Law 40D when dummy put his hand down.

I think this should read 41D. There is no 40D. And apologies for the pedantic flim-flam.

[McBruce]

Hmmm . . . . let's consider this hypothetical case:

 

732

63

6532

A52

 

AK4

A54

A8

J10987

 

The contract is 3NT and the opening lead is the SQ. Declarer wins in hand, despairs of making the contract, and runs the CJ, losing to East's Queen. East returns a spade, which declarer wins in hand. Now declarer holds his breath as he runs the C10 successfully. Declarer plays to the CA, comes back to the DA, and runs the remaining clubs, discarding two diamonds from dummy. On the second diamond discard, however, the CK is discovered under dummy's diamonds!

 

Now what? Without the original infraction, declarer would have cashed the CAK, successfully dropping the CQ (opponent's clubs were 2-2), and would have made the contract, with 5 clubs, 2 spades, and the red Aces.

 

I don't see how we can award declarer 9 tricks. Law 12B provides:

 

"Objectives of Score Adjustment

1. The objective of a score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction."

 

Even though hiding the CK was an infraction, the damage was suffered by the offending side, not the non-offending side. I don't think we adjust to take away the damage suffered by the offending side. There's no law against running the CJ at trick two, and that's what declarer did. We don't give him back that trick. So I say declarer is down one.

I do too, in your case, but your example does not convince me to change my opinion on the original case.

 

In your case, the result at the table is eight tricks. Declarer has four side suit winners and in clubs he has won three of the first four (revoking in dummy on the fourth) when the missing K♣ is discovered as the fifth club trick is played. The king of clubs wins the fifth club trick, and declarer is now in dummy with eight tricks in and no more coming. The table result is down one.

 

There are two infractions, the hiding of the K♣ by dummy and the revoke in dummy by declarer of the fourth club. Without the first infraction, the declarer would probably have made nine tricks, true, but the table result is eight tricks, so there is no damage to the non-offending side.

 

In my case, the result at the table was ten tricks. Without the first infraction, the result might have been nine only, in which case I would certainly adjust, but in looking closely at the situation I judged that the overwhelmingly likely result was ten tricks, so I did not adjust.

 

 

What I am trying to state as a general principle here is this:

 

When there are multiple infractions by one side, and it is certain that the first infraction was the direct and only cause of the other ones, equity should be restored by considering the likely result(s) without the first infraction, the departure point from normal.

[lamford]

In my case, the result at the table was ten tricks.  Without the first infraction, the result might have been nine only, in which case I would certainly adjust, but in looking closely at the situation I judged that the overwhelmingly likely result was ten tricks, so I did not adjust.

My understanding of the rules in ACBL land is that the non-offenders get the best score that was at all likely. I strongly disagree that this is 4S making on this board.

 

I think you are right that equity is restored to the likely result without either infraction, which seems to be what bluejak is saying. And I agree that the critical guess comes when declarer leads a spade from dummy and East, who you tell me is a reasonable player, plays low.

 

Earlier you wrote "The vast, vaster-that-vast majority of the possible hands East can have for the opener include the ace of spades". This is vastly - vaster than vastly - off the mark. At the time of the critical guess, for it to matter, the spade honours are split, and West is known to have four spades. East needs the king of diamonds, but not the queen, to have an opening bid. The two relevant layouts, therefore, are when West has the queen of spades and queen of diamonds as here, with East having the ace of spades, or West having the ace of spades and East the queen of spades and queen of diamonds. Almost symmetrical.

 

If the clubs are 4-4 (and the opponents are not there to help us, so we cannot glean anything from their carding in that suit), then the latter layout is, I believe, slightly more likely. If the clubs are 3-5, the former is.

 

It is clear (to me) therefore that this is a very close guess (I think the right line is to cash a second heart, and then play a spade to the king if West has the second heart, but a spade to the jack if East has it), but it is quite wrong to save the declarer the guess and award him 100% of +620. It has to be 100% of -100 in ACBL land. In England, I would award 40% of a successful guess and 60% of an unsuccessful one, as I have to adjust in favour of the NOS.

[RMB1]

What I am trying to state as a general principle here is this:

 

When there are multiple infractions by one side, and it is certain that the first infraction was the direct and only cause of the other ones, equity should be restored by considering the likely result(s) without the first infraction, the departure point from normal.

I guess we will have to disagree. The laws do not deal well with multiple infractions. But my principle is to give redress for all infractions that cause damage; regardless of whether some damaging infractions may have been due to some (otherwise) undamaging infractions.

 

Can we agree that if dummy and declarer were swapped, the play is the same with a spade hidden in declarer's hand, and the revoke is not spotted during the round, then we would adjust to nine tricks because the revoke is the only infraction?

[lamford]

I guess we will have to disagree. The laws do not deal well with multiple infractions. But my principle is to give redress for all infractions that cause damage; regardless of whether some damaging infractions may have been due to some (otherwise) undamaging infractions.

 

Can we agree that if dummy and declarer were swapped, the play is the same with a spade hidden in declarer's hand, and the revoke is not spotted during the round, then we would adjust to nine tricks because the revoke is the only infraction?

Yes, I agree with the latter; that seems non-contentious.

 

I also agree with the principle of giving redress for all infractions, but here there is no penalty in either case. So, what you are doing is restoring equity, and it seems that what you should do is assume no infraction had taken place.

 

I originally thought your view was right, but re-reading the Laws made me think differently.

[pran]

As a general principle I cannot find it acceptable if two irregularities by the same offending side can lead to an adjusted score that is less favourable for the non-offending side than the result would be from either irregularity alone.

 

Whether the two irregularities are connected or separate is IMHO completely immaterial.

 

This implies that the result on a board where one of dummy's cards has been hidden (or missing) causing a revoke from dummy must initially be ruled upon from that irregularity alone.

 

An allegation that play might have been different in favour of the offending side had Dummy not violated Law 7B2 and/or Law 41D so that the card had been present and visible should not result in a possibly adjusted score less favourable to the defending side than the score caused by the revoke alone.

 

An argument to the opposite can best be refuted by the consequence that it will allow an offender in many situations to (deliberately) commit another irregularity and then claim an adjusted score as if no irregularity at all had occurred.

 

I assume that this is the basic principle behind the view expressed in WBFLC Minutes from Beijing October 10th 2008:

 

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.

[bluejak]

Surely the suggestion is not worse than one infraction alone. Suppose declarer led towards dummy's apparent singleton, the queen wins, and then the missing card is discovered. No revoke, but two losers in the suit. So whether what you say is true, pran, it is not relevant there.

[lamford]

I assume that this is the basic principle behind the view expressed in WBFLC Minutes from Beijing October 10th 2008:

 

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.

Your argument seems very reasonable; if we follow it, what was the equity after dummy hid a spade among the hearts? -100 for N/S in the ACBL, and whatever the TD decides is the corrected weighted score in 12C1c territory.

 

So, I agree that the player must not be allowed to gain from the revoke, but he is not doing so. The equity after the first infraction was as above, and after the second infraction is the same.

 

We are not asked to restore equity to the precise moment that West played the queen of spades; the Beijing minute was clear: "after the first revoke"; in this case that can only be interpreted as "after the first infraction".

[McBruce]

My understanding of the rules in ACBL land is that the non-offenders get the best score that was at all likely. I strongly disagree that this is 4S making on this board.

 

I think you are right that equity is restored to the likely result without either infraction, which seems to be what bluejak is saying. And I agree that the critical guess comes when declarer leads a spade from dummy and East, who you tell me is a reasonable player, plays low.

 

Earlier you wrote "The vast, vaster-that-vast majority of the possible hands East can have for the opener include the ace of spades". This is vastly - vaster than vastly - off the mark. At the time of the critical guess, for it to matter, the spade honours are split, and West is known to have four spades. East needs the king of diamonds, but not the queen, to have an opening bid. The two relevant layouts, therefore, are when West has the queen of spades and queen of diamonds as here, with East having the ace of spades, or West having the ace of spades and East the queen of spades and queen of diamonds. Almost symmetrical.

 

If the clubs are 4-4 (and the opponents are not there to help us, so we cannot glean anything from their carding in that suit), then the latter layout is, I believe, slightly more likely. If the clubs are 3-5, the former is.

 

It is clear (to me) therefore that this is a very close guess (I think the right line is to cash a second heart, and then play a spade to the king if West has the second heart, but a spade to the jack if East has it), but it is quite wrong to save the declarer the guess and award him 100% of +620. It has to be 100% of -100 in ACBL land. In England, I would award 40% of a successful guess and 60% of an unsuccessful one, as I have to adjust in favour of the NOS.

This incident occurred late in an IMP League match that started at the same time that a short 21-board pairs game began. By the time the incident occurred, there was only the eight players, the husband of the opening bidder (who agreed with me that it was far more likely that a spade to the king would succeed), and me. But since then I have given the hand with the 26 declarer and dummy cards, and the opening lead, to several players. Everyone who has a close look plays a spade to the king, but most delay this decision until they discover where the club honours are; some even mention playing ace and jack of diamonds to see if East will cover (indicating probably KQ♦ I guess). If we start from the position after the clubs have been played, either by the defense or the declarer, we find this:

 

--E-W have 19 points

--East, who opened in first seat, has AJ♣, West has the K♣, leaving 11 unaccounted for

--East needs both diamond honours if he holds the Q♠ and not the A♠.

--Against Q♠, KQ♦, AJ♣ as East's opening bid, we have at least two possibilities where a spade to the king works: A♠, K♦, AJ♣ and A♠, Q♦, AJ♣.

 

So OK, I misinterpreted the position when I said that it was almost certain that East has the ace. However, that's not the question. The question is "what line will South take, knowing that East is about a 2-1 favorite to hold the ace alone over holding the queen alone?" My answer to this is "almost certainly South will lead a spade to the king."

[McBruce]

An allegation that play might have been different in favour of the offending side had Dummy not violated Law 7B2 and/or Law 41D so that the card had been present and visible should not result in a possibly adjusted score less favourable to the defending side than the score caused by the revoke alone.

I disagree here too. I think if you have related infractions: dummy hiding the card, and declarer revoking twice in dummy, the Laws say that you give the non-offenders whichever is best for them: the score obtained at the table, or the score after the TD determines what would have happened without the infraction. I think it strains the concept of equity, in multiple infractions stemming from the same irregularity, to give the non-offenders the best of three or more possible scenarios.

 

In this case we left normal when dummy placed only twelve cards visible on the table. It is surely not disputed that with 13 cards on the table declarer would never lead away from KJxx towards Tx in a suit where only one trick can be lost. It simply doesn't make sense to call the play declarer made (thinking dummy had a singleton) evidence toward what declarer would do seeing 13 cards. The "score caused by the revoke alone" is a 'result' that has no chance of occurring unless you ignore the first infraction. I don't believe that is equity.