Hidden dummy card

[bixby]

Sorry, I was away for a couple of days.

 

McB., you raise a good distinction between the actual case and my hypothetical. So maybe things are not as easy as I thought.

 

But I am still somewhat uncomfortable with your ruling -- I just can't get away from feeling that the offending side is benefitting from its infraction.

 

Law 12B says that "Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred." Applying that statement to the infraction of the revoke, it seems that damage exists and that an adjustment is therefore appropriate. It is puzzling that the offending side should be rescued from the adjustment because its infraction resulted from another infraction by the same side.

[McBruce]

I understand the discomfort, having had to deal with it from the non-offending side. :) (They were surprised and frustrated but did not argue as some seem to do on prinicple...)

 

I guess another way of stating my opinion on this is that I simply do not believe the play, including the revokes, are relevant, once it becomes clear that declarer will surely take a different line seeing all 13 cards in dummy. As soon as we discover that declarer has made a play (low from KJxx towards Tx, needing one loser) that would never be made without the original infraction, the resulting infractions (the later revokes by dummy) become part of a line that is impossible except that dummy put down 12 cards and nobody noticed. So if we apply 12B ONLY to the revoke, I think we are outside the bounds of equity, where the non-offenders get the benefit of the doubt but don't get to profit from things that will never happen in reality.

 

I think that we should certainly consider all possible lines from the point of the first infraction, but in this case the first infraction makes the revokes impossible! I'm still, of course, looking for a way to come up with a better score for the non-offenders, but once we eliminate the first infraction and find that declarer has a crucial choice that is about 2-1 in favour of one option, well, virtually every declarer will go the same way there. I've even considered what happens after dummy puts down 13 cards correctly and the defense decides to switch from clubs in order to give declarer fewer clues; but even in this case, it's immediately clear to any fairly good declarer that clues are needed about the outstanding high cards and there are many ways to go about getting them: playing on clubs first, ruffing some diamonds, pulling trumps to see which defender is short (and may have fewer HCP than expected). It's almost certain that declarer will make this contract except for dummy's infraction.

 

It's a rather strange case, not a ruling I expect to see again soon. Not often that you are unsuccessful at finding some plausible line that results in a better score for the non-offenders.

[bluejak]

Presumably I have lost something. Before the revoke occurred, declarer led towards an apparently singleton ten in dummy. Now you want to change that. How? Why? Under which Law?

[PeterE]

Bruce, I'll try it another way ... sigh

 

Assume first there were no revokes on this hand.

But dummy still hid a spade card under the hearts.

And declarer still played a spade from KJxx towards his "single" 10.

 

But this time the second spade appears before declarer is able to ruff a 2nd spade in dummy. Declarer goes one off.

 

According to your approach declarer now is entitled to get an adjustment from the TD in that he "certainly" would have played a spade towards his hand, if he had noticed 2 spades in dummy timely.

 

Of course, you - Bruce - will not adjust, will you?

So, the equity on this hand would have been one off, ok??

 

Now there is a revoke after declarer played towards ♠10. And this revoke does not result in rectification tricks via Law 64 A1 (because it was dummy who revoked). But this revoke damaged the NOS (because they did not get the 2nd spade trick). So, Law 64 C applies and says the TD should do restore the outcome that would have been achieved had the revoke not occured (not: had there been no irregularity at all).

 

Summary: Your approach is wrong in that you want to restore equity in the moment after the last irregularity.

But maybe there is no other irregularity ... :)

The right approach is that you have to restore equity in the moment before the (any single one) established revoke.

[McBruce]

Presumably I have lost something. Before the revoke occurred, declarer led towards an apparently singleton ten in dummy. Now you want to change that. How? Why? Under which Law?

The result obtained at the table is ten tricks to N-S. E-W have spotted several irregularities: Dummy not placing 13 cards on the table in full view, in accordance with Law 41D, and declarer ruffing several rounds of spades in dummy while the 4♠ was hidden.

 

Now, I was under the impression that the missing card appeared as declarer was leading the last trump from dummy, but I may have been mistaken. If the missing card appeared as declarer was trying to ruff the last spade, the revoke needs to be corrected and declarer loses a second spade trick, and the result at the table is nine tricks. I'll find out when I see the players involved this week.

 

But the issue here is how do we adjust for equity if the missing spade only appears after the revokes have been established? Clearly we need to adjust according to Law 64C, because Law 64B does not allow the defense any penalty tricks for declarer revoking in dummy. So we're back to Law 12.

 

This is where I take a different view from most others: I think that it gives the non-offenders too much of an advantage if we take each irregularity separately, and give them the best of three or four possible lines:

 

--What's the table result?

--What's the expectation if dummy tables 13 visible cards?

--What's the expectation if the missing spade is discovered when declarer tries to ruff the second round?

--What's the expectation if the missing spade is discovered when declarer tries to ruff the third round?

--What's the expectation if the missing spade is discovered when declarer tries to ruff the fourth round?

 

That's five ways for the non-offenders to gain based on one inadvertent mistake! I'm uncomfortable with that. I think the way to proceed is to give them the table result or equity after a 13-card dummy appears, whichever is best, resolving doubtful points in favour of the non-offenders, of course.

[McBruce]

Bruce, I'll try it another way ... sigh

 

Assume first there were no revokes on this hand.

But dummy still hid a spade card under the hearts.

And declarer still played a spade from KJxx towards his "single" 10.

 

But this time the second spade appears before declarer is able to ruff a 2nd spade in dummy. Declarer goes one off.

 

According to your approach declarer now is entitled to get an adjustment from the TD in that he "certainly" would have played a spade towards his hand, if he had noticed 2 spades in dummy timely.

Not quite. In your hypothetical, the non-offending side is entitled to have the likely result had dummy tabled 13 visible cards. If for some strange reason that is two off, that's what the adjusted score is. We get a table result, then we consider the irregularities and the non-offending side gets a better score or the same score, based on what would have happened without the irregularities.

 

In the original case, I did not look at the situation from the point where dummy tabled only 12 visible cards with a view to adjusting in favour of the declaring side. The table result was 10 tricks; I was looking to see if the result would be different.

 

Law 64C only tells us to award an adjusted score; it does not say to 'restore the outcome had the revoke not occurred.' Once we're directed to Law 12, we must consider all irregularities, not just some.

[bluejak]

So your adjustment involves giving the offending side a trick it did not make? I find this difficult to justify. No, we are not "giving the non-offenders too much of an advantage" by allowing them to keep tricks they have made.

[PeterE]

That's five ways for the non-offenders to gain based on one inadvertent mistake!  I'm uncomfortable with that.  I think the way to proceed is to give them the table result or equity after a 13-card dummy appears, whichever is best, resolving doubtful points in favour of the non-offenders, of course.

If you are uncomfortable with the approach of giving equity (and you have some excuse as the ACBL does not want to give equity in most cases), you should perhaps follow the line of some senior TDs here when giving you advice.

 

Its not always the best thing to invent new approaches and then fight to defend them ... ;)

[McBruce]

I'm not trying to be inventive or contrary, I am trying to understand your approach. But I don't see that I am giving N-S a trick that they did not make, as David says: the table result was ten tricks.

 

But more importantly, I don't understand why a line that would never be considered, absent the first irregularity, should even be under consideration when we determine how to restore equity for subsequent infractions.

[Cascade]

It seems to me that:

 

1. The non-offenders were not damaged by the dummy being incorrectly displayed. Therefore there is no adjustment for that.

 

2. The non-offenders were damaged by the revoke in dummy. So we adjust for that.

 

3. The offenders were damaged by the dummy being incorrectly displayed. That is too bad for them we don't adjust if your sides own infraction causes damage to your side.

[lamford]

So your adjustment involves giving the offending side a trick it did not make?

No it doesn't. The defence actually made three tricks and this is the number McBruce is giving them. The question is whether restoration of equity should be to the time after the first infraction or to the time the queen of spades was played.

 

McBruce argues, wrongly, in my view, that the declarer is 2-1 to get the spade finesse right. In doing this he gives East a 11 count which is not an opening bid as one of his hands. True, East may open light, but we are not told that he does.

 

The defence were damaged by dummy being incorrectly displayed; if it had not been, East would have won the second spade with the ace.

 

As RMB says, the laws are very poor at coping with multiple infractions. I can see several points of view being valid here.

[bluejak]

As a result of the cards being displayed incorrectly, declarer played a spade towards the ten. Am I correct?

 

As a result of playing a spade towards the ten, a defender made the ♠Q. Am I correct?

 

What Law allows you to give this trick back to declarer?

 

When the revoke occurred, equity should be restored to the point before the revoke. Do you disagree with that?

 

At that time declarer has already lost a trick to the ♠Q. Is that right?

 

:angry:

 

What I cannot see any justification for is giving a spade trick to declarer [the offending side] that he actually lost {♠Q}.

[bluejak]

So your adjustment involves giving the offending side a trick it did not make?

No it doesn't. The defence actually made three tricks and this is the number McBruce is giving them.

Did the defence not win a trick with the ♠Q?

[lamford]

So your adjustment involves giving the offending side a trick it did not make?

No it doesn't. The defence actually made three tricks and this is the number McBruce is giving them.

Did the defence not win a trick with the ♠Q?

Yes, they did, and two top clubs as well. But that was all they won.

 

There were two infractions. One was the revoke, which cost the defence as otherwise East would have played the ace of spades if dummy had followed. The other was the wrong display of dummy. If that had been displayed correctly, the play would have been different, and the defence might well have done better than three tricks.

 

Neither infraction has a prescribed penalty. Both require equity to be restored. If that is to the point "after the first infraction" that is, in my opinion, +100 or a split score. If it is to the point "just before the second infraction" that is clearly +100. The Beijing minute suggests that the former is normal; some will argue it is the better of the two restorations of equity.

[bluejak]

Suppose equity is restored for infraction A, and that gives the non-offenders +100. Now suppose equity is restored for infraction B, and that gives the non-offenders -620. Does that not mean that infraction B did not damage the non-offenders? We do not adjust when there is no damage, so we adjust for infraction A only.

 

At the moment before the dummy was put down wrong, equity would have been +620 80% of the time, -100 20% of the time, or something.

 

At the moment before the revoke, equity was -100 because they now had one spade trick and were coming to another.

 

So adjusting for the revoke gives declarer -100. Ignore the other infraction.

[McBruce]

At the moment before the revoke, equity was -100 because they now had one spade trick and were coming to another.

I'm beginning to see your point (and I agree with everything said and not quoted in your latest post), but my difficulty is still in applying the concept of equity to a line of play that we have decided is virtually impossible. Equity is -100 at the moment before the revoke, yes, but this 'equity' is based on an impossible line of play after an earlier infraction.

 

However, I can see that it is a reasonable interpretation of 64C to find equity for the revoke(s) and adjust the table score to that, then go back and find equity without dummy hiding the card, and then adjust to whichever is best. I think that this is flawed in that it considers a line of play that would never take place without the initial infraction: I'd rather take the infractions in chronological order and decide which lines are likely continuations and decide equity that way.

 

A ferry went down in the middle of the night off the coast of British Columbia some time ago, resulting in the death of two people who were not found by the crew and were not evacuated. Our major story today is that the person who was on the bridge at the time has been charged with criminal negligence in the two deaths. There is no thought at all in looking at the way the search for passengers throughout the ship was handled once the evacuation order was given. It is the initial infraction that counts.

[blackshoe]

A ferry went down in the middle of the night off the coast of British Columbia some time ago, resulting in the death of two people who were not found by the crew and were not evacuated. Our major story today is that the person who was on the bridge at the time has been charged with criminal negligence in the two deaths.

Was the person who was on the bridge the captain of the vessel? If not, is the captain also being charged? Maritime law is tricky, as the traditional "power of life and death" held by captains at sea is eroded by time and enhanced communications, while the commensurate responsibility remains pretty much as it was. That said, "charged" is not the same as convicted.

 

  There is no thought at all in looking at the way the search for passengers throughout the ship was handled once the evacuation order was given.  It is the initial infraction that counts.

 

Oh? I find that hard to believe. What was the initial infraction? Ordering the evacuation of a sinking ship? Seems unlikely.

 

On the one hand, this might well be a case of a ship's officer's negligence, with no implication of negligence on the captain's part, though that seems unlikely to me. On the other hand, it might well be a case of "somebody died, so somebody has to pay". Aka "if it hesitates, shoot it". On the gripping hand, I'm not sure the example has much to do at all with bridge.

[bluejak]

At the moment before the revoke, equity was -100 because they now had one spade trick and were coming to another.

I'm beginning to see your point (and I agree with everything said and not quoted in your latest post), but my difficulty is still in applying the concept of equity to a line of play that we have decided is virtually impossible. Equity is -100 at the moment before the revoke, yes, but this 'equity' is based on an impossible line of play after an earlier infraction.

 

However, I can see that it is a reasonable interpretation of 64C to find equity for the revoke(s) and adjust the table score to that, then go back and find equity without dummy hiding the card, and then adjust to whichever is best. I think that this is flawed in that it considers a line of play that would never take place without the initial infraction: I'd rather take the infractions in chronological order and decide which lines are likely continuations and decide equity that way.

 

A ferry went down in the middle of the night off the coast of British Columbia some time ago, resulting in the death of two people who were not found by the crew and were not evacuated. Our major story today is that the person who was on the bridge at the time has been charged with criminal negligence in the two deaths. There is no thought at all in looking at the way the search for passengers throughout the ship was handled once the evacuation order was given. It is the initial infraction that counts.

We have one big problem with multiple infractions: the Laws do not say "do this". So taking infractions in chronological order is a view, but not one based on any Law.

 

I find your example interesting: I would naturally prosecute the people for a criminally negligent search. I cannot believe that they would escape because of an earlier infraction.

 

A car driver is overtaken by someone doing 100 mph. He loses his temper, chases after him, and rams him, killing him. Is his defence of "it would not have happened if the other driver had not exceeded the speed limit" going to be accepted? It is certainly true! :)

[McBruce]

Just updating this one.

 

I restored the lost two VPs to the non-offenders and gave myself a "ruling without merit" penalty. :)