Law 13: Incorrect number of cards

[Hanoi5]

Say a player gets 14 and her partner 12. They see their cards and call the Director who fixes the hands and deems it ok to continue playing the board (even though a player looked at a card from hes partner before the bidding began). The other two players object to playing the board but in the end they do it planning to appeal the decision.

 

Is this decision appealable?

Wasn't an agreement needed from the 4 players in order to continue playing? Was this only in the previous Laws?

What would make you think a card is of consequence or not?

[bluejak]

Yes, the decision is appealable. The TD has made a judgement that the deal can be played. Since he has made a judgement it may be appealed.

 

The players do not have any rights to object. As you say, in a previous law book they did have such a right.

 

To be honest, whether the card is of consequence depends on a variety of things in my mind.

• First, even if they have looked at the hand, are they really likely to have realised which card was transferred? This may depend on how quickly it was realised and how it was realised.
   
  
• Second, what is the level of the event? In a World Championship I will normally decide the board is unplayable: in a club I will normally let them play the board.
   
  
• Third, while the players' complaints do not decide the matter for me any more, I do listen to them. If all four players want to not play the board, for example, why not just stop the board?
   
  
• Fourth, I suppose the size of the card comes into it. An ace will both be noticed and be difficult to let the board be played.
   
  
• Finally, however, the change of Law means I can let them play the board, and then decide to adjust. In some ways this complicates life for the TD, but making life simple for the TD is not the object of the exercise. It certainly means that it is much more reasonable to let them play the board most times since you can adjust afterwards, so this now must be the norm.
  

There are two more matters, however, both of behaviour. For this to have happened, two different players have either not counted or have miscounted their cards at the start. Unless this is a very low level event I feel that a PP is suitable.

 

As for the opponents, for them to play a board deciding to appeal it if necessary is completely unacceptable: that means, that having looked at their hands, they are now discussing the matter. I would shut them up, and if they continue discussing it and deciding to appeal, hit them with a PP as well.

[JoAnneM]

This is a little bit off topic but say you decide not to let them play the hand, and award avg+/avg-. What if avg+ damages the opponents, or the field. I come across instances where I know a pair would have tied for top, because of their skill level, but they get avg+ because of the opponents mistake. Is it better to just issue a No Play and then a PP the offending side?

[blackshoe]

No. First, "no play" in such a case is illegal. Second, you adjust as the laws require, you can't vary the adjustment because you think somebody should have (or would have) done better or worse.

 

There is, in the latest laws, provision for a pair whose game is better than 60% to get that instead of 60% for "avg+", but I'm not sure if just entering "A+" in ACBLScore gives that — I think there may be a different entry involved, but I need to research it. There's a corresponding provision for pairs with a poor game (<40%) to get that rather than 40% from A-, but the ACBL changed that law in its jurisdiction to require the scores to balance, so if the NOS gets say 70%, then the OS will get 30%, even if they're having a 20% game, or a 90% game, for that matter.

 

One should never issue a PP as a means of adjusting the score to something Law 12 won't give you, or in place of adjusting. PPs are a deterrent for ongoing, egregious, or blatant infractions. If the laws require a score adjustment, just follow law 12. If the offense rates a PP, give a PP. Two separate and independent decisions.

[blackshoe]

There is, in the latest laws, provision for a pair whose game is better than 60% to get that instead of 60% for "avg+", but I'm not sure if just entering "A+" in ACBLScore gives that

Turns out that it does, and gives the OS the complement (so that the MP percentages add up to 100).

[jeremy69]

As for the opponents, for them to play a board deciding to appeal it if necessary is completely unacceptable

 

You think that is unreasonable? I think a TD deciding to allow a board to be played when a player has seen and or held more than his/her fair share of cards is completely unacceptable. If you forced me to play it I would most certainly reserve the right to either appeal(2nd choice) or have you committed to the nearest asylum(1st choice). What's wrong with me saying to partner "The TD has gone off his head but we had better play the board for fear he fines us and get the men in white coats afterwards?"

[gnasher]

There is, in the latest laws, provision for a pair whose game is better than 60% to get that instead of 60% for "avg+", but I'm not sure if just entering "A+" in ACBLScore gives that

Turns out that it does, and gives the OS the complement (so that the MP percentages add up to 100).

We commit an offense which would normally mean that we get 40%. However, the opponents are having a good game, so we get 30% instead? That seems grossly unfair.

[pran]

There is, in the latest laws, provision for a pair whose game is better than 60% to get that instead of 60% for "avg+", but I'm not sure if just entering "A+" in ACBLScore gives that

Turns out that it does, and gives the OS the complement (so that the MP percentages add up to 100).

We commit an offense which would normally mean that we get 40%. However, the opponents are having a good game, so we get 30% instead? That seems grossly unfair.

Unfair?

 

Law 12C2c:

The foregoing is modified for a non-offending contestant that obtains a session score exceeding 60% of the available matchpoints or for an offending contestant that obtains a session score that is less than 40% of the available matchpoints (or the equivalent in imps). Such contestants are awarded the percentage obtained (or the equivalent in imps) on the other boards of that session.

 

You meet the pair that plays a solid session with 65% score in each round, but with you at fault they must take A+ and you be given A-.

 

Is it "fair" that you because of your error shall receive 40% rather than the "expected" 35% against this pair?

 

 

However: The way I read Law 12C2c the session average adjustment of A+ and A- shall be considered independently for each contestant based on their own session average and not as the complement of opponent's session average, so I have the feeling that the quoted ACBLScore processing is illegal?

 

And frankly, I consider independent session adjustment more "fair". What if the NOS session average is 65% and the OS session average is 60%?

[blackshoe]

In the ACBL version of the laws, the following footnote has been added to Law 12C2c:

In ACBL sanctioned events, when there is a non-offending and an offending contestant, the non-offending contestant receives the score specified by 12C2c above. Their opponents shall receive the difference between that score and 100%, regardless of their score on the other boards of that session. For example, if the non-offending contestant receives 64% on the adjusted deal, the offending contestant receives 36%.

Now we can debate whether the ACBL can legally do this, but the fact is they've done it, and they're not going to change it even (I suspect) if the WBFLC tells them they have no legal right to do it.

[pran]

In the ACBL version of the laws, the following footnote has been added to Law 12C2c:

In ACBL sanctioned events, when there is a non-offending and an offending contestant, the non-offending contestant receives the score specified by 12C2c above. Their opponents shall receive the difference between that score and 100%, regardless of their score on the other boards of that session. For example, if the non-offending contestant receives 64% on the adjusted deal, the offending contestant receives 36%.

Now we can debate whether the ACBL can legally do this, but the fact is they've done it, and they're not going to change it even (I suspect) if the WBFLC tells them they have no legal right to do it.

This has a very curious effect:

 

Say that NOS has a session average of 59% and OS has a session average of 20%. (Yes, I have experienced such low session averages!)

 

While in the rest of the world the artificial adjusted scores for the two sides would be 60% and 20% ACBL requires the OS score to be 40%!

 

If this isn't ridiculous I don't know what would be.

 

(The only excuse for ACBL is that a contestant with a 20% average is completely uninteresting anyway, but is that really an excuse?)

[bluejak]

As for the opponents, for them to play a board deciding to appeal it if necessary is completely unacceptable

 

You think that is unreasonable? I think a TD deciding to allow a board to be played when a player has seen and or held more than his/her fair share of cards is completely unacceptable. If you forced me to play it I would most certainly reserve the right to either appeal(2nd choice) or have you committed to the nearest asylum(1st choice). What's wrong with me saying to partner "The TD has gone off his head but we had better play the board for fear he fines us and get the men in white coats afterwards?"

What's wrong with discussing a board oyu are about to play? Simple, it's cheating.

[bluejak]

This is a little bit off topic but say you decide not to let them play the hand, and award avg+/avg-.  What if avg+ damages the opponents, or the field.  I come across instances where I know a pair would have tied for top, because of their skill level, but they get avg+ because of the opponents mistake.  Is it better to just issue a No Play and then a PP the offending side?

There will always be attempts to improve on the lawmakers' rules by making illegal rulings for some reason or other, often a reason which seems excellent to the person suggesting it. But it really is unacceptable to ignore the Laws just because you think you can do better than the lawmakers.

 

Note that this is different from a TD whose authority has told him to do something, for example the adjustment for Ave- in the ACBL, which is mentioned with surprise earlier in the thread, but a little investigation will discover it actually predates the 2007 Laws. Ok, if you are in the ACBL, we better refer to the 2008 Laws! :D

 

The lawmakers' rules are not based on protecting the field. There are no end of reasons why it is not a good idea anyway, but for a TD making a decision the simple approach is to just follow the rules and not worry about why.

 

When the Law says give Ave+/Ave- there seem to be no end of reasons given for giving No Play: best is to just think "Why should I give an illegal ruling?" and give Ave+/Ave-.