Six times unnoticed!

[McBruce]

BOARD #11 [space]N NORTH [space] [space]Jul [space]9 [space] [space] [space] [space]RESULTS OF BOARD 11
[space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]S K3 [space] [space] [space] Evening [space] [space] [space]
[space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]H K84 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]SCORES [space] [space] [space]MATCHPOINTS [space] 
N WEST [space] [space] D T8652 [space] [space]N EAST [space] [space] [space] [space] N-S [space] E-W [space] [space]N-S [space] [space]E-W
S JT964 [space] [space]C QJ5 [space] [space] [space]S AQ2 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]400 [space] [space]3.00 [space] 5.00 1 vs 8
H 6 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] H AQJ [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]400 [space] [space]3.00 [space] 5.00 2 vs 10
D 974 [space] [space] [space]D SOUTH [space] [space]D KQJ [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]150 [space] [space]6.00 [space] 2.00 3 vs 2
C K987 [space] [space] S 875 [space] [space] [space]C T643 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 420 [space] [space]0.50 [space] 7.50 4 vs 4
[space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]H T97532 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]200 [space] [space]5.00 [space] 3.00 6 vs 7
[space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]D A3 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]140 [space] [space]7.00 [space] 1.00 7 vs 9
[space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]C A2 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]420 [space] [space]0.50 [space] 7.50 8 vs 1
[space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]100 [space] [space]8.00 [space] 0.00 9 vs 3
[space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]400 [space] [space]3.00 [space] 5.00 10 vs 6
[space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] ----------------------------------------------------------------------

BOARD #12 [space]V NORTH [space] [space]Jul [space]9 [space] [space] [space] [space]RESULTS OF BOARD 12
[space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]S 976 [space] [space] [space]Evening [space] [space] [space]
[space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]H KQT [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]SCORES [space] [space] [space]MATCHPOINTS [space] NAMES
D WEST [space] [space] D AJ865 [space] [space]N EAST [space] [space] [space] [space] N-S [space] E-W [space] [space]N-S [space] [space]E-W
S 8542 [space] [space] C A6 [space] [space] [space] S QJ3 [space] [space] [space] [space] 2220 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]8.00 [space] 0.00 1 vs 8
H 8652 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]H J93 [space] [space] [space] [space] 1440 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]2.00 [space] 6.00 2 vs 10
D K4 [space] [space] [space] V SOUTH [space] [space]D T972 [space] [space] [space] [space]1470 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]6.00 [space] 2.00 3 [space]vs 2
C 532 [space] [space] [space]S AKT [space] [space] [space]C J87 [space] [space] [space] [space] 1440 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]2.00 [space] 6.00 4 vs 4
[space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]H A74 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]1470 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]6.00 [space] 2.00 6 vs 7
[space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]D Q3 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 1440 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]2.00 [space] 6.00 7 vs 9
[space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]C KQT94 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]1440 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]2.00 [space] 6.00 8 vs 1
[space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 1440 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]2.00 [space] 6.00 9 vs 3
[space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] 1470 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]6.00 [space] 2.00 10 vs 6

 

In round 2 of a nine round game, I was called to the table where Board 12 had just been played. Declarer North had played 6NT and received a low diamond lead from East, queen, king, ace. When the clubs broke North claimed thirteen tricks without a line of play, but with cards back in the slot the defenders recounted and came to only twelve. When East admitted to holding the QJx of spades, TD was called and North-South appealed that no competent declarer could come to only twelve after that start. Tensions rose and eventually North pulled out his hand and slapped it face up on the table...

 

...not realizing in his excitement that his hand was already on the table face up and he had removed the Board 11 North hand and slapped it on top. Of course, previous players had cooperated by shuffling green-backed cards into both decks. Luckily, it was easy to reconstruct the deal. Or so we thought.

 

Seven rounds later, in the final round, South declared 3♥ and midway through the hand, East led the six of clubs through declarer and around to dummy's holding of...QJ6! A quick peek by North into his Board 12 hand revealed the five of clubs and they unswapped it.

 

Side note, just to add to the coincidence: between the two incidents involving these boards, I entered the player-dealt deals into our computer using a program I wrote. The user removes the West, South and East hands one by one and enters the cards in them into the machine, so you can leave the traveler in the North slot. It then deals the remaining cards to the North hand. So (of course) I did not catch the swap. (Neither did six more rounds of players!)

 

So:

 

1) Does the first North get to make 1470 on Board 12, based on section 2 of Law 71? Or is there a normal line that doesn't lead to thirteen tricks while East gets squeezed in spades and diamonds?

 

2) Is there another possibility other than Board 11's 5♣ swapped with Board 12's 6♣ that I have not considered that has some degree of probability?

 

3) Is the swap at all likely to affect any results on the board, given that nobody noticed it? Most played 3NT by East on Board 11, and the extra six of clubs might not have appeared at all before a claim. On Board 12, the five of clubs is in declarer's hand at most tables and is led towards the dummy as declarer cashes dummy's suit. Defenders will be looking ahead to discards once declarer plays a second club and they know the suit is breaking.

 

4) Is there a Law that covers this situation?

 

5) Is it just the ACBL Lawbook that divides Law 71 into section 1 and 2 instead of A and B?

[pran]

1: Law 69A: Agreement is established when a contestant assents to an opponent’s claim or concession, and raises no objection to it before his side makes a call on a subsequent board or before the round ends, whichever occurs first. The board is scored as though the tricks claimed or conceded had been won or lost in play.

 

The claim statement (whis was missing) did not state the squeeze as an intended line of play so "normal" lines of play exist that will lead to either twelve or thirteen tricks.

 

Thus:

 

If East or West contested the claim before making a call on a subsequent board or before the round ended (whichever occurred first) then North shall be awarded twelve tricks, otherwisse the result is thirteen tricks.

 

2: Sure, almost anything is possible when cards are mixed like that.

 

3: In this case probably not.

 

4: Sure, several.

 

5: ?

[blackshoe]

The answer to #5 is "no".

[pran]

The answer to #5 is "no".

At first I read his question the other way round, but now I suspect he is referring to the 1997 laws where Law 71 indeed had A, B (and C)

 

That was changed in the 2007 laws to use (only) 1 and 2

[McBruce]

I'm still looking for the normal line of play that leads to twelve tricks. Declarer captures the K♦ with the ace at trick one, runs five club tricks pitching a spade and two diamonds from his hand, cashes the jack of diamonds and three hearts, ending in hand with two small spades and the 8♦. To keep a spade guard, East must pitch the nine and ten of diamonds and declarer's 8♦ is a winner. If East keeps a high diamond, the spades fall when played from the top.

[blackshoe]

The answer to #5 is "no".

At first I read his question the other way round, but now I suspect he is referring to the 1997 laws where Law 71 indeed had A, B (and C)

 

That was changed in the 2007 laws to use (only) 1 and 2.

Yes. Although every other law has A, B, and then 1, 2 etc. I suspect bad editing. :)

[mrdct]

I'm still looking for the normal line of play that leads to twelve tricks.  Declarer captures the K♦ with the ace at trick one, runs five club tricks pitching a spade and two diamonds from his hand, cashes the jack of diamonds and three hearts, ending in hand with two small spades and the 8♦.  To keep a spade guard, East must pitch the nine and ten of diamonds and declarer's 8♦ is a winner.  If East keeps a high diamond, the spades fall when played from the top.

Believe it or not, there do exist some players out there who aren't proficient with executing simple squeezes and, surprise surprise, in this field 5 out of the 9 tables only made 12 tricks so I guess there must exist a "normal line of play" to make only 12. Most likely I expect that players who aren't good with squeezes might have pitched ♦s on the run of the ♣ thereby blowing the threat in that suit and then just cashed out for 12 tricks.

[Bbradley62]

Believe it or not, there do exist some players out there who aren't proficient with executing simple squeezes and, surprise surprise, in this field 5 out of the 9 tables only made 12 tricks so I guess there must exist a "normal line of play" to make only 12.  Most likely I expect that players who aren't good with squeezes might have pitched ♦s on the run of the ♣ thereby blowing the threat in that suit and then just cashed out for 12 tricks.

It's entirely possible that those 5 declarers didn't have the convenient Trick 1 that our declarer had, so you can't simply look at the traveler for the answer. But a declarer who wasn't bothering to squeeze could simply cash all tricks on the dummy then cross to his hand, and play winners there, hoping that the opps don't keep the right card for Trick 13.

 

PS: I hope a procedural penalty was assessed to the offending North for having two hands exposed simultaneously.

[mink]

1) Does the first North get to make 1470 on Board 12, based on section 2 of Law 71? Or is there a normal line that doesn't lead to thirteen tricks while East gets squeezed in spades and diamonds?

The answer depends on the abilities of the declarer. I know many club players who easily win trick 11 in the hand so that the good ♦ in the dummy does not make a difference. However, above some level of expertise, this is not a normal play anymore.

 

Karl

[pran]

The answer to #5 is "no".

At first I read his question the other way round, but now I suspect he is referring to the 1997 laws where Law 71 indeed had A, B (and C)

 

That was changed in the 2007 laws to use (only) 1 and 2.

Yes. Although every other law has A, B, and then 1, 2 etc. I suspect bad editing. :(

I don't think so.

 

A, B, C and so on are used for sub-chapters and there seems little reason for sub-chapters in Law 71 after it was edited?

[blackshoe]

Sub-chapters? Where did that come from? There's nothing in the law about "sub-chapters".

[pran]

Sub-chapters? Where did that come from? There's nothing in the law about "sub-chapters".

What I call a sub-chapter (of a law) is a part (of this law) having its own heading.

[blackshoe]

Okay, fair enough. The way 71 is written struck me as odd, and still does. I suppose I was thinking in terms of outlining, and viewed it as skipping a level of the outline, but I can see your view now that you've hit me over the head with it. :(

[bluejak]

I am sure Law 71 is bad editing. The lawmakers were pleased that numbers and letters alternated in earlier law books and said so. I approved so incorporated it into the Orange book.

[pran]

I am sure Law 71 is bad editing.  The lawmakers were pleased that numbers and letters alternated in earlier law books and said so.  I approved so incorporated it into the Orange book.

I am not sure I would have appreciated the following editing of Law 71?

 

LAW 71 - CONCESSION CANCELLED

 

A concession must stand, once made, except that within the Correction Period established under Law 79C the Director shall cancel a concession:

 

A. A player conceded a trick his side had, in fact, won.

if a player conceded a trick his side had, in fact, won.

 

or

 

B. A player has conceded a trick that could not be lost.

if a player has conceded a trick that could not be lost by any normal* play of the remaining cards.

 

The board is rescored with such trick awarded to his side.

 

* For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, “normal” includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved.

[bluejak]

So why not just have it as it is with A and B instead of 1 and 2?

[pran]

So why not just have it as it is with A and B instead of 1 and 2?

Because (what I have noticed so far) the letters A, B, C and so on always initiate a sub-header that is not part of the laws proper?

 

Take a look at Law 35 - do you find that Law equally unsatisfactory? I find that law (although not changed in reality) much better now than in the 1997 version.

[bluejak]

The Law is fine: but they should use letters.

 

Referring to Law 351 is silly: why not 35A?

[pran]

The Law is fine: but they should use letters.

 

Referring to Law 351 is silly: why not 35A?

Do I need to repeat?

 

Because just replacing the law text index "1" with the sub-header index A would leave the sub-header which is not part of the law proper without any law text.

 

I am quite confident that you (just as well as I do) know the basic principle on how WBFLC have structured (well, at least tried to structure) the laws? I just don't understand your apparent animosity against anything that is not EBU?

[bluejak]

My animosity has nothing to do with the EBU. Why do you suggest it has when you know it has not?

 

The WBFLC introduced a principle, announced it proudly, and I think they should follow it. That is not animosity: that is respect for an excellent principle which works well. Just because you do not understand it nor believe they meant what they said has nothing to do with the EBU.

 

It is sad that having made this excellent principle, they are now not following it.

[McBruce]

The ACBL Lawbook has Law 35 divided into subsections A, B, C and D. The two subdivisions of Law 71 are in fact part of a single sentence which could be reasonably set up without any subdivisions at all.