Defective Deck

[suprgrover]

From the (ACBL) Bridge Bulletin, August 2010:

 

Q: In a club duplicate game, we were playing the next-to-last round.  Against the opponents' 3NT, my partner led the ♠6.  I also held the ♠6.  At the end of play, I called attention to the deck holding two of the same cards, and we learned that there were 14 spades in the deck and only 12 diamonds.  We each had 13 cards.

 

What is the general ruling regarding this?  We have never had it happen before and I don't know whether the board was played with that holding throughout the entire game or whether it was a mishap from the previous table,  Should I have called attention to this immediately?

 

Can you provide a better answer than Mike Flader?

According to Law 1 (The Pack-Rank of Cards and Suits), duplicate bridge is played with a pack of 52 cards, consisting of 13 cards in each of four suits.  If that is indeed the case, then this was not bridge and none of these results can stand.  The board should be thrown out and adjusted scores given to the tables at which the board was played.  I would suggest the ACBLScore option of "Not Played" as the adjustment.  This gives the players their percentage score on this board of the other legal boards they did play.

[mrdct]

Mike Fladder's response looks pretty good to me.

 

It's a fouled board and isn't in a state where any real bridge result could be achieved so it just needs to be thrown out as he said. I would, however, add a few things:

 

1. It would be prudent to run all of the cards in that set through a dealing machine or get the club members to flush the boards at the end of session as it's more than likely that there is a board with 14♦ and 12♠ in the same set (probably an adjacent board).

 

2. Some detective will need to be done to work out which of the other results need to be thrown out. Probably best to get a few of the more competent players in the field to have a look at the hand record and confirm whether or not it coincides with what they held at the table.

 

3. Unless it's a very low standard game, it seems unusual that nobody else noticed the defective deck until it reached your table so I strongly suspect it was fouled at the table that had the board immediately before you. Accordingly, I'll start my enquiries with those players.

 

You most definately should have called the director the moment your partner lead the ♠6.

[gordontd]

Mike Fladder's response looks pretty good to me.

I wonder what his legal basis is for scoring it as "Not Played".

[iviehoff]

I wonder what his legal basis is for scoring it as "Not Played".

I thought that clear. He pointed to Law 1 which says "Duplicate bridge is played with a pack of 52 cards, consisting of 13 cards in each of four suits." That law was violated. So the game that the players played was not duplicate bridge, as it was not played with the correct pack. So, by that argument, the board was not played.

 

The alternative is to head for L13 and L14. The missing diamond is a missing card, and so we look to L14B on missing card identified after the opening lead. That says we restore the missing diamond to the hand that should have held it, and now, at the end of the hand, that hand might be held to have revoked. But once one has restored the missing D6 to the hand that should have held it, that hand now, in effect, started with more than 13 cards. So L13C tells us to cancel the board and award an adjusted score. Which I think gets us to the same position as more amusing Law 1 argument.

 

Since the opening lead was faced before the duplicate card was discovered, under L13 there was no hope of rescuing the board. So the dilatory player has only wasted time in failing to call the TD at that point.

[mrdct]

Mike Fladder's response looks pretty good to me.

I wonder what his legal basis is for scoring it as "Not Played".

The players may well have gone through the motions of bidding and pushing cards around the tables, but the card game they were playing was not bridge pursuant to the Laws, in relation to which you don't really need to go beyond Law 1:

 

LAW 1 - THE PACK - RANK OF CARDS AND SUITS

Duplicate Bridge is played with a pack of 52 cards, consisting of 13 cards in each of four suits. The suits rank downward in the order spades (♠), hearts (♥), diamonds (♦), clubs (♣). The Cards of each suit rank downward in the order Ace, King, Queen, Jack, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2.

The board wasn't played so "not played" seems the appropriate way to score it. I'm not an expert on ACBL Conditions of Contest for the scoring of club duplicates, but I assume the officially promulgated scoring program scores an unplayed board in accordance with such Conditions of Contest.

[gordontd]

I wonder what his legal basis is for scoring it as "Not Played".

I thought that clear. He pointed to Law 1 which says "Duplicate bridge is played with a pack of 52 cards, consisting of 13 cards in each of four suits." That law was violated. So the game that the players played was not duplicate bridge, as it was not played with the correct pack. So, by that argument, the board was not played.

Just because a board was not played, does not mean it should be scored as Not Played.

 

L12A2. The Director awards an artificial adjusted score if no rectification can

be made that will permit normal play of the board

[gordontd]

you don't really need to go beyond Law 1:

You have no need to go beyond a law that doesn't tell you how to score a board that can't be played? Surely you need to go to the law that does tell you how to score a board that can't be played?

[bluejak]

True. Not played is for a board that is not scheduled to be played: this one was scheduled to be played, so Averages are the legal way to score it.

[blackshoe]

If the board started as legal (with only one ♠6) and was fouled at some point, then you treat it as such, and an adjusted score at the table where it was discovered is appropriate. If the board started the session with two ♠6s, then you should throw it out entirely, so that it is not played at any table after it was discovered to be defective, and so that the results at previous tables are canceled (after all, it was "not bridge" at those tables either). In that case, I suppose "not played" is both legal and appropriate. The problem is that it may be very difficult to identify the latter case.

[pran]

If the board started as legal (with only one ♠6) and was fouled at some point, then you treat it as such, and an adjusted score at the table where it was discovered is appropriate. If the board started the session with two ♠6s, then you should throw it out entirely, so that it is not played at any table after it was discovered to be defective, and so that the results at previous tables are canceled (after all, it was "not bridge" at those tables either). In that case, I suppose "not played" is both legal and appropriate. The problem is that it may be very difficult to identify the latter case.

In that case what is wrong with A+/A+ at all tables rather than "Not played"?

 

I am not familiar with "Not played" at all, but from the Bridgemate documentation it seems that they intend it for allowing late play of a board and so entered (temporarily) on the Bridgemate in order not to hold up the entire tournament scoring.

[blackshoe]

In that case what is wrong with A+/A+ at all tables rather than "Not played"?

Well, what is the basis for it, particularly where the board has not yet been played? If you rule the board was not illegal (2 ♠6s) at those tables, you should let the result stand. If you're going to give A+/A+, you need to have a legal basis.

 

"Not played", in ACBLScore at least, gives you your average score on the boards you actually played, so has the same effect as if the board was never scheduled for you to play. If there is to be a late play, the ACBLScore option is "L", not "N" (for not played). "L" gives you the opportunity, towards the end of the session, to get a list of possible late plays, so that you can ensure that boards (and pairs) are available as quickly as possible after the last round is done. I suspect that some ACBL TDs don't bother with "L", instead entering "N" because (a) they don't intend to let the late play happen if they can possibly help it, and (:) they're going to give "not played" instead of an adjusted score, either because they don't know that's the wrong way to do it, or because they don't care.

 

As for Bridgemates, I have no idea.

[pran]

In that case what is wrong with A+/A+ at all tables rather than "Not played"?

Well, what is the basis for it, particularly where the board has not yet been played? If you rule the board was not illegal (2 ♠6s) at those tables, you should let the result stand. If you're going to give A+/A+, you need to have a legal basis.

 

"Not played", in ACBLScore at least, gives you your average score on the boards you actually played, so has the same effect as if the board was never scheduled for you to play. If there is to be a late play, the ACBLScore option is "L", not "N" (for not played). "L" gives you the opportunity, towards the end of the session, to get a list of possible late plays, so that you can ensure that boards (and pairs) are available as quickly as possible after the last round is done. I suspect that some ACBL TDs don't bother with "L", instead entering "N" because (a) they don't intend to let the late play happen if they can possibly help it, and (B) they're going to give "not played" instead of an adjusted score, either because they don't know that's the wrong way to do it, or because they don't care.

 

As for Bridgemates, I have no idea.

As David has pointed out there is a major difference between a board that was never scheduled to be played and a board that was scheduled, but on which for whatever reason no result could be (legally) obtained.

 

No result (score) shall ever be assigned on a board that was never scheduled.

 

A result (score) should always be assigned on the boards that are scheduled whether they are really played or had to be cancelled.

 

If a contestant (for whatever reason) is denied a result on a scheduled board then that contestant shall have at least A+ on that board if not at fault and a maximum of A- if at fault. A (probably equal to "Not played") is only correct if the contestant is partly at fault.

[blackshoe]

"Average" is most emphatically not equal to "not played", unless the pair in question have an average of exactly 50% on all the other boards they play.

 

Suppose the TD changes the movement, such that a board that was originally scheduled to be played is no longer so scheduled? Or are you saying the TD cannot do that?

[gordontd]

If you're going to give A+/A+, you need to have a legal basis.

L12C2a

[blackshoe]

12C2a tells the director how to compute the adjusted score, it is not in itself a basis for giving one.

[bluejak]

Law 12C2A tells a TD when to award an artificial score:

 

When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained ...

To give 'Not played' when a board is not played because of an irregularity is thus a breach of Law.

[blackshoe]

Okay, let me see if I can quantify the situation as I see it:

 

It has been discovered that a board does not contain a legal deck. We do not know if the board was played previously with this illegal deck or not. We do know that we can correct the deck for play at subsequent tables. Then there is the question what we do at this table. I agree that, at least at first glance, an artificial adjusted score is appropriate at this table. I would agree that subsequent tables, given a correct deck, can achieve normal results, so those should stand. Do we let the results at the previous tables stand? Do we compare the previous and subsequent results as a single group?

 

I suppose we investigate, and try to determine at what point that second ♠6 showed up, and from where. If we can't do that, do we assume it was there from the beginning of the session?

 

Let's make that assumption, for the sake of argument. If none of those tables played the board with a legal deck, all the results must be canceled. If we correct the board and let subsequent tables play it, then we have to award (artificial) adjusted scores at all the previous tables. If we throw the board out entirely (so that we in effect change the movement so the board is not scheduled), then we can put "not played" in the scoring software. I think this is what Flader meant we should do. Doing so avoids having an awful lot of average pluses on the recap sheet, something which seems to me was deprecated by several people here not too long ago. But I don't suppose there an explicit law telling us we can do that.

 

It seems to me the options are:

1. Throw the board out, score it as "not played" for everyone.

2. Correct it, let the later tables play it with a legal deck, and give everyone who already played it (including the table where it was discovered) A+/A+.

3. Correct it, let the later tables play it with a legal deck, and give the table where it was discovered A+/A+, and let the results at all previous tables stand.

 

1 seems most pragmatic, though possibly not legal. 2 seems esthetically displeasing, at least, with all those A+s. 3 bothers the hell out of me, because I really can't see how that kind of error can have occurred in the course of the movement. I think that second ♠6 must have been in there when the session started.

 

Did I miss anything?

[pran]

"Average" is most emphatically not equal to "not played", unless the pair in question have an average of exactly 50% on all the other boards they play.

 

Suppose the TD changes the movement, such that a board that was originally scheduled to be played is no longer so scheduled? Or are you saying the TD cannot do that?

1: True, A is always 50% or 0 IMP, "Not played" is effectively the contestants average over the entire event. (A+ is never less than the contestants average over the current session.)

 

2: If for whatever reason the Director changes the schedules so that a board becomes scheduled or becomes not scheduled then that will (of cocurse) take effect.

 

I can imagine two possible situations:

 

A sitout is filled up with an extra contestant arriving after the first round. Those contestants who have already had their sitout should have their "Not played" scores changed to A+.

 

A contestant is "eliminated" from the event (witdrawing, disqualified, deceased or whatever) under such circumstances that all results against that contestant are to be cancelled. The sitout boards caused by this should be scored as "Not played" (including the already obtained but cancelled results).

 

Note that if already obtained results against that contestant are kept then A+ and not "Not played" must be used on the affected boards during the remainder of the event. I had this situation in a swiss teams event a year or two ago.

 

(Whether the already obtained results shall be cancelled or kept is a matter of regulation and/or conditions of contest.)

[bluejak]

Okay, let me see if I can quantify the situation as I see it:

 

It has been discovered that a board does not contain a legal deck. We do not know if the board was played previously with this illegal deck or not. We do know that we can correct the deck for play at subsequent tables. Then there is the question what we do at this table. I agree that, at least at first glance, an artificial adjusted score is appropriate at this table. I would agree that subsequent tables, given a correct deck, can achieve normal results, so those should stand. Do we let the results at the previous tables stand? Do we compare the previous and subsequent results as a single group?

 

I suppose we investigate, and try to determine at what point that second ♠6 showed up, and from where. If we can't do that, do we assume it was there from the beginning of the session?

 

Let's make that assumption, for the sake of argument. If none of those tables played the board with a legal deck, all the results must be canceled. If we correct the board and let subsequent tables play it, then we have to award (artificial) adjusted scores at all the previous tables. If we throw the board out entirely (so that we in effect change the movement so the board is not scheduled), then we can put "not played" in the scoring software. I think this is what Flader meant we should do. Doing so avoids having an awful lot of average pluses on the recap sheet, something which seems to me was deprecated by several people here not too long ago. But I don't suppose there an explicit law telling us we can do that.

 

It seems to me the options are:

1. Throw the board out, score it as "not played" for everyone.

2. Correct it, let the later tables play it with a legal deck, and give everyone who already played it (including the table where it was discovered) A+/A+.

3. Correct it, let the later tables play it with a legal deck, and give the table where it was discovered A+/A+, and let the results at all previous tables stand.

 

1 seems most pragmatic, though possibly not legal. 2 seems esthetically displeasing, at least, with all those A+s. 3 bothers the hell out of me, because I really can't see how that kind of error can have occurred in the course of the movement. I think that second ♠6 must have been in there when the session started.

 

Did I miss anything?

So long as you make it clear that your advice is pragmatic but illegal, fine. But we are here to help people know the Law.

 

Where a hand has been played at - let us say - 8 tables out of 13, and the eighth table finds the pack does not conform to Law 1 after it has played it, the Law is clear.

• At the tables where it was played with a correct pack, the score stands.
  
• At the remaining 5 tables when it has been corrected, the score stands.
  
• At the tables where it was played with an incorrect pack, Ave+/Ave+ is given.
  

If, alternatively, it is found after 13 of 13 tables, the Law is clear.

• At the tables where it was played with a correct pack, the score stands.
  
• At the tables where it was played with an incorrect pack, Ave+/Ave+ is given.
  

Nothing else is legal. In the first case, you have to decide whether the corrected board is the same as the initial board so as to decide whether to score it as one group or two.

 

Now, deciding when it was played legally and when illegally may be anything from mildly difficult to completely impossible, but as you are fond of saying, Ed, that is why we get paid the big bucks. Quite frankly my own inclination is to assume the board was wrong throughout because it is very unlikely that a card would move this way.

 

As for the idea that we have in retrospect changed the movement because a board was wrong, all I can say is that we did not, so why on earth should d we assume that we did?

 

Finally, as far as too many Average Pluses are concerned, Ton Kooijman, Chairman of the WBFLC has said that we should limit the number of Average Pluses. The EBU L&EC has discussed the matter and decided that at a pairs with MP scoring, such advice is illegal, so we are not going to follow it.

 

B)

 

Question for the wordsmiths: I wanted to write Plusses but my spellchekka objected, insisting on Pluses. Is this right?

[blackshoe]

So long as you make it clear that your advice is pragmatic but illegal, fine.

Not my advice, Mike Flader's.

 

But we are here to help people know the Law.

And that is precisely what I'm trying to do.

 

Quite frankly my own inclination is to assume the board was wrong throughout because it is very unlikely that a card would move this way.

So is mine. I said so.

 

As for the idea that we have in retrospect changed the movement because a board was wrong, all I can say is that we did not, so why on earth should d we assume that we did?

It has nothing to do with assuming anything. It was not suggested that we did change the movement, it was suggested that we could. Does the TD not have that power?

 

Finally, as far as too many Average Pluses are concerned, Ton Kooijman, Chairman of the WBFLC has said that we should limit the number of Average Pluses. The EBU L&EC has discussed the matter and decided that at a pairs with MP scoring, such advice is illegal, so we are not going to follow it.

If it's illegal advice, then no one should follow it. I wonder though if Ton has been asked to comment on the EBU's position. Perhaps he feels it is not illegal. If so, then presumably he can explain why it's not.

 

The plural of "plus" is "pluses".

[iviehoff]

Question for the wordsmiths: I wanted to write Plusses but my spellchekka objected, insisting on Pluses. Is this right?

I can understand why you wanted to double it, as normally we double with monosyllables when an ending creates a separate syllable: dig, digging. And of course you would write nonplussed.

 

There aren't many monosyllables ending in a single s capable of being pluralised, but mostly they seem to have a single s in the plural, even if they double in other forms:

 

Eg, bus, buses, bussed, bussing

gas, gases, gassed, gassing, gassy

yes, yeses (as in "the yeses and the noes")

[bluejak]

As for the idea that we have in retrospect changed the movement because a board was wrong, all I can say is that we did not, so why on earth should d we assume that we did?

It has nothing to do with assuming anything. It was not suggested that we did change the movement, it was suggested that we could. Does the TD not have that power?

Of course he has the power. But since we did not change the movement, the fact that he has the power to change it is not relevant here. The board was played in such a way that no score could be obtained, thus Law 12C2 applies. the movement was not changed: people did play the board.

 

The power to change a movement applies, for example, where a TD players 27 boards in a 9 table Mitchell. During the evening he finds it is going so slowly he decides to curtail it by a board - or even by a round. He could do this by entering Not Played in the scoring software - and probably will have to if using BridgeMates, since you cannot restart the movement.

 

Finally, as far as too many Average Pluses are concerned, Ton Kooijman, Chairman of the WBFLC has said that we should limit the number of Average Pluses. The EBU L&EC has discussed the matter and decided that at a pairs with MP scoring, such advice is illegal, so we are not going to follow it.

If it's illegal advice, then no one should follow it. I wonder though if Ton has been asked to comment on the EBU's position. Perhaps he feels it is not illegal. If so, then presumably he can explain why it's not.

Much of Ton's advice gets challenged. The EBU's view is that Ton's advice when not in th WBFLC is nothing more than his own views, to be listened to, certainly, but not a matter of Law.

[bluejak]

Question for the wordsmiths: I wanted to write Plusses but my spellchekka objected, insisting on Pluses.  Is this right?

I can understand why you wanted to double it, as normally we double with monosyllables when an ending creates a separate syllable: dig, digging. And of course you would write nonplussed.

 

There aren't many monosyllables ending in a single s capable of being pluralised, but mostly they seem to have a single s in the plural, even if they double in other forms:

 

Eg, bus, buses, bussed, bussing

gas, gases, gassed, gassing, gassy

yes, yeses (as in "the yeses and the noes")

Interesting. Yes, I would have written buses and gases but I would have written yesses.

 

:rolleyes:

 

Yes, the spellchekka tried to change yesses.

[blackshoe]

Of course he has the power. But since we did not change the movement, the fact that he has the power to change it is not relevant here. The board was played in such a way that no score could be obtained, thus Law 12C2 applies. the movement was not changed: people did play the board.

You're missing the point. At the time when the problem was discovered, does or does not the TD have the power to rectify the problem by changing the movement — by, as Flader put it, "throwing out the board"? I gather you're saying no, he does not, in spite of your starting with "of course he has the power". Put it another way. I'm the director at the table. When I arrive to answer the original call, I discover there is an illegal deck. I investigate. I decide that the deck has been illegal since the beginning of the event. I rule that the board shall be "thrown out", that no result on that board shall stand, and that the remaining tables originally scheduled to play the board are no longer so scheduled. In order to facilitate the scoring, I will (or will direct the scorer to) enter "not played" in every place where that board appears in the scoring software. Legal or illegal?

 

Much of Ton's advice gets challenged.  The EBU's view is that Ton's advice when not in th WBFLC is nothing more than his own views, to be listened to, certainly, but not a matter of Law.

That's all fine, but it doesn't answer my question. Ton expressed a view, the EBU begs to differ, which of course they have a right to do. But my question was whether anyone bothered to ask Ton why he believes (if he believes) his suggestion is legal. Again, I gather your answer is "no".

[bluejak]

I do not believe a TD should say something has happened when it has not. While he has the power to change the movement, you are now asking him to say "What happened did not happen": no, I do not believe that telling lies - even ones that are known to be lies by everyone - should be part of a TD's job. The board was played.

 

The TD has the power to change the movement. It is an abuse of that power to change it retrospectively.