Defective Deck

[blackshoe]

Okay, fair enough. IIRC there were thirteen tables, and this occurred on round 12 of 13. So. 26 A+s on the recap sheet. And Flader was wrong. Heh. :)

[ggwhiz]

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.

 

Not sure but does Table #8, the last one to play with a correct deck not get Ave-/Ave- for fouling the deck?

 

There would HAVE to be a second fouled board in this case for any table to be at fault or it occurred at the outset.

 

At tournaments with player duplication of the boards, I have occassionally heard the Director announce penaties of 1/2 board or so for mis-duplication but it probably shouldn't apply to this?

[dburn]

The board was played.

Yes, but bridge wasn't played on it. Suppose that on board 17 at table four, the players decided to amuse themselves by playing a game of Hearts rather than bridge. Would you consider this board to have been "played" at their table?

 

Moreover, if scoring a board as "Not Played" results in the same score for the contestants as giving them an average (plus, minus or neither), what does it matter how the score is entered?

[blackshoe]

Moreover, if scoring a board as "Not Played" results in the same score for the contestants as giving them an average (plus, minus or neither), what does it matter how the score is entered?

The thing is that it doesn't give the same score. If I took a board on a typical club night and gave everyone "not played", the actual value of that board for each pair would range from something like 35% to about 65% of a top. Each would in fact get their average score on all the other boards they played. Law 12 will say that they should get either 60% or 50% or 40%, depending on their degree of fault for the problem. "Not played" doesn't consider fault at all.

[dburn]

Let me see if I have this right:

 

to score a board as "Not Played" across the field is to attempt to score the board as if it had been played - that is, everyone receives their session average for that board, or the score they would probably have received had they played it; while

 

to score a board by giving everyone "Average" is to attempt to score the board as if it had never existed; so that

 

if you want to act as though a board had been played, you score it as Not Played, while if you want to act as though a board had not been played, you score it as if everyone had in fact played it (and obtained the same score on it).

[blackshoe]

I just got out of bed, so I may not be awake yet, but I think you have it just backwards.

 

"Not played" has no effect on a pair's overall score — it does not change their net result — so it has the same effect as if the board was not played by that pair.

 

"Average" may raise or lower the pair's net result, depending on what their average is on the other boards they played. So it does not have the same effect as if the board was never played.

[dburn]

Sure. But if everyone gets "Not Played" on a board, that has the same effect as if everyone had played the board and done as well on it as they did on all the other boards combined. For example, the notional score on the board between pair A who finish with a 60% game and pair B who finish with a 40% game is 60% of a top to A, 40% of a top to B, which is (more or less) as it should be.

 

If on the other hand everyone gets Average on the board, that has the same effect as if everyone had played the board and the board was completely flat - the same score was achieved at all tables. This means that the notional score on the board between pairs A and B is 50% of a top to each pair, which is emphatically not as it should be. If instead everyone gets Average Plus on the board, that produces an even more absurd result in terms of the notional score between A and B; moreover, it simply adds a number of matchpoints to the economy for no good reason at all.

[blackshoe]

I am not sure what you mean by "as it should be". In what circumstances?

[bluejak]

The problem with taking this example is that, deciding to ignore the Law so as to avoid it feeling wrong in this case, means that next time a TD is likely to do the same thing when it is not played at no tables.

 

Now, pretty arguments about how we might as well put Not played in when the Law tells us not to are all very well in a case where it makes no effective difference, but the problem as so often with not following Laws is that people get in the habit of doing it and break the Laws when it matters.

 

Sure, if it is never played it is very easy to forget the Law. I might do so myself, to be honest, but that i because is know I shall not forget it when it matters. But teaching people here to not follow the Laws in one situation when it will produce a wrong result in other situations is a dangerous path, and seems unsuitable for this forum.

 

If you actually think the Law is wrong, that is a different matter, either suitable for Changing Laws & Regulations, or write to the WBFLC and tell them why they are wrong. But please do not try to teach people to do it wrong in a case where it does not matter without considering the ramifications.

[dburn]

Imagine the following:

 

On board 1, West and South both have the six of spades (and no one has the six of clubs).

 

At every table North opens seven hearts, passed out. East leads, South puts down the dummy, North spreads thirteen hearts face up and claims.

 

Not until the board reaches table 2 on round 13 does West say "hang on a minute - South has the six of spades and so do I."

 

How should this board be scored?

[mjj29]

Imagine the following:

 

On board 1, West and South both have the six of spades (and no one has the six of clubs).

 

At every table North opens seven hearts, passed out. East leads, South puts down the dummy, North spreads thirteen hearts face up and claims.

 

Not until the board reaches table 2 on round 13 does West say "hang on a minute - South has the six of spades and so do I."

 

How should this board be scored?

I don't think anyone's mentioned this yet, but is it legal for the TD to judge that it would have made no difference to the play of the board (say there are two 6♠ and no 5♠ and spades all trivially fall under honours, or get ruffed) and let the table result stand? (except possibly at the table it was noticed, if pointing out the irregularity affects play of the board, although in this case, perhaps even then)

[pran]

Imagine the following:

 

On board 1, West and South both have the six of spades (and no one has the six of clubs).

 

At every table North opens seven hearts, passed out. East leads, South puts down the dummy, North spreads thirteen hearts face up and claims.

 

Not until the board reaches table 2 on round 13 does West say "hang on a minute - South has the six of spades and so do I."

 

How should this board be scored?

I don't think anyone's mentioned this yet, but is it legal for the TD to judge that it would have made no difference to the play of the board (say there are two 6♠ and no 5♠ and spades all trivially fall under honours, or get ruffed) and let the table result stand? (except possibly at the table it was noticed, if pointing out the irregularity affects play of the board, although in this case, perhaps even then)

No.

 

The board does not conform with the specifications in Law 1 and the Director is not at liberty to rule that the difference does not matter no more than he is at liberty to rule that the difference does not matter in an application of Law 87A.

[mjj29]

No.

 

The board does not conform with the specifications in Law 1 and the Director is not at liberty to rule that the difference does not matter no more than he is at liberty to rule that the difference does not matter in an application of Law 87A.

Fair enough, that seems strange given the current trend to give directors more scope to apply their judgement, in particular L16C2 which often can result in the same artificial score but in which the director can use his discretion as to whether it matters.

[pran]

No.

 

The board does not conform with the specifications in Law 1 and the Director is not at liberty to rule that the difference does not matter no more than he is at liberty to rule that the difference does not matter in an application of Law 87A.

Fair enough, that seems strange given the current trend to give directors more scope to apply their judgement, in particular L16C2 which often can result in the same artificial score but in which the director can use his discretion as to whether it matters.

Law 16 is about UI, and UI is always a matter of judgment.

 

A physical difference between two hands that should be identical or a discrepancy in a pack from its specifications is absolute.

[bluejak]

No.

 

The board does not conform with the specifications in Law 1 and the Director is not at liberty to rule that the difference does not matter no more than he is at liberty to rule that the difference does not matter in an application of Law 87A.

Fair enough, that seems strange given the current trend to give directors more scope to apply their judgement, in particular L16C2 which often can result in the same artificial score but in which the director can use his discretion as to whether it matters.

TDs are given more scope to use their judgement in particular cases where the WBFLC has changed the Laws to give them more scope.

 

But they have not in cases where this has not happened. Law 1 remains. As I am fond of saying [over-fond, no doubt] it is fairly pointless to try to extrapolate from general opinions expressed by or inferred from the WBFLC to actual cases. In actual cases we follow the Laws [hopefully!].

[dburn]

A physical difference between two hands that should be identical or a discrepancy in a pack from its specifications is absolute.

No, it isn't. If it were, then Laws 13 and 14 would not exist - or if they did exist, they would make no provision for play to continue in any circumstances whatsoever.

[blackshoe]

Neither law 13 nor law 14 covers the case in hand, and you know it, David.

 

The point here is that a deck that does not conform to Law 1 cannot be used to play a legitimate hand of bridge.

 

The question "does or does not the deck conform to Law 1?" is, as David pointed out, one of law rather than judgment.

[dburn]

Neither law 13 nor law 14 covers the case in hand, and you know it, David.

 

The point here is that a deck that does not conform to Law 1 cannot be used to play a legitimate hand of bridge.

 

The question "does or does not the deck conform to Law 1?" is, as David pointed out, one of law rather than judgment.

Well, a deck with 51 cards does not conform to Law 1, and so "cannot be used to play a legitimate hand of bridge" - or can it?

 

Why, yes it can. If for example the players bid and play and score with a deck of 51 (through no fault of their own - the duplimate machine ate the six of spades during its lunch break), then not only is the hand they play with it and the result they obtain on it "legitimate", but the poor fellow who played with twelve cards throughout may be deemed to have revoked.

 

Of course, this is his fault for not counting his cards before he started to play them. But it is simply and incontrovertibly false to say, as you have said above, that "a deck that does not conform to Law 1 cannot be used to play a legitimate hand of bridge".

[blackshoe]

You're playing word games. To Hell with that.

[dburn]

You're playing word games. To Hell with that.

Well, bridge is a game and its Laws consist of words. Anyone who attempts to interpret those Laws is to that extent "playing word games"; his destination in the afterlife is a matter for the judgement of his Maker, to whom Laws 92 and 93 probably do not apply.

 

But I assure you that I am being entirely serious. mjj29 raised this perfectly sensible question:

 

I don't think anyone's mentioned this yet, but is it legal for the TD to judge that it would have made no difference to the play of the board (say there are two ♠6 and no ♠5 and spades all trivially fall under honours, or get ruffed) and let the table result stand?

and received short shrift from (among others) pran, who said:

 

The board does not conform with the specifications in Law 1 and the Director is not at liberty to rule that the difference does not matter

But this is a complete non sequitur, for the Law quoted below:

 

When the Director determines that one or more hands of the board contained an incorrect number of cards (but see Law 14) and a player with an incorrect hand has made a call, then when the Director deems that the deal can be corrected and played the deal may be so played with no change of call. At the end of play the Director may award an adjusted score.

expressly provides for the Director to use his judgement in at least one case of a deck that does not conform to Law 1, and rule that the difference does not matter.

 

Moreover, Law 14 expressly provides for the Director to rule that a result obtained in at least one case of a deck that does not conform to Law 1 should stand as a "legitimate" result on the board (indeed, he may not rule that it should not).

 

If "at least one", why not more than one?

[pran]

When the Director determines that one or more hands of the board contained an incorrect number of cards (but see Law 14) and a player with an incorrect hand has made a call, then when the Director deems that the deal can be corrected and played the deal may be so played with no change of call. At the end of play the Director may award an adjusted score.

expressly provides for the Director to use his judgement in at least one case of a deck that does not conform to Law 1, and rule that the difference does not matter.

 

Moreover, Law 14 expressly provides for the Director to rule that a result obtained in at least one case of a deck that does not conform to Law 1 should stand as a "legitimate" result on the board (indeed, he may not rule that it should not).

 

If "at least one", why not more than one?

Law 13A can only apply when an error is discovered early enough to be rectified before (in the Director's opinion) this error can impact the result on the board. And even when the Director has allowed play to be completed he may afterwards rule that the error did have impact on the result and award an adjusted score.

 

You should have read a little further and found that if play for instance has been completed without such rectification the Director has no choice but to cancel the result (Law13C): When it is determined after play ends that a player’s hand originally contained more than 13 cards with another player holding fewer (but see Law 13F), the result must be cancelled and an adjusted score awarded (Law 86D may apply). An offending contestant is liable to a procedural penalty.

 

(Law 13F: Any surplus card not part of the deal is removed if found. The auction and play continue unaffected. If such a card is found to have been played to a quitted trick an adjusted score may be awarded.)

 

Law 14 only applies when a card is missing from the pack and a player holding less than thirteen cards has failed to count his cards properly. This is a specific law stating that the offender shall be ruled against as if he had had his complete hand all the time, Law 14 leaves no judgment option for the Director.

 

Neither of laws 13 or 14 applies when all four hands originally contained 13 cards but the pack did not conform to the specifications in Law 1

[mjj29]

Neither of laws 13 or 14 applies when all four hands originally contained 13 cards but the pack did not conform to the specifications in Law 1

Sure, I don't think that's what dburn is suggesting, he was merely pointing out that there is some scope for letting the score stand in certain cases where the pack is defective and therefore it would not be an unreasonable change for that to apply in other cases. I suspect this is the point we move the thread to "Changing Laws and Regulations" (-:

[dburn]

Sven, I know how to read. I also know that this statement:

 

A physical difference between two hands that should be identical or a discrepancy in a pack from its specifications is absolute.

is false. If at one table in a match a deal is played with 52 cards, while at the other table the supposedly identical deal is played with 51 (or with 53), the deal is not necessarily cancelled because the deck at the second table did not conform to Law 1, which is therefore not necessarily "absolute".

 

You really must get out of the habit of saying "such and such a Law applies only in case X." This means no more than "I apply this Law only in case X, because I haven't actually thought about what it means, nor about how it might apply in case Y".

[pran]

Sven, I know how to read. I also know that this statement:

 

A physical difference between two hands that should be identical or a discrepancy in a pack from its specifications is absolute.

is false. If at one table in a match a deal is played with 52 cards, while at the other table the supposedly identical deal is played with 51 (or with 53), the deal is not necessarily cancelled because the deck at the second table did not conform to Law 1, which is therefore not necessarily "absolute".

 

You really must get out of the habit of saying "such and such a Law applies only in case X." This means no more than "I apply this Law only in case X, because I haven't actually thought about what it means, nor about how it might apply in case Y".

If a pack of cards contains more than 52 cards then Law 13 always applies. Most often this will be Law 13F (only).

 

If a pack of cards contains less than 52 cards then Law 13 always, and most often also law 14 apply.

 

In both cases there will have been a violation of Law 7B unless the error is discovered before a player with an incorrect number of cards has looked at his cards.

 

These laws enable the Director to let play continue on certain conditions after proper rectification.

 

I have never that I am aware of said anything else about such cases.

 

When a pack of cards does not comply with Law 1, except for the deviations specifically handled by Laws 13 and 14 then no result obtained with a deal from this pack may stand.

 

In any case a deviation in the properties of a pack from the specifications in Law 1 is absolute; either there is a deviation or there is not.

 

There is no such thing as "almost a deviation", no more than a woman can be "almost pregnant".