Defender "stole" a card from dummy without any1 noticing

[benlessard]

declarer trumps are 3 on dummy and 5 in his hand.

 

he pull 3 round of trumps with both players following on the 2 first round. Later LHO managed to ruff ?! and declarer is surprised.

 

later he claim and say that there is a revoke somewhere but LHO clearly show that he had followed suit 3 times on the pull of the trumps. Declarer probably think he has miscounted the trumps and start bidding on the next board. But hes so sure that he has pulled the 3 round of trumps and that RHO had 2 and dummy 3 & everybody agree with that !! So than it become pretty clear that the only possibility is that LHO played one of dummy trumps by accident or there is an extra card in the deck, nobody is sure that LHO took a card from dummy but there is 14 and 12 cards in the pockets and only 13 trumps.

 

What is your ruling ?

[Sjoerds]

What might have happened?

 

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 is cancelled.

 

13 F. Surplus Card

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.

 

Find that surplus card and deal with it.

 

13 C. Play Completed

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.

 

Find the offender and deal with him/her.

[barmar]

There's no evidence that either 1 or 13F has been violated. It should be easy to determine, just check all the hands and see if there are two of any card.

 

13C may have been violated, but if everyone counted their cards at the beginning of the hand then it's probably not. The claim in the OP is not that LHO started with 14 cards, but acquired the 14th card some time during the hand by picking up a trump from dummy. This is a violation of 7B3:

During play each player retains possession of his own cards, not permitting them to be mixed with those of any other player. No player shall touch any cards other than his own (but declarer may play dummy’s cards in accordance with Law 45) during or after play except by permission of the Director.

There's no prescribed rectification for violation of this, though. A PP penalty would be appropriate, but it's unclear how the infraction from the card play that resulted should be handled.

[blackshoe]

Is there a hand record? That would make it very clear if a defender ended up with one of dummy's cards.

 

However clear the evidence, if the TD determines that the defender did indeed end up with a trump from dummy's hand, he has received credit for a trick he could not have won with his own cards. The TD should use Law 12A1 to adjust the score. If he cannot reconstruct the play well enough to determine an assigned adjusted score, he should use 12C1{d} to award an artificial adjusted score. And don't forget the PP for violation of 7B3.

 

Hm, interesting. In the ACBL, the "standard" PP is 25% of a top. So you give that. If the NOS were having a better than 75% game (let's say 76%, just for grins) the OS get the complement of that (24%), so they're sort of "net negative %" for this board. Good. Maybe that'll teach 'em to keep their paws off other peoples' cards. :P

 

NB: Before somebody starts complaining that "less than 0% of the matchpoints is impossible" let me point out that a PP is not part of the score for a board, it's an independent adjustment to the overall score in matchpoints or IMPs for the whole session or match. That's why I said "sort of" above. ;)

Edited November 1, 2012 by blackshoe
if the NOS get 76%, it's the OS, not the NOS, who get 24%

[Vampyr]

Hm, interesting. In the ACBL, the "standard" PP is 25% of a top. So you give that. If the NOS were having a better than 75% game (let's say 76%, just for grins) the NOS get the complement of that (24%), so they're sort of "net negative %" for this board. Good. Maybe that'll teach 'em to keep their paws off other peoples' cards. :P

 

I don't understand. How does the PP affect the NOS score?

[blackshoe]

I don't understand. How does the PP affect the NOS score?

It doesn't. I mistyped. :( I'll go fix it.

[benlessard]

I did get some other info from the case.

 

The cards were 13-13 at the start & 14-12 at the end. All players think that faulty defender took a card from dummy by accident is the most likely explanation. IMO its probably possible that dummy played a card in front of the WEST player and he tought he had already played... and took the card when trick was over.

[Vampyr]

It doesn't. I mistyped. :( I'll go fix it.

 

I see. So in the ACBL an average minus is the complement of the opponents score (or 40%, I assume)? Somehow that seems strange. But it makes some sense because if you were booked to get 35% against the pair, 40% is a bonus.

[jeffford76]

I see. So in the ACBL an average minus is the complement of the opponents score (or 40%, I assume)? Somehow that seems strange. But it makes some sense because if you were booked to get 35% against the pair, 40% is a bonus.

 

I'm pretty sure this is the idea, although I can't imagine it would often happen in practice that someone would intentionally get an average minus to "help" their score.

[blackshoe]

Footnote to Law 12C2{c}, ACBL edition of the Laws: In ACBL sanctioned events, when there is a non-offending and an offending contestant, the non-offending contestant receives the score specified by 12C2{c} 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%.

 

The OS cannot get more than 40%. They can get less, but how much less depends on how well the NOS is doing overall, where in the rest of the world, it depends on how poorly the OS is doing overall.

[axman]

The OS cannot get more than 40%. They can get less, but how much less depends on how well the NOS is doing overall, where in the rest of the world, it depends on how poorly the OS is doing overall.

 

It seems a bit out of place to be talking about adjusted scores when there is as of yet no valid ruling upon which to base one.

[blackshoe]

It seems a bit out of place to be talking about adjusted scores when there is as of yet no valid ruling upon which to base one.

Welcome to the Internet. :P

[mycroft]

The argument made is that if random and I sit against Meckwell in a row of randoms, we may just decide that 40% is above our average expectation against this pair, so let's just take the money and go. We might score 50% against the rest of the field, and score better than our peers also scoring 50% against everybody, but the expected 25% against R-M. We might expect to get 60% against the field, even, but still 25% against R-M, and that might be the difference between section top and second place. The ruling that A- is the lower of 40% or "100%-opponents score" is to make that gambit unpalatable, so we don't have to play the "Probst Cheat" game on that one.

 

And there are sharks at every level - I certainly know games where the potential high finishers of the event would happily take 40% against me and my partner rather than play; and I certainly know games where there's that one pair that, if I cared solely about winning, I'd take 40% than play (there's also games where, because I don't solely care about winning, I'd rather take 40% than play that one pair...but that's a totally different story).

[iviehoff]

I think this is another case where we can use Law 23 to adjust.

 

One curiosity of this hand is that, afterwards, we find 14 cards in the defender's hand, yet apparently he managed to play through the hand without finding himself with a spare card. If he has appropriated one of dummy's cards and played it, as looks very likely, then he also has managed to disembarrass himself of a spare card if the hand was played to the end. But perhaps the last few tricks were conceded or played quickly enough for it not to come to notice.

 

This is another incident where it would be nice if that non-existent law about putting played cards back where they ought to be, actually existed. Because then we could rule that the trick where the defender played (what we conclude must be) the misappropriated card was a defective trick, because the card he played must be put back where it belongs, ie, in dummy's played cards, so now it is the second trick that is defective. The defective trick would then be deemed to be a revoke trick. But as the law stands, there was no apparently no revoke, rather the defender (as the evidence strongly points) committed the different offence of misappropriating a card and then legally playing it.

 

Since the offence of misappropriating a trump in mid hand is one that always could well damage the opposition, we can always use Law 23 to adjust for it. So I think that is the law under which we should adjust the score.

 

Touching or handling the cards of another player is an offence for which a procedural penalty is justified (L90B5). Given the mess that can arise, I think it is justified on the present occasion. Provided everyone agrees that dummy put down 13 cards originally, the evidence strongly points to the player having committed it.

[jhenrikj]

Why don't we just use law 67? Since the player took a card from dummy and put among his played cards he has not played a card to that trick....

[iviehoff]

Why don't we just use law 67? Since the player took a card from dummy and put among his played cards he has not played a card to that trick....

The player has in fact played a card to the trick. Whilst you are correct that the player took a card from dummy and put it among his played cards, it is intermediate steps between those two actions that makes it a card played to that trick. If you look at the laws on what makes a card a played card, you will see that he did everything to make it a played card: in brief paraphrase he took it from his hand and faced it in the played position.

 

If we had a law that said a played card is not actually a played card if it should not have been in a player's hand in the first place, or if we had a law that said a misplaced played card should be put back into the correct position among the played cards for the trick it was first played to, then we would be secure in applying Law 67. But we don't have any such laws.

[pran]

The player has in fact played a card to the trick. Whilst you are correct that the player took a card from dummy and put it among his played cards, it is intermediate steps between those two actions that makes it a card played to that trick. If you look at the laws on what makes a card a played card, you will see that he did everything to make it a played card: in brief paraphrase he took it from his hand and faced it in the played position.

 

If we had a law that said a played card is not actually a played card if it should not have been in a player's hand in the first place, or if we had a law that said a misplaced played card should be put back into the correct position among the played cards for the trick it was first played to, then we would be secure in applying Law 67. But we don't have any such laws.

[...]when the Director determines that there had been a defective trick (from the fact that one player has too few or too many cards in his hand, and a correspondingly incorrect number of played cards)[...]

 

May I remind you that according to this law a trick can be "defective" even it is established beyond doubt that it was correct when originally played and must have been "destroyed" at a later time.

[sailoranch]

Under Definitions:

 

Play: 1) The contribution of a card from a player’s hand to a trick, including the first card, which is the lead.

[iviehoff]

May I remind you that according to this law a trick can be "defective" even it is established beyond doubt that it was correct when originally played and must have been "destroyed" at a later time.

I believe what I said was entirely was not inconsistent with that view of matters, at least in relation to the trick where defender played the misappropriated card. I believe I also recently argued in another thread that it is more than just you who do argue for this interpretation, despite the absurd conclusions it sometimes leads one to.

 

If you do take that view of matters, and if the played cards had been more carefully examined at the end of the hand, dicovering a card missing from a trick where dummy originally played a trump, then it is that trick with the missing card which is defective. And since dummy's card is the one that is missing from the played cards for that trick, rectification under Law 67 would including deeming dummy to have revoked on that trick. I do hope that no one would argue for such a ridiculous ruling in this case.

 

I also hope that the laws are fixed so that one would not even contemplate such a ruling if the reason that a trick is defective when the played cards are examined is because the played card has been removed or lost from it.

[pran]

Under Definitions:

Nobody argues that the play was done in time, but that is irrelevant.

 

What matters is the state of the art at the time of investigation. If the investigation reveals that a player (at that time) has an incorrect number of cards in his hand and a correspondingly incorrect number of quitted cards then this is a fact that according to Law 67B means there is a defective trick somewhere.

[pran]

I believe what I said was entirely was not inconsistent with that view of matters, at least in relation to the trick where defender played the misappropriated card. I believe I also recently argued in another thread that it is more than just you who do argue for this interpretation, despite the absurd conclusions it sometimes leads one to.

 

If you do take that view of matters, and if the played cards had been more carefully examined at the end of the hand, dicovering a card missing from a trick where dummy originally played a trump, then it is that trick with the missing card which is defective. And since dummy's card is the one that is missing from the played cards for that trick, rectification under Law 67 would including deeming dummy to have revoked on that trick. I do hope that no one would argue for such a ridiculous ruling in this case.

 

I also hope that the laws are fixed so that one would not even contemplate such a ruling if the reason that a trick is defective when the played cards are examined is because the played card has been removed or lost from it.

 

You apparently overlook two equally important facts:

 

1: There is no rectification because of a revoke committed with dummy's hand (except rectification necessary to restore equity for NOS)

 

2: When a defender has "stolen" a card from Dummy then no player can have an incorrect number of cards in his hand and a correspondingly incorrect number of cards among his played cards. Dummy will now have a total of 12 cards while the defender will have a total of 14.

 

There is still a deficient trick here as a card is missing from dummy's quitted cards, but this deficiendy is caused by the defender somehow violating Law 7B2: [...]No player shall touch any cards other than his own[...].

 

The laws have no specific rectification or penalty for this irregularity so the natural actiopn by TD will be to apply Law 12A1.

[iviehoff]

You apparently overlook two equally important facts:

1: There is no rectification because of a revoke committed with dummy's hand (except rectification necessary to restore equity for NOS)

2: When a defender has "stolen" a card from Dummy then no player can have an incorrect number of cards in his hand and a correspondingly incorrect number of cards among his played cards. Dummy will now have a total of 12 cards while the defender will have a total of 14.

 

There is still a deficient trick here as a card is missing from dummy's quitted cards, but this deficiendy is caused by the defender somehow violating Law 7B2: [...]No player shall touch any cards other than his own[...].

You are correct, I had overlooked that the definition you mention at point 2 does not describe the situation applying to the card missing from dummy's trick in this case.

 

So the conclusion I had already come to, that Law 67 does not apply, is even more certain on this occasion. Good.

 

I hadn't overlooked point 1, I just didn't want to go there at all. Unfortunately this particular bit of the law is full of holes too. Law 67 tells us to transfer a trick for a deemed revoke, seemingly without the exception for dummy provided for in the case of an actual revoke. Many credible people argue that the exception for dummy nevertheless applies, but the law is just inconsistent here. This is not the only problem with that bit of wording.

[blackshoe]

Nobody argues that the play was done in time, but that is irrelevant.

 

What matters is the state of the art at the time of investigation. If the investigation reveals that a player (at that time) has an incorrect number of cards in his hand and a correspondingly incorrect number of quitted cards then this is a fact that according to Law 67B means there is a defective trick somewhere.

"Incorrect number of cards in his hand and a correspondingly incorrect number of quitted cards" implies that the sum of the two numbers is 13. In this case, the sum of the two numbers is either 12 or 14.

[benlessard]

One curiosity of this hand is that, afterwards, we find 14 cards in the defender's hand, yet apparently he managed to play through the hand without finding himself with a spare card.

There was a claim so nobody noticed there was a missing card on dummy.

 

Indeed I dont see anything in law 67 to correct the situation. However I would still apply law 67 because I strongly believe in the spirit of the law vs letter of the law.

[jhenrikj]

IMO its probably possible that dummy played a card in front of the WEST player and he tought he had already played... and took the card when trick was over.

 

 

The player has in fact played a card to the trick. Whilst you are correct that the player took a card from dummy and put it among his played cards, it is intermediate steps between those two actions that makes it a card played to that trick. If you look at the laws on what makes a card a played card, you will see that he did everything to make it a played card: in brief paraphrase he took it from his hand and faced it in the played position.

 

If we had a law that said a played card is not actually a played card if it should not have been in a player's hand in the first place, or if we had a law that said a misplaced played card should be put back into the correct position among the played cards for the trick it was first played to, then we would be secure in applying Law 67. But we don't have any such laws.

 

If the scenario benlessard described above, west has not played a card from his hand...

 

If west had taken the card from the dummy and put it in his hand and then played it, yes then you are right, but if it was as benlessard thought, then law 67 for sure must apply.

 

EDIT: By definition a "Hand" is the cards originally dealt to a player, or the remaining portion thereof. If a player picks up a surplus card during the play not originally in his hand, that card does not belong to his hand. If it does not belong to his hand, then it's not a played card since law 45A says that you have to detach card from your hand, and you have not done that if you detach a card not belong to your hand. So, still west has not played a card to that trick and then law 67 does apply...

Edited November 7, 2012 by jhenrikj