Surplus Ace

[lamford]

The hand does not matter much, but at the North London Club last night a player had 14 cards including the ace of spades from the previous deal. Yes, he had a senior moment, but there we are.

 

The TD was called and established that the player had noticed on the second round of the auction that he had 14 cards, and the other players all counted theirs again and stated that they had 13. One player pointed out that the back of one card was red instead of blue, and the TD was called.

 

The player was told that the card should be replaced in the correct board, and that we should call the TD back if we felt we were damaged (Laws 13A, 13F). The player would still have opened 1S without the ace of spades so we collectively "deemed normal play" and accepted the score, as there were no SBs at the table. Was this right?

[VixTD]

It looks to me as if the intention is for law 13A to apply when cards have been transferred from one hand to another within a deal, law 13F for when extra cards have encroached on a deal, and law 14 when cards have gone missing from a deal, although the wording (as is often the case) could be clearer. In your case law 13F applies, the auction continues (the TD does not have to decide whether there would have been a change of call) and there's no cause to adjust the score.

[blackshoe]

I think 13A also applies in 13F cases, but that's because this law is not properly factored, to use a computer programming term. B-)

[pran]

I think 13A also applies in 13F cases, but that's because this law is not properly factored, to use a computer programming term. B-)

Allow me to disagree.

 

Law 13F is very Clear, the surplus card is just removed without any effect on the auction or play.

If TD finds cause for adjusting the result because of this surplus card he may (and should) use Law 12A1.

[Vampyr]

Allow me to disagree.

 

Law 13F is very Clear, the surplus card is just removed without any effect on the auction or play.

If TD finds cause for adjusting the result because of this surplus card he may (and should) use Law 12A1.

 

This seems unlikely to me, as it is specifically noted that an adjusted score may be given if the surplus card is found in a quitted trick. I think this might be a rare case in which the lawmakers were clear in their intention.

[pran]

Allow me to disagree.

 

Law 13F is very Clear, the surplus card is just removed without any effect on the auction or play.

If TD finds cause for adjusting the result because of this surplus card he may (and should) use Law 12A1.

This seems unlikely to me, as it is specifically noted that an adjusted score may be given if the surplus card is found in a quitted trick. I think this might be a rare case in which the lawmakers were clear in their intention.

True, but Law 13F does not say that the score may only be adjusted if the surplus card is found in a quitted trick.

The Director may award an assigned adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to the non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation of law committed by an opponent.

Q1: Is the existence of the surplus card the result of a violation of Law?

- Sure, the player violated Law 7B1.

Q2: Is it possible for a non-offending contestant to be damaged from a surplus card even if it is discovered before being played?

- Sure, such possibility cannot be discarded, but it is subject to the Director's judgement.

Q3: Do these Laws provide indemnity to such damage if it is established?

- Definitely not, Law 13F is silent on this issue.

 

Q4: Are the conditions in Law 12A1 satisfied so that the Director may award an assigned adjusted score in this situation?

- I fail to see why not.

[lamford]

Q4: Are the conditions in Law 12A1 satisfied so that the Director may award an assigned adjusted score in this situation?

- I fail to see why not.

This is the critical test. Law 12A1 states:

1. The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation committed by an opponent.

 

So, say that the person would not have opened 1S but for the rogue ace of spades and now reaches a making game whereas it was normally passed out. However Law 13F is quite clear: Any surplus card not part of the deal is removed if found. The auction and play continue unaffected <snip>

 

I think where a prescribed handling of an irregularity is stated, that is just followed. Indeed the TD should follow 12B2:

The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side.

 

The rectification was to remove the ace of spades. That may not have compensated the non-offenders, but hard luck mate.

[blackshoe]

True, but Law 13F does not say that the score may only be adjusted if the surplus card is found in a quitted trick.

The new Law 13C will say exactly that - unless they change from what they put out for review a couple months ago.

[Vampyr]

The new Law 13C will say exactly that - unless they change from what they put out for review a couple months ago.

 

It Is ridiculous not to change it.

[weejonnie]

No One has mentioned 7B2 or 90B7

 

And 13C is clear (or will be in September)

 

C. Surplus Card

Any surplus card not part of the deal is removed if found. The auction and play continue without further rectification. No adjusted score may be awarded unless such a card is found to have been played to a quitted trick.

 

I assume this overrides 13B as it is more specific.

[Vampyr]

No One has mentioned 7B2 or 90B7

 

And 13C is clear (or will be in September)

 

C. Surplus Card

Any surplus card not part of the deal is removed if found. The auction and play continue without further rectification. No adjusted score may be awarded unless such a card is found to have been played to a quitted trick.

 

I assume this overrides 13B as it is more specific.

 

Definitely clear but very unfair.

[weejonnie]

Definitely clear but very unfair.

Why unfair? The only time that this will happen is if a player fails to count the number of cards they receive at the start of each hand correctly - so it's their own fault.

[VixTD]

Definitely clear but very unfair.

Why clear? Law 13A applies to this situation, and prescribes one particular rectification. Law13F also applies to this situation, and prescribes a different rectification. The TD has to make a decision as to which law to follow and which to disregard. If the intention was that one of these laws only should be applied, that could and should have been made clear.

[gordontd]

Definitely clear but very unfair.

Would you rather have an equity-based law here? :)

[barmar]

The new Law 13C will say exactly that - unless they change from what they put out for review a couple months ago.

The only changes to Law 13 between the early draft and the final draft is some minor wording tweaks, nothing substantive.

 

But the new Law 13 is very significantly rewritten from the 2007 Laws. Sections A, B, and E are gone, but the intent of A and B has been moved into other sections of the Law (but I don't see any remnant of E).

[lamford]

True, but Law 13F does not say that the score may only be adjusted if the surplus card is found in a quitted trick.

The new Law 13C will say exactly that - unless they change from what they put out for review a couple months ago.

And I agree with the new wording. A player cannot "gain" by bidding with an extra card from the previous deal, whether accidentally or deliberately. If he reaches a contract that would not have been reached, then that is his good luck; most of the time he will overbid with extra strength or length. My Welsh bridge partner would benefit most of the time if he removed an ace from his hand before calling.

[pran]

And I agree with the new wording. A player cannot benefit by bidding with an extra card from the previous deal, whether accidentally or deliberately. If he reaches a contract that would not have been reached, then that is his good luck; most of the time he will overbid with extra strength or length. My Welsh bridge partner would benefit most of the time if he removed an ace from his hand before calling.

It is not good luck if a surplus card has affected the auction in some way that benefits the offending side. This will be utterly unfair to the non-offending side unless an adjusted score is awarded.

 

An assertion that a surplus card will never benefit the offending side unless it has been played to a trick is irrelevant. What is important is that such damage to the non-offending side can be possible however less probable.

[axman]

Why clear? Law 13A applies to this situation, and prescribes one particular rectification. Law13F also applies to this situation, and prescribes a different rectification. The TD has to make a decision as to which law to follow and which to disregard. If the intention was that one of these laws only should be applied, that could and should have been made clear.

L13A and L13F say different things but are not in tension in this case. The TD should recognize that L13F prescribes that removing the errant card and proceeding from that point is the situation:

 

", then when the Director deems that the deal can be corrected and played the deal may be so played with no change of call."

 

It is notable that L21A is supportive of L13F.

[blackshoe]

An assertion that a surplus card will never benefit the offending side unless it has been played to a trick is irrelevant.

What is relevant is that if the surplus card is found before a trick to which it is played is quitted, the card shall be removed and "the auction and play continue unaffected". That is the rectification the laws provide for this irregularity. The director might now look at Law 12A1's "The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation committed by an opponent." But what is the "particular type of violation" here? Failure to count his cards? Having counted his cards, failure to get the correct answer? In what way do the laws not provide indemnity here?

 

OTOH, one might look at Law 12B2: "The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side." Does this mean that after the rectification in Law 13 the director cannot say "well, the OS gained an advantage from (or there was damage due to) the presence of the surplus card, so I'm adjusting the score"? How do we reconcile a conflict between Law 12A1 and Law 12B2? Is there a conflict between these two laws?

[pran]

What is relevant is that if the surplus card is found before a trick to which it is played is quitted, the card shall be removed and "the auction and play continue unaffected". That is the rectification the laws provide for this irregularity. The director might now look at Law 12A1's "The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation committed by an opponent." But what is the "particular type of violation" here? Failure to count his cards? Having counted his cards, failure to get the correct answer? In what way do the laws not provide indemnity here?

 

OTOH, one might look at Law 12B2: "The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side." Does this mean that after the rectification in Law 13 the director cannot say "well, the OS gained an advantage from (or there was damage due to) the presence of the surplus card, so I'm adjusting the score"? How do we reconcile a conflict between Law 12A1 and Law 12B2? Is there a conflict between these two laws?

1: I am simply concerned with the possibility (however unlikely) that the surplus card has affected the auction in a way damaging the non-offending side. The particular type of violation is then of course a violation of:

Each player counts his cards face down to be sure he has exactly thirteen.

2: I have already said that I consider Law 12A1 available for the Director to compensate for such damage.

 

3: I have never been happy with Law 12B2, and back in 1980 I asked the Norwegian Law Committee if this correctly expressed the intention. In my opinion the Law should read:

 

The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is unduly severe to the offending side or unduly advantageous to the non-offending side.

 

But I was told that Law 12B2 was indeed intended as written.

[VixTD]

L13A and L13F say different things but are not in tension in this case. The TD should recognize that L13F prescribes that removing the errant card and proceeding from that point is the situation:

 

", then when the Director deems that the deal can be corrected and played the deal may be so played with no change of call."

 

It is notable that L21A is supportive of L13F.

That's not what law 13F says. It says that the surplus card is removed and the auction and play continue unaffected. That's not compatible with the director deeming that the deal can be corrected and played, or the director awarding an adjusted score, which is what law 13A says.

[pran]

Law 12B2: "The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side."

I have never been happy with Law 12B2, and back in 1980 I asked the Norwegian Law Committee if this correctly expressed the intention. In my opinion the Law should read:

 

The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is unduly severe to the offending side or unduly advantageous to the non-offending side.

 

But I was told that Law 12B2 was indeed intended as written.

Can someone enlighten me?

 

I just by chance discovered that my preferred text above is almost word for word identical to the text in §15 of the international Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1949.

 

When and why was this changed to the current Law?

[blackshoe]

When and why was this changed to the current Law?

I have no idea. :ph34r:

[Vampyr]

I have no idea. :ph34r:

 

If you don't know perhaps you are not the right person to answer the question.

 

Anyway, I am not happy with the fact that in the case of a surplus card, the NOS can be damaged by the infraction.

[gordontd]

If you don't know perhaps you are not the right person to answer the question.

 

Anyway, I am not happy with the fact that in the case of a surplus card, the NOS can be damaged by the infraction.

There are several ways in which a NOS can be damaged by an infraction. I've seen a pair be damaged by the compulsory play of a penalty card. I've also seen someone be damaged by the choice he made following an opening lead out of turn. These are reasons why the tendency is towards equity based rectifications rather than mechanical penalties. But I didn't think you like that tendency?