[bluejak]

Quick 'n' easy.

At trick twelve everyone realises dummy has one cards left, everyone else has two. The TD searches bit fails to find the card. Suddenly a defender says "Oh, I have three cards left!".

It is agreed:

She discarded the ♥7 earlier. It should have bee in dummy's hand. Dummy has not revoked. The play was fantastically simple: declarer took ten tricks then lost three in 4♠ and the play could not possibly have been affected.

How do you rule?

[Sven Pran]

bluejak, on Aug 23 2009, 03:43 AM, said:

Quick 'n' easy. 

At trick twelve everyone realises dummy has one cards left, everyone else has two.  The TD searches bit fails to find the card.  Suddenly a defender says "Oh, I have three cards left!". 

It is agreed:

She discarded the ♥7 earlier.  It should have bee in dummy's hand.  Dummy has not revoked.  The play was fantastically simple: declarer took ten tricks then lost three in 4♠ and the play could not possibly have been affected.

How do you rule?

Table result (4♠ =) stands. A procedure penalty, anything from a warning to some points, given to each of the two affected players for not complying with Law 7B2.

regards Sven

[jnichols]

Law 13A allows the hand to be played when the director deems that it can be corrected and played.

However, when it is corrected the 7♥ moves to the dummy and leaves us with a defective trick. Law 67B1 says that the defender has revoked. So a 1-trick rectification results in an overtrick.

Personally not what I'd like - I prefer "result stands" when "the play could not possibly have been affected." But as a director I also prefer to follow the Laws.

[NickRW]

bluejak, on Aug 23 2009, 01:43 AM, said:

Quick 'n' easy. 

At trick twelve everyone realises dummy has one cards left, everyone else has two.  The TD searches bit fails to find the card.  Suddenly a defender says "Oh, I have three cards left!". 

It is agreed:

She discarded the ♥7 earlier.  It should have bee in dummy's hand.  Dummy has not revoked.  The play was fantastically simple: declarer took ten tricks then lost three in 4♠ and the play could not possibly have been affected.

How do you rule?

In a club setting if "the play could not possibly have been affected", then I think I say result stands and have a quiet word with a) the players that didn't count their cards before the hand and b] those that put them away wrongly - unless it has come to my attention that they make a habit of this - in which case I probably have a slightly grumpier word with them.

Nick

[blackshoe]

This is a bit less quick and easy than David said, I think.

Law 13A said:

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.

So it seems this law does not apply, if the ♥7 was in dummy's hand when he took it out of the board. If that is the case, we need to find out how that card got into the defender's hand or his quitted tricks. Law 7B3 says

Law 7B3 said:

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.

The pertinent sentence is the second one - there is no suggestion in the first sentence that dummy should be penalized for allowing his card to be "stolen". Assuming the TD determines that the defender violated this law, a PP is warranted except for very inexperienced players or in some special circumstance - the only example I can think of offhand seems pretty far-fetched, but the TD may, on investigation, find something pertinent.

Now we have a defective trick (Law 67). There are two problems here: the defender who has 3 cards left did not play a card from her hand to the trick which contains the ♥7. So per 67B1

Law 67B1 said:

When the offender has failed to play a card to the defective trick, the director shall require him forthwith to expose a card face-up in front of him and then place it appropriately among his played cards (this card does not affect ownership of the trick); if
  {a} the offender has a card of the suit led to the defective trick, he must choose such a card to place among his played cards. He is deemed to have revoked on the defective trick and is subject to the loss of one trick transferred in accordance with Law 64A2.
  {b} the offender has no card of the suit led to the defective trick, he chooses any card to place among his played cards. He is deemed to have revoked on the defective trick and is subject to the loss of one trick transferred in accordance with Law 64A2.

So the defender places an appropriate card into that quitted trick (from the three remaining in her hand), and she is deemed to have revoked. More on that in a moment.

The ♥7 is put back in dummy, where it belongs. Law 67B2 applies to this card:

Law 67B2 said:

{a} When the offender has played more than one card to the defective trick, the director inspects the played cards and requires the offender to restore to his hand all extra cards*, leaving among the played cards the one faced in playing to the defective trick (if the director is unable to determine which card was faced, the offender leaves the highest ranking of the cards that he could legally have played to the trick). ownership of the defective trick does not change.
  {b} A restored card is deemed to have belonged continuously to the offender’s hand, and a failure to have played it to an earlier trick may constitute a revoke.

(The footnote deals with defender's exposed cards, so is irrelevant here). There is no penalty to the declaring side.

Law 64A2, referenced by Law 67B1, simple says that

Quote

and the trick on which the revoke occurred was not won by the offending player* then, if the offending side won that or any subsequent trick, after play ends one trick is transferred to the non-offending side.

Presumably the offending defender did not win the "revoke" trick, so this just says it's a one trick penalty. Even if the defense did win it, 67B1 still says it's a one trick penalty.

If, in fact, the ♥7 was in the defender's hand when she took it out of the board, then Law 13A applies, but I do not see how the irregularity could have affected the play, so I would not adjust under this law. I might award a PP to whoever at the previous table messed up. Law 7B2 may have been violated

Law 7B2 said:

Each player counts his cards face down to be sure he has exactly 13. After that, and before making a call, he must inspect the faces of his cards.

There is no suggestion that failure to arrive at the correct count be penalized, so no penalties here.

So, in summary, no score adjustment, table result plus a one trick penalty to the defenders, possible PP to the defenders, possible PP to one or both contestants who last played the board. Score it as 4♠ making 5.

[bluejak]

Ignoring PPs, do you think equity has been served by transferring a trick from an offending side to another offending side?

[blackshoe]

I do not think dummy is an offender, even though that word is used (extensively) in Law 67B2. IAC, the laws tell us to rule a one trick penalty. I don't think Law 64C applies here, though I'm prepared to hear arguments to the contrary, so that would leave us with Law 12. Having reread that law (something I almost always do when you question one of my "rulings" David ) I don't think we can use it to adjust back to 4♠ making (which I think is what you're suggesting) either. 12B2 in particular seems germane.

Law 12B2 said:

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.

[bluejak]

Dummy has failed to count his cards at a time he was not dummy, played throughout with 12 cards, and gained as a result. Despite Law 12B2 this does not seem correct.

[jnichols]

bluejak, on Aug 23 2009, 05:36 PM, said:

Ignoring PPs, do you think equity has been served by transferring a trick from an offending side to another offending side?

David - No - 4♠+1 does not seem like equity. Just making feels right. I like it. I expect that the players will be happy with it. But I am left with a defective trick that calls for a 1-trick "revoke" rectification. Do I just let Law 13 override that and award an adjusted score?

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on Aug 23 2009, 06:09 PM, said:

Dummy has failed to count his cards at a time he was not dummy, played throughout with 12 cards, and gained as a result. Despite Law 12B2 this does not seem correct.

If that is in fact what happened. I did point out another possibility - though I admit a less likely one.

[Sven Pran]

bluejak, on Aug 24 2009, 12:09 AM, said:

Dummy has failed to count his cards at a time he was not dummy, played throughout with 12 cards, and gained as a result.  Despite Law 12B2 this does not seem correct.

In your original post you stated: "The play was fantastically simple: declarer took ten tricks then lost three in 4♠ and the play could not possibly have been affected."

My comment was based on this statement so that Law 13A was applicable (together with Law 7B2).

Now you state that the declaring side gained as a result? Could you please give the correct account of the irregularity?

The alternative is of course that Law 13B or Law 13C applies, either one would result in A- to each side as both sides were at fault for not complying with Law 7B2.

regards Sven

[blackshoe]

13C cannot apply, because the problem was discovered before the play ended. I do not see how 13B can apply, either. After all, the problem was discovered on trick 12, did not, it seems, affect the previous play, and was easily corrected to allow play of the last two tricks.

I think the premise is that the penalty trick (from Law 67) is a "freebie" for the declaring side, and that it is a trick there is no way they could have got if the ♥7 had been in dummy's hand throughout. I sympathize with the desire to adjust, but I don't see the legal basis for it.

[aguahombre]

Often, we have to live with the fact that an adjusted score affects the rest of the field. That is just the way it is. However, in this case, it just seems wrong since play was so unaffected. A PP still affects the field, and unless what really happened can be proved to be gross negligence, I would agree with Blackshoe who apparently feels nothing should happen. I admit I have no basis in law or precedent for this opinion.

[bluejak]

Sven Pran, on Aug 24 2009, 10:44 AM, said:

bluejak, on Aug 24 2009, 12:09 AM, said:

Dummy has failed to count his cards at a time he was not dummy, played throughout with 12 cards, and gained as a result.  Despite Law 12B2 this does not seem correct.

In your original post you stated: "The play was fantastically simple: declarer took ten tricks then lost three in 4♠ and the play could not possibly have been affected."

My comment was based on this statement so that Law 13A was applicable (together with Law 7B2).

Now you state that the declaring side gained as a result? Could you please give the correct account of the irregularity?

Declarer made ten tricks in 4♠ after dummy had failed to count his cards correctly.

In the post to which I replied a score of eleven tricks for declarer's side was the ruling.

I consider anyone who infracts, makes ten tricks, and gets adjudjed to have made eleven tricks because of the incorrect counting of cards has "gained from his infraction."

[blackshoe]

First, that dummy failed to count his cards correctly is not a fact in evidence.

Second, I would still like to know, David, the legal basis for your ruling.

[bluejak]

I have not said how I ruled: I am just worried at a ruling that gives one of two sides who both infracted a better score than the table score.

It is true that a card could have travelled from dummy to a defender. In my view it never happens and I am willing to rule on that basis.

[blackshoe]

Let me rephrase the question: you have indicated that the ruling I suggested bothers you (understandable, it bothers me too). Can you provide a legal basis under which to make a different ruling? I ask because I don't see one.

[Sven Pran]

bluejak, on Aug 25 2009, 01:06 AM, said:

Sven Pran, on Aug 24 2009, 10:44 AM, said:

bluejak, on Aug 24 2009, 12:09 AM, said:

Dummy has failed to count his cards at a time he was not dummy, played throughout with 12 cards, and gained as a result.  Despite Law 12B2 this does not seem correct.

In your original post you stated: "The play was fantastically simple: declarer took ten tricks then lost three in 4♠ and the play could not possibly have been affected."

My comment was based on this statement so that Law 13A was applicable (together with Law 7B2).

Now you state that the declaring side gained as a result? Could you please give the correct account of the irregularity?

Declarer made ten tricks in 4♠ after dummy had failed to count his cards correctly.

In the post to which I replied a score of eleven tricks for declarer's side was the ruling.

I consider anyone who infracts, makes ten tricks, and gets adjudjed to have made eleven tricks because of the incorrect counting of cards has "gained from his infraction."

OK, If I now understand you correctly your statement is that declarer gained, but from the (incorrect) ruling rather than from the irregularity itself?

I stand by my first response: Law 13A applied, correcting the two involved hands did not have (or would not have had) any influence on the play, and the table result (4♠=) stands.

As for who committed irregularity: Both the player with 12 and the player with 14 cards must have violated Law 7B2, the evidence is that they in fact held an incorrect number of cards.

regards Sven

[Sven Pran]

blackshoe, on Aug 24 2009, 05:24 PM, said:

13C cannot apply, because the problem was discovered before the play ended. I do not see how 13B can apply, either. After all, the problem was discovered on trick 12, did not, it seems, affect the previous play, and was easily corrected to allow play of the last two tricks.

I think the premise is that the penalty trick (from Law 67) is a "freebie" for the declaring side, and that it is a trick there is no way they could have got if the ♥7 had been in dummy's hand throughout. I sympathize with the desire to adjust, but I don't see the legal basis for it.

I mentioned Law 13C for the possibility that the play (technically) had ended (e.g. because of a claim), otherwise Law 13B. Either law should result in the same result: A-, A- because we have to sides both at fault.

Law 13A (leading to assumed "normal" play) is available if, and only if the Director judges that the irregularities will probably not have (essential) influence on the result. (Even then may the Director afterwards rule Law 12.)

Law 14B (possibly leading to for instance Law 67) is available only when one hand is deficient and the other three hands are correct.

regards Sven

[blackshoe]

Sven Pran, on Aug 25 2009, 05:27 AM, said:

I mentioned Law 13C for the possibility that the play (technically) had ended (e.g. because of a claim), otherwise Law 13B. Either law should result in the same result: A-, A- because we have to sides both at fault.

Law 13A (leading to assumed "normal" play) is available if, and only if the Director judges that the irregularities will probably not have (essential) influence on the result. (Even then may the Director afterwards rule Law 12.)

Law 14B (possibly leading to for instance Law 67) is available only when one hand is deficient and the other three hands are correct.

regards Sven

I like an artAS even less then I like giving the declaring side a "free" trick.

IMO, 13A does apply. Unless I've missed something, or something was left out of the OP.

Quote

Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred

If both sides are at fault, neither side is "innocent", and there is therefore no damage.

I don't see how you're going to apply Law 12. Can you be more specific?

Who said anything about Law 14B? Not I, certainly. I don't need another law to point me to Law 67. There is a defective trick - that's all I need.