[blackshoe]

How does "did not notice an irregularity" equate to "partially at fault for the irregularity"?

As for "accept with good grace", well, of course. The law requires it. Although they do have the option to appeal.

[Vampyr]

helene_t, on Nov 17 2009, 02:37 PM, said:

Maybe there was no black 3 in the dummy and only one black 3 was played before the claim, then maybe only the one holding the other copy of the same black 3 was at fault. They may not be able to reconstruct that.

Or maybe neither of them was played. Or maybe declarer was running a long suit and the defenders' discards made no difference, so he wasn't watching them. There are all sorts of reasons why the defective deck may not have been noticed.

[bluejak]

pran, on Nov 17 2009, 03:29 PM, said:

If I should receive a 10% PP each time I have forgotten a small club that was played by someone five tricks ago I will quit bridge.

Who on earth suggested that?

[pran]

bluejak, on Nov 18 2009, 03:42 PM, said:

pran, on Nov 17 2009, 03:29 PM, said:

If I should receive a 10% PP each time I have forgotten a small club that was played by someone five tricks ago I will quit bridge.

Who on earth suggested that?

Maybe you ought to clarify what you meant with your own statement: When a board is played with two cards the same and not noticed, why is neither side at fault?

A very good reason for not noticing that there are two identical cards in a pack is for instance that the first one is forgotten seen when the second turns up.

[Sadie3]

Clearly there was someone being mischievious at this club. The two suits did not get mixed up "accidentally" IMO. Is there a law that covers this type of action? ..and just because I'm really interested, did anyone try to uncover "who" did this in the first place?

[blackshoe]

That someone deliberately mixed up these two decks does not seem all that likely to me.

I don't think the laws anticipate someone doing so.

[axman]

mink, on Nov 14 2009, 05:51 AM, said:

Recently, I was called by a player who had the ♠3 in his hand, and he saw another ♠3 in the dummy. Each player had 13 cards. The traveler already contained 3 scores from tables who had not discovered this.

I abandoned play and told them to shuffle and deal a new deck. I awarded 60/60 to those pairs who had already played the board. After the tourney, all boards were searched and another board was discovered that contained 2 ♣3 cards and no ♠3. I changed all scores of that board to 60/60.

As the board were shuffled and dealt prior to the start of the tourney, it was impossible to determine who was responsible for the problem.

I think Laws 13 and 14 are not applicable here. So I simply based my decision on Law 1, 6D3 and 12A2.

Was I right or did I overlook something?

Karl

Some 15 years ago I was summoned to the table after the players found the board contained the C3 twice. It was in the middle of the movement. It took a minute to determine that there was no S2. a few more minutes and I found that the other board on the table contained the S2 twice and no C3. Additionally, the S2 occupied the hand where the C3 belonged and vice versa [different pockets].

I remember not being comfortable with my ruling but I’ll attempt to be accurate. I determined that the boards had been fouled by the human dealing machine that made the boards at an earlier occasion**. The boards were corrected and as the first board had progressed to the play period it was cancelled and was scored as a fouled board for the other comparisons. The other board was played correctly and scored as a fouled board.

** I have some comments due to thinking more about it the last couple of days.

[a] I now am all but convinced that the finding of fact [fouling during preduplication] was in error even though it was the only thing considered at the time.

[1] Possible explanations being that the cards might have been recently washed and the decks comingled. Had this been the case when I was the preduplicator it would have been caught since even though I duplicate from a random deck I would have noticed a pair of identical cards during comparison with the hand record which had not happened or, if put in the wrong card in a hand then after moving it to the correct hand it would have created a 13-13-12-14 which had not happened. The other duplicator sorts the cards into suits and orders them to speed deal so he would have noticed a pair of C3s.

[2] then there is the possibility that the C3 fell from one board and S2 from the other and were switched when put back. After all the backs were identical. Right, and for anybody who gives credibility that two small off suit black cards fell from different boards at the same time with the same backs I coincidently just happen to own two bridges in Brooklyn I’m just aching to sell.

[3] then there is the possibility that someone noticed the identical backs and while “post morteming the hands” monkeyed with them to see what happens. And that noght a person was present with precisely such a personality and history for mischief.

[b] if indeed [3] had [which I now feel is what happened] occurred then it is likely that the point of fouling was different.

[c] I seem to recall being disappointed that the deuce and trey seemed to be so inconsequential at the time and had desired to want to finish the play .

[d] I still am not comfortable

[pran]

axman, on Nov 19 2009, 07:26 AM, said:

Some 15 years ago I was summoned to the table after the players found the board contained the C3 twice.  It was in the middle of the movement.   It took a minute to determine that there was no S2.  a few more minutes and I found that the other board on the table contained the S2 twice and no C3.  Additionally, the S2 occupied the hand where the C3 belonged and vice versa [different pockets].

I remember not being comfortable with my ruling but I’ll attempt to be accurate.  I determined that the boards had been fouled by the human dealing machine that made the boards at an earlier occasion**.  The boards were corrected and as the first board had progressed to the play period it was cancelled and was scored as a fouled board for the other comparisons.  The other board was played correctly and scored as a fouled board.

** I have some comments due to thinking more about it the last couple of days.

[a] I now am all but convinced that the finding of fact [fouling during preduplication] was in error even though it was the only thing considered at the time.

[1]  Possible explanations being that the cards might have been recently washed and the decks comingled.  Had this been the case when I was the preduplicator it would have been caught since even though I duplicate from a random deck I would have noticed a pair of identical cards during comparison with the hand record which had not happened or, if put in the wrong card in a hand then after moving it to the correct hand it would have created a 13-13-12-14 which had not happened.  The other duplicator sorts the cards into suits and orders them to speed deal so he would have noticed a pair of C3s.

[2] then there is the possibility that the C3 fell from one board and S2 from the other and were switched when put back.  After all the backs were identical.  Right, and for anybody who gives credibility that two small off suit black cards fell from different boards at the same time with the same backs I coincidently just happen to own two bridges in Brooklyn I’m just aching to sell.

[3] then there is the possibility that someone noticed the identical backs and while “post morteming the hands” monkeyed with them to see what happens.  And that noght a person was present with precisely such a personality and history for mischief.

[b] if indeed [3] had [which I now feel is what happened] occurred then it is likely that the point of fouling was different.

[c] I seem to recall being disappointed that the deuce and trey seemed to be so inconsequential at the time and had desired to want to finish the play .

[d] I still am not comfortable

I think you shold remain comfortable.

You have determined that there was an irregularity on two boards and you have corrected the irregularities so that the boards can be played where possible.

You may have your suspicions about the cause of the irregularity, but unless you can satisfy yourself "beyond reasonable doubt" that a contestant is guilty of some misconduct you should never penalize simply because "he must have done it".

The reason for a procedure penalty against a player must always be that he has acted improperly and caused damage in some way, it must never be that there is no other possibility and therefore he must have done it.

regards Sven

[bluejak]

pran, on Nov 19 2009, 01:40 AM, said:

bluejak, on Nov 18 2009, 03:42 PM, said:

pran, on Nov 17 2009, 03:29 PM, said:

If I should receive a 10% PP each time I have forgotten a small club that was played by someone five tricks ago I will quit bridge.

Who on earth suggested that?

Maybe you ought to clarify what you meant with your own statement: When a board is played with two cards the same and not noticed, why is neither side at fault?

When I ask a question - which is fairly obvious because it has a question mark at the end - then I am asking a question. That is what I did. It was not a statement and needs no clarification. It was a question to which I wanted an answer.

[pran]

bluejak, on Nov 19 2009, 02:30 PM, said:

pran, on Nov 19 2009, 01:40 AM, said:

Maybe you ought to clarify what you meant with your own statement: When a board is played with two cards the same and not noticed, why is neither side at fault?

When I ask a question - which is fairly obvious because it has a question mark at the end - then I am asking a question. That is what I did. It was not a statement and needs no clarification. It was a question to which I wanted an answer.

Well then, why should any side neccessarily be at fault? And what is in case the fault?

[bluejak]

I do not find answering my question with two other questions helpful, and see no reason to answer them.

[barmar]

bluejak, on Nov 19 2009, 08:30 AM, said:

pran, on Nov 19 2009, 01:40 AM, said:

bluejak, on Nov 18 2009, 03:42 PM, said:

pran, on Nov 17 2009, 03:29 PM, said:

If I should receive a 10% PP each time I have forgotten a small club that was played by someone five tricks ago I will quit bridge.

Who on earth suggested that?

Maybe you ought to clarify what you meant with your own statement: When a board is played with two cards the same and not noticed, why is neither side at fault?

When I ask a question - which is fairly obvious because it has a question mark at the end - then I am asking a question. That is what I did. It was not a statement and needs no clarification. It was a question to which I wanted an answer.

One of the problems with online discussions is that you don't have the benefit of inflections that help distinguish between real questions and rhetorical questions. From the context, and your well-known experience in this area (we frequently rely on people like you to answer factual questions like this), I can understand why he would interpret it as the latter.

[bluejak]

I ask questions often to help the flow of argument because I think people need to ask these questions to get the right answers. I think people who assume I mean something from a question are not helping, and I would vastly prefer that people would not do it.

For the future:

When I ask a question, anyone who assumes I mean something I have not said because I ask the question has misrepresented my ideas, and now that I have written this, deliberately so.

Furthermore, in general, any assumption that I mean something I have not said, I find unhelpful, unamusing, and not promoting the flow of discourse in this or any other forum.

At no time in this thread have I ever suggested that a player who passes on a hand with two identical cards is at fault. I merely asked questions I thought needed considering.

But the suggestion that I suggested fining every player every time he forgot ever small card is not connected in any way with my question: it is a terrible suggestion:

pran, on Nov 17 2009, 03:29 PM, said:

If I should receive a 10% PP each time I have forgotten a small club that was played by someone five tricks ago I will quit bridge.

[pran]

bluejak, on Nov 15 2009, 09:47 PM, said:

When a board is played with two cards the same and not noticed, why is neither side at fault?

Did you, or did you not with this question express the opinion that at least one, probably both sides where at fault?

If your opinion is that neither side is at fault in the case that the irregularity was not noticed I would have expected you to ask: Why is either side at fault.

I never consider any party at fault unless I can point to a law or regulation that has been violated by that party, and I know of no law that makes it illegal to not notice an irregularity.

[bluejak]

pran, on Nov 20 2009, 03:47 PM, said:

bluejak, on Nov 15 2009, 09:47 PM, said:

When a board is played with two cards the same and not noticed, why is neither side at fault?

Did you, or did you not with this question express the opinion that at least one, probably both sides where at fault?

I did not.

[blackshoe]

Sven, he just said he was not expressing an opinion, and here you are insisting that he was. Don't. Just don't go there.

[pran]

No, I accept that he did not express an opinion, but the way he made his question really made me believe that he did. Of course this changes the picture completely from what I understood, and I regret and apoligize for that mistake of mine.