[mink]

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

[pran]

mink, on Nov 14 2009, 11:51 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

During the preparation of the 2007 laws I suggested an addition to Law 1 to the effect that no result may stand if obtained with a pack of cards that does not conform to the specifications in this law

I assume that WBFLC found such an addition superfluous, but I cannot completely discard the possibility that the Director is given power to judge if the error in the pack can be neglected in specific situations.

Some guidance can be inferred from Law 87 - Fouled board: A. Definition

A board is considered to be ‘fouled’ if the Director determines that a card (or more than one) was displaced in the board, or if he determines that the dealer or vulnerability differed between copies of the same board, and the contestants who should have had a score comparison did not play the board in identical form for such reason.

This law leaves the Director no option other than to rule fouled board if one board differs in any detail however minute from another board with which it should be identical.

[blackshoe]

pran, on Nov 14 2009, 02:44 PM, said:

This law leaves the Director no option other than to rule fouled board if one board differs in any detail however minute from another board with which it should be identical.

While true, I don't see the relevance to the case at hand, since we're not talking about two boards which are supposed to be identical.

I think Mink's solution is both practical and legal (and following the three laws he cited - I agree that 13 and 14 don't apply) but I'm a little concerned at the number of "average pluses" it generated. Didn't Ton Kooijman, in his Commentary, deprecate that?

[pran]

blackshoe, on Nov 15 2009, 07:28 PM, said:

pran, on Nov 14 2009, 02:44 PM, said:

This law leaves the Director no option other than to rule fouled board if one board differs in any detail however minute from another board with which it should be identical.

While true, I don't see the relevance to the case at hand, since we're not talking about two boards which are supposed to be identical.

I think Mink's solution is both practical and legal (and following the three laws he cited - I agree that 13 and 14 don't apply) but I'm a little concerned at the number of "average pluses" it generated. Didn't Ton Kooijman, in his Commentary, deprecate that?

The relevance (IMO) is that the board is "fouled" compared to any board that is thinkable with a correct pack of cards.

Law 12: C.2. (a) When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained [and see C1(d)] the Director awards an artificial adjusted score according to responsibility for the irregularity: ....... average plus (at least 60% in pairs) to a contestant in no way at fault.

[blackshoe]

pran, on Nov 15 2009, 01:46 PM, said:

Law 12: C.2. (a) When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained [and see C1(d)] the Director awards an artificial adjusted score according to responsibility for the irregularity: ....... average plus (at least 60% in pairs) to a contestant in no way at fault.

Yes, I know. I didn't say it was the wrong adjustment, just that it seems a bit much to have a board on which everyone gets average plus.

[bluejak]

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

Yes, Ton did deprecate too many Ave Pluses, but that does not mean you should rule wrong. That is like people - of whom we have had more than a few - who want to make a ruling that does not follow the Laws and then quote the Scope. It is illegal.

Ton suggests that RAs or TOs should have a regulation to avoid multiple Ave Pluses. Fine, but absent such a regulation it is illegal to assume one.

[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?

How could anybody at the table be at fault unless the two identical cards are in the same hand? nobody would notice until it is too late to save the board.

[bluejak]

You think passing the board on acceptable?

[jdonn]

bluejak, on Nov 15 2009, 06:47 PM, said:

You think passing the board on acceptable?

You bring up an interesting point, but it's difficult to judge in practice. What if the identical card is in the hands of each defender at the last table? Declarer could claim before play ends (and before the mystery card is played), and each defender look at dummy, declarer's hand, their own hand, and they "know" what their partner must have. They haven't done anything wrong if they don't look at their partner's hand, at least I don't think they have.

Alternatively, the prior table(s) may have simply passed the hand out.

You could ask the prior tables how the bidding and play went but I think that's opening up a can of worms, and they may be unable to remember or agree. I think ruling no fault is the best practical solution.

If you tell me it's the director's responsibility to attempt to determine fault at each prior table then I'll believe you. But I don't want to be the one who has to tell one prior table they get avg - when another gets avg +.

[blackshoe]

I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that no one noticed that a board contained two black threes of the same suit, rather than of two different suits.

The irregularity here is that the board (actually two boards) contains an illegal deck. No player at any table is in any way at fault for that, afaics. So it seems to me that avg plus is the right ruling, and that's what I'd do. As I said, though, in view of Ton's comment on the subject, it bothers me. OTGH, David is right that absent a regulation telling us to do something different, we do as the law requires - A+.

[pran]

bluejak, on Nov 16 2009, 12:47 AM, said:

You think passing the board on acceptable?

Who says anything about passing on the board with a known error? I don't.

I consider it absolutely superfluous to mention that the Director must be called as soon as an error is discovered if it is discovered, don't you?

You cannot blame players for beginning the auction and play on a board before they notice such an error. You cannot even blame them for not noticing such an error when it had no apparent impact on the auction or play, it is quite possible that they just completed the board and passed it on without noticing that there was some irregularity with the small spot cards.

(I would consider differently had it been Aces that had been misplaced unless there was a very good reason for not discovering this, such as a passed out board.)

[barmar]

pran, on Nov 16 2009, 04:02 AM, said:

bluejak, on Nov 16 2009, 12:47 AM, said:

You think passing the board on acceptable?

Who says anything about passing on the board with a known error? I don't.

The original post said, "The traveler already contained 3 scores from tables who had not discovered this."

But I agree with the rest of what you said, that it's hard to be too harsh on the other tables for not noticing such an inconsequential irregularity.

[pran]

barmar, on Nov 17 2009, 06:41 AM, said:

pran, on Nov 16 2009, 04:02 AM, said:

bluejak, on Nov 16 2009, 12:47 AM, said:

You think passing the board on acceptable?

Who says anything about passing on the board with a known error? I don't.

The original post said, "The traveler already contained 3 scores from tables who had not discovered this."

But I agree with the rest of what you said, that it's hard to be too harsh on the other tables for not noticing such an inconsequential irregularity.

This is not a queastion of being harsh, this is a question of (no) cause for penalty.

That players do not discover insignificant errors having no apparent impact on auction or play is no such cause.

[bluejak]

Personally, I always think that when there are six cards outstanding in a suit and they break 3-2 there has been a significant impact.

[greenender]

I agree with bluejak that it is surprising that it was not noticed. Whilst players may not notice (although many will) when someone plays an insignificant spot card that duplicates one in their own hand, it is more surprising that suit distributions round the table not adding up to 13 (in two suits, of course) were not noticed.

I would be inclined to rule Av rather than Av+ on the basis that those who did not notice were partially at fault, and would expect this to be accepted with good grace by club players.

[mink]

A lot of beginners in their first or second year of duplicate bridge were playing in this club, and the skill level of the other half who have played longer is not very high.

But even if the contestants were better, what crime have they committed when not noticing that there was one suit with 14 cards and another with only 12? Which law instructs players to recognize this? And even if there was such a law, in order to find out if it really applies I would have to do some research to find out if there was really no claim so that all players had seen all 52 cards. I think in order to award less than 60% to a pair they must have really done something wrong.

Thanks for your comments.

Karl

[helene_t]

bluejak, on Nov 16 2009, 12:47 AM, said:

You think passing the board on acceptable?

But the fact that they passed it on was not the reason why it was fouled at their own table (except if they still had time to reshuffle and play if they had discovered it as soon as someone played a black 3.)

So those who played it first may have been responsible for fouling it for the next pairs to play it but not for themselves. In that case they still deserve their 60%. Maybe you could give them a PP of 10% for passing it on so that they effectively end up with 50%. But you probably don't know who, if any, of the four players were at fault. 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.

[Trinidad]

bluejak, on Nov 17 2009, 01:51 PM, said:

Personally, I always think that when there are six cards outstanding in a suit and they break 3-2 there has been a significant impact.

But you know how to count to 13. You are part of a small minority in the world of bridge.

Rik

[pran]

bluejak, on Nov 17 2009, 01:51 PM, said:

Personally, I always think that when there are six cards outstanding in a suit and they break 3-2 there has been a significant impact.

And is it a reason for penalty that a player has miscounted a suit?

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.

Luckily all the Directors I have met have been of a different caliber.

[helene_t]

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

And is it a reason for penalty that a player has miscounted a suit?

Right, a PP doesn't make sense here, it's not like you want players to pay attention to spot cards because they would otherwise risk passing on a defect board.