[duschek]

Partner opens 1NT (15-17), and you respond 3NT holding ATx xxx KJTx Axxx. The opening lead is faced, you face the dummy, and someone complains about your 14 cards. The TD determines that the ♣A does not belong to this deal and removes it.

The ruling?

[pran]

duschek, on Dec 3 2009, 11:55 PM, said:

Partner opens 1NT (15-17), and you respond 3NT holding ATx xxx KJTx Axxx. The opening lead is faced, you face the dummy, and someone complains about your 14 cards. The TD determines that the ♣A does not belong to this deal and removes it.

The ruling?

Did the other three players all hold 13 cards?

[axman]

duschek, on Dec 3 2009, 05:55 PM, said:

Partner opens 1NT (15-17), and you respond 3NT holding ATx xxx KJTx Axxx. The opening lead is faced, you face the dummy, and someone complains about your 14 cards. The TD determines that the ♣A does not belong to this deal and removes it.

The ruling?

THe hand is corrected [L13A] ascertaining that said CA belongs to no hand in this deal.

play proceeds and the result stands [L21A].


The hand that belongs to the CA is sought out and corrected in the mean time.

[lamford]

It doesn't matter if none of the other players had 13 cards:

"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."

Here the balanced 8-count would have passed; the director now decides whether the next player would have bid, and if he decides that he would not have done so, he decides how many tricks would have been made in 1NT, and that could be a weighted score. He might also include some element of a weighted score of the opponents protecting.

13F also seems to apply:
F. Surplus Card
Any surplus card not part of the deal is removed if found. The auction and play continue unaffected.

"Continue" to me implies what happens after the surplus card is removed, but the auction has ended. So, I think that 13A is the relevant clause. But I will happily bow to a different WBFLC interpretation. Law 14 only seems to apply when one hand has fewer than 13 cards, but that does not seem to be the case here.

[lamford]

axman, on Dec 3 2009, 06:19 PM, said:

play proceeds and the result stands [L21A].

I cannot agree with this. Law 21A says:

A. Call Based on Caller’s Misunderstanding
No rectification or redress is due to a player who acts on the basis of his own misunderstanding.

"misunderstanding" is not the phrase I would use about someone having a card that does not belong in his hand. It would apply, for example, to someone thinking that RHO had opened a multi, but in reality he had opened a weak 2D, and he (wrongly) seeks redress when the auction goes All Pass. It surely does not apply in preference to a law which specifically deals with the wrong number of cards.

[lamford]

And just to clarify, the TD can punish the player who did not count his cards under 13B. I guess there is a standard penalty (is it 10% or 3 IMPs?)

[duschek]

lamford, on Dec 3 2009, 06:30 PM, said:

13F also seems to apply:
F. Surplus Card
Any surplus card not part of the deal is removed if found. The auction and play continue unaffected.

"Continue" to me implies what happens after the surplus card is removed, but the auction has ended. So, I think that 13A is the relevant clause.

Oops - it seems to me that only Law 13F applies. It continues:

Law 13F said:

If such a card is found to have been played to a quitted trick an adjusted score may be awarded.

which seems to imply that the only consequences of the surplus card occur if the card has been played to a quitted trick. Otherwise, auction and play continues as if the player never held the surplus card. So in my example, 3NT it is.

I don't remember the actual setting, but my ruling was that the players had to play the contract which was bid. I now see that my ruling was correct, but since I used the wrong Law, I am certainly not proud of it.

It seems that Laws 13A and 13B only apply if the 14th card belongs to the deal in question. This could perhaps have been made more clear in the text, but that is a different matter that I am not going to deal with here.

[blackshoe]

Presumably some other player held an A of ♣. Presumably there was a hand record indicating which one was in the correct hand. Presumably the other three hands are correct. All that being true, I would apply Law 13F, remove the extra card, and direct that play continue. The table result will stand. I would be unlikely to issue a PP to responder for failure to count his cards. If I did issue one, it would be in the form of a warning, unless he's already received one such warning.

[pran]

pran, on Dec 4 2009, 12:17 AM, said:

duschek, on Dec 3 2009, 11:55 PM, said:

Partner opens 1NT (15-17), and you respond 3NT holding ATx xxx KJTx Axxx. The opening lead is faced, you face the dummy, and someone complains about your 14 cards. The TD determines that the ♣A does not belong to this deal and removes it.

The ruling?

Did the other three players all hold 13 cards?

As no answer was given to my question I shall just sum up the two alternatives:

If each of the other three hands contained exactly thirteen cards then the A♣ is simply removed and play continues in the contract of 3NT (Law 13F).

If the A♣ belonged to another hand then the Director is permitted to apply Law 13A, move the A♣ to the correct hand and allow play to continue in the contract of 3NT, standing ready to award an adjusted score at the end of play.

However, the misplaced A♣ should be assumed to have had such influence on the auction (and also on the upcoming play) that it seems more appropriate for the Director to immediately apply Law 13B.