[kgr]

Story I was told (no more info then this). I wondered what kind of ruling would be considered.
Team match in Belgium:
- hand was played at other table. Deal comes at the 2nd table and one of the hands only has 12 cards. 13th card cannot be found anywhere.
 
What do you rule:
- if hand was played out completely at 1st table (so probably there was no missing card)
- if a claim was done at 1st table (and possibly card has been missing all the time).
- Is it important if deal at 1st table was clearly bad for one pair?

[pran]

kgr, on Jan 17 2010, 06:11 PM, said:

Story I was told (no more info then this). I wondered what kind of ruling would be considered.
Team match in Belgium:
- hand was played at other table. Deal comes at the 2nd table and one of the hands only has 12 cards. 13th card cannot be found anywhere.
 
What do you rule:
- if hand was played out completely at 1st table (so probably there was no missing card)
- if a claim was done at 1st table (and possibly card has been missing all the time).
- Is it important if deal at 1st table was clearly bad for one pair?

At the second table Law 14 is the applicable law and must be followed to the letter.

At the first table the result agreed upon stands, except if an established revoke can be ascertained as specified in Law 14B4 in which case the Director must try Law 64C on the play and result at the first table.

[RMB1]

kgr, on Jan 17 2010, 05:11 PM, said:

- Is it important if deal at 1st table was clearly bad for one pair?

This would relevant if the board could not be played at the second table and the card was missing from the hands of the pair that got the bad result.

Law 86D applies and the non-offending side should get to keep their good result at the first table by assigning them the score comparing against a normal result at the second table.

I have visions of Hideous Hog, having conceded a slam on double squeeze, eating one of his cards while returning the other 12 to the board!

Robin

[barmar]

Since there's just one card missing, the director should be able to look at all the hands and determine what it is. He can then go back to the player who held the hand at table 1, and ask him if he held that card. If it's an honor, he most likely will remember; if it's a spot card, he might not remember the exact spot, but may remember how many cards he held in the suit.

In either case, the director should substitute the missing card from another pack, and allow table 2 to play the hand normally (I'm assuming that they noticed the missing card before the auction started -- if the auction was in progress, 14A3 applies). If the card was missing when table 1 played the hand, I think 14B4 applies to the play of the hand at that table.

[bluejak]

English recommendations are that you never substitute a card from another pack, because sometimes the original card turns up. It is recommended that you replace the entire hand.

[gordontd]

bluejak, on Jan 18 2010, 02:18 PM, said:

English recommendations are that you never substitute a card from another pack, because sometimes the original card turns up. It is recommended that you replace the entire hand.

I'm not sure I understand this David - can you explain it a bit more?

[LH2650]

It is a matter of law. See 14B3.

[gordontd]

Well, if you add another card you are "using another pack". But more to the point, I'm not clear why it's more of a problem if the missing card turns up when you've added one replacement card than it is if you've replaced the pack.

[iviehoff]

Eg, if the vanished-into-thin-air card was stuck to the back of another card and somehow no one spotted this when looking for it.

[pran]

People searching for problems and people searching for solutions have one thing in common: They all succeed!

[mycroft]

I am reminded of the story of the board that came to the second table with the HA showing in one hand. Seems that at the first table, the opponents bid to a crazy slam that came home on the lie. Of course, the boxed card was *completely accidental*...

The story was told in the context of a regulation or law change, but I can't remember what it was. I'm hoping the storyteller can remind me...

[Oof Arted]

bluejak, on Jan 18 2010, 08:18 AM, said:

English recommendations are that you never substitute a card from another pack, because sometimes the original card turns up. It is recommended that you replace the entire hand.

same question as Gordon Why ???

If the other card does turn up is it not likely to be given to a TD so unlikely ever to get into a board (which even if it did would possibly be noticed when one player says SNAP)

[bluejak]

mycroft, on Jan 18 2010, 09:38 PM, said:

I am reminded of the story of the board that came to the second table with the HA showing in one hand.  Seems that at the first table, the opponents bid to a crazy slam that came home on the lie.  Of course, the boxed card was *completely accidental*...

The story was told in the context of a regulation or law change, but I can't remember what it was.  I'm hoping the storyteller can remind me...

I am not sure of the relevance of this, but the main reason the story is remembered is that the player who boxed the card become the ACBL President five months later. The TDs - in my view - got it completely wrong, exacerbating the situation. Still, it was a long time ago.

gordontd, on Jan 18 2010, 03:52 PM, said:

Well, if you add another card you are "using another pack". But more to the point, I'm not clear why it's more of a problem if the missing card turns up when you've added one replacement card than it is if you've replaced the pack.

I would prefer players play with th correct 52 cards, rather than have another table with a defective pack, even if this one has 53 cards. It seems a reasonable recommendation to me.

[gordontd]

bluejak, on Jan 19 2010, 02:32 AM, said:

I would prefer players play with th correct 52 cards, rather than have another table with a defective pack, even if this one has 53 cards. It seems a reasonable recommendation to me.

Who talked of taking a card from another table?

[FrancesHinden]

David's point is nothing to do with the ruling as such, simply comparing two alternatives:

You have a pack where you can only find 51 of the cards. Do you

1. Remove that pack from play completely, and replicate the deal (correctly) with a new pack of cards, or

2. Remove one card from a second pack and add it to the defective one.

1) Leaves you with one defective pack
2) Leaves you with two (potentially) defective packs so is worse.

If all your packs of cards are identical and interchangeable, of course there's no difference between the two approaches, but commonly the card from the other pack may be slightly different (e.g. cleaner) which means you can't continue to use it as a substitute because people will learn to recognise it from the back.

[FrancesHinden]

barmar, on Jan 18 2010, 06:21 AM, said:

Since there's just one card missing, the director should be able to look at all the hands and determine what it is. He can then go back to the player who held the hand at table 1, and ask him if he held that card. If it's an honor, he most likely will remember; if it's a spot card, he might not remember the exact spot, but may remember how many cards he held in the suit.

What an optimist.

I played a teams match last year in two 12-board sets (so swapping after six boards). Halfway through our second set of six boards we round a spare club on the floor. We didn't know if it had come from one of the first six, because we were playing in a bridge club and it might have been there for a while.

I went to the other table and told them that we had found a card, so they should count their cards carefully and let us know if a hand was one short, in which case we would check to see if the missing card fitted (we would be able to remember the hands well enough to know).

Towards the end of the set, my team-mates made a contract of 2H+2. In the end position one of the defenders, looking at three low clubs in dummy and an established side suit, led a low club from AQxxx to his partner's king, which held. His partner then switched. Nothing was said, until after the next hand the defenders had this conversation:

Why didn't you play a club back?
I'm not stupid, how many clubs to you think I had?
Oh...
(pause)
(to declarer): How many clubs did you start with?
declarer: 3
(to partner)
What shape were you?
6, 2, 3, er...1....er oops

it was established that he never revoked (declarer claimed after the king of clubs and a switch) and we'll just continue to laugh at him at every opportunity.

[bluejak]

gordontd, on Jan 19 2010, 09:31 AM, said:

bluejak, on Jan 19 2010, 02:32 AM, said:

I would prefer players play with th correct 52 cards, rather than have another table with a defective pack, even if this one has 53 cards.  It seems a reasonable recommendation to me.

Who talked of taking a card from another table?

No-one. It is the next table the board goes to that may have a defective pack [with 53 cards] if you ignore EBU advice.