[bluejak]

Of course you are going to investigate: that is the right and proper thing to do. But for the purposes of comments in a forum, since we know what you will find out - that it came from partner's hand - it is not unreasonable to say how you would rule if this is what you are going to find out.

[blackshoe]

I once "knew" that my reproduction of the Michelson--Morley experiment would show, as did the original experiment, that the speed of light is a close approximation to 186,000 miles per second. Imagine my surprise when I fed the data into my calculator, and the answer was.... 29 miles per hour! Yes, I had overlooked something.

The odds are pretty good that you're right David - but they aren't 100%.

I think that if we're going to guess what the ruling should be, assuming certain facts not in evidence, we should specify that's what we're doing. More importantly, it is the process by which the TD arrives at a ruling that is important, at least IMO, in these forums, rather than a particular ruling based on some assumption that, however likely, may in the end turn out not to be true.

[pran]

The fact is that West started off with only 12 cards and that this was discovered when he had no card to lead to trick 13.

So far this is a clear-cut law 14 situation with an automatic rectification which would give declarer (South) a score of about 95%.

However, when the case was initially investigated it was immediately revealed that East had started with 14 cards. This changed the case to a Law 13 situation requiring the Director to cancel the result obtained (or just about to be obtained) on the board and award an adjusted score.

Law 12C1a (When after an irregularity the Director is empowered by these laws to adjust a score and is able to award an assigned adjusted score, he does so. Such a score replaces the score obtained in play.)

This law instructs the Director to award an assigned adjusted score here because play had progressed to a state where a result can certainly be determined. (And this result has in no way been influenced by any irregularity from the non-offending side.)

I must challenge all those who argue that the Director should investigate what would probably have happened had no irregularity taken place, and award an assigned adjusted score accordingly:

Is it really their opinion that because an excessive card was found in East's hand (proving that a second violation of Law 7B has been committed by the same offending side) the Director shall award an adjusted score less favourable for the non-offending side than the score had there been no such second irregularity?

My understanding of Laws 13 and 12 in a situation like this is that they in no way prevent the Director from awarding the same score (or even a score better for NOS) that would have been the result of a pure Law 14 irregularity so long as no irregularity has been committed by the non-offending side.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on Feb 18 2010, 04:06 AM, said:

I once "knew" that my reproduction of the Michelson--Morley experiment would show, as did the original experiment, that the speed of light is a close approximation to 186,000 miles per second. Imagine my surprise when I fed the data into my calculator, and the answer was.... 29 miles per hour! Yes, I had overlooked something.

I fail to see how this is a reflection on anyone else participating in this forum.

blackshoe, on Feb 18 2010, 04:06 AM, said:

The odds are pretty good that you're right David - but they aren't 100%.

I think that if we're going to guess what the ruling should be, assuming certain facts not in evidence, we should specify that's what we're doing.

Yes, there is a chance that, on the same board, the appearance of a card in a player's hand and the disappearance of a card in another player's hand happened independently. But most people who encounter this problem will do so in David's real world, so it seems rather a waste of time to divert the discussion into one of discovering where the cards came from/went.

[blackshoe]

pran, on Feb 18 2010, 03:25 AM, said:

The fact is that West started off with only 12 cards and that this was discovered when he had no card to lead to trick 13.

Correct.

Quote

[snip]However, when the case was initially investigated it was immediately revealed that East had started with 14 cards.

Not correct. The only fact in evidence regarding East's hand is that after trick twelve he had two cards remaining.

Quote

This changed the case to a Law 13 situation requiring the Director to cancel the result obtained (or just about to be obtained) on the board and award an adjusted score.

No. It may be unlikely, but it is certainly possible that 13A can be applied, and no adjustment necessary. For example, West's missing card turns out to be one of the two still held by East, and the fact it was in the wrong hand for twelve tricks makes no difference to the play.

Quote

[snip]Is it really their opinion that because an excessive card was found in East's hand (proving that a second violation of Law 7B has been committed by the same offending side) the Director shall award an adjusted score less favourable for the non-offending side than the score had there been no such second irregularity?

The fact that West has two cards at trick 13 does not prove any such thing. Your "proof" is an assumption on your part.

Of note is that fact that Law 13 uses the phrase "award an adjusted score" several times, but the phrase "award an artificial adjusted score" (emphasis mine) only once - and that one does not apply to this case. So I agree that an artificial adjusted score is not appropriate.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on Feb 18 2010, 11:11 AM, said:

Yes, there is a chance that, on the same board, the appearance of a card in a player's hand and the disappearance of a card in another player's hand happened independently. But most people who encounter this problem will do so in David's real world, so it seems rather a waste of time to divert the discussion into one of discovering where the cards came from/went.

It's not a diversion. The very first thing the TD should do when called for an irregularity is to investigate what happened. There's a lot of "we don't need to investigate, we already know" in this thread. We don't know — some of us are making assumptions. However likely those assumptions are to be correct, they're still assumptions.

This is, among other things, a teaching forum. We do not want to teach inexperienced directors that the way to deal with an irregularity is to guess what happened. We do not want to teach them the old Kaplan "rule": "decide what ruling you want to make, and then find a law to support it". We want to teach them the right way to make a ruling — and the right way is to investigate and find out the facts, not to make assumptions.

[bluejak]

pran, on Feb 18 2010, 09:25 AM, said:

I must challenge all those who argue that the Director should investigate what would probably have happened had no irregularity taken place, and award an assigned adjusted score accordingly:

Law 12 said:

B. Objectives of Score Adjustment
1. The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a nonoffending
side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending
side through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction,
an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have
been the expectation had the infraction not occurred – but see C1[b].

How do you know whether damage has occurred if you are going to completely ignore what would have happened without the infraction?

Law 12 said:

C. Awarding an Adjusted Score
1. [c] In order to do equity, and unless the Regulating Authority forbids it,
an assigned adjusted score may be weighted to reflect the
probabilities of a number of potential results.

You are suggesting that only potential results that include the irregularity are to be included?

Do you normally give assigned scores with no consideration whatever for what would have happened without the irregularity?

[axman]

blackshoe, on Feb 18 2010, 11:36 AM, said:

Vampyr, on Feb 18 2010, 11:11 AM, said:

Yes, there is a chance that, on the same board, the appearance of a card in a player's hand and the disappearance of a card in another player's hand happened independently. But most people who encounter this problem will do so in David's real world, so it seems rather a waste of time to divert the discussion into one of discovering where the cards came from/went.

It's not a diversion. The very first thing the TD should do when called for an irregularity is to investigate what happened. There's a lot of "we don't need to investigate, we already know" in this thread. We don't know — some of us are making assumptions. However likely those assumptions are to be correct, they're still assumptions.

This is, among other things, a teaching forum. We do not want to teach inexperienced directors that the way to deal with an irregularity is to guess what happened. We do not want to teach them the old Kaplan "rule": "decide what ruling you want to make, and then find a law to support it". We want to teach them the right way to make a ruling — and the right way is to investigate and find out the facts, not to make assumptions.

blackshoe has said much in this thread that is well worth listening to. I would like to add a couple of things.

Issuing a ruling without establishing the reasoning and the facts upon which the reasoning is based is among the gravest disservices that a TD/adjudicator can do to players. WIthout this information the player becomes an out of control locomotive without a compass. ANd with them the avenue is paved to correct wrongs that do occur. iow the route to avoiding infractions is to give rulings for the the right right reasons because players learn what is important.

Somewhat recently I responded to a skip bid UI case where I essentially said that it was important to investigate the facts because as the case was presented it had been asserted that there was UI a fact because an opponents accused the player was slow- while omitting the circumstances surrounding the accusation [that would shed light upon its validity]. For stating the importance of determining the facts needed to draw conclusion I was castigated.

Sometimes the best way to establish the facts is to reenact and get agreement/ establishment how far from agreement the sides are. To draw conclusions about players' assertions concerning the roads not taken it often is imperative to establish what systemic agreements to all actions were- not merely to one or two actions.

Gratitude to Ed for his persistence against withering fire. As for this case we do not know if cards fell from a couple of pockets and they didn't get restored to the correct pockets, or sloppiness at the previous table saw cards shift when returned to pockets, or even if a player at the table moved the cards. That is why it is important to investigate first, yet not be surprised when E has W's thirteenth card- rather than taking a card directly from E to W only to discover at the end that the TD fouled the board for everybody.

[pran]

blackshoe, on Feb 18 2010, 05:30 PM, said:

Quote

However, when the case was initially investigated it was immediately revealed that East had started with 14 cards.

Not correct. The only fact in evidence regarding East's hand is that after trick twelve he had two cards remaining.

If East started with 13, not 14 cards we have no problem because then Law 14 applies and the rectification is automatic: Declarer receives his 95% score. (Of course Law 67 might possibly also seem applicable, but this law cannot upset the automatic rectification prescribed in Law 14)

blackshoe, on Feb 18 2010, 05:30 PM, said:

Quote

This changed the case to a Law 13 situation requiring the Director to cancel the result obtained (or just about to be obtained) on the board and award an adjusted score.

No. It may be unlikely, but it is certainly possible that 13A can be applied, and no adjustment necessary. For example, West's missing card turns out to be one of the two still held by East, and the fact it was in the wrong hand for twelve tricks makes no difference to the play.

True, and that is precisely why I want the adjusted score ordered (and authorized) by Law 13 to be at least as favourable to the non-offending side as the score resulting from an automatic rectification according to Law 14.
Even a possible ruling that the surplus card eventually found in East's hand has had any impact on the play should not be material in this respect; East held this card because of his own separate violation of Law 7, or alternatively his violation of some other law.

blackshoe, on Feb 18 2010, 05:30 PM, said:

Quote

[snip]Is it really their opinion that because an excessive card was found in East's hand (proving that a second violation of Law 7B has been committed by the same offending side) the Director shall award an adjusted score less favourable for the non-offending side than the score had there been no such second irregularity?

The fact that West has two cards at trick 13 does not prove any such thing. Your "proof" is an assumption on your part.

East - not West. Why he had an extra card at trick 13 doesn't really matter: Either he had it from start, in which case Law 13 applies and East has (separately) violated Law 7, or he started off with 13 cards, in which case Law 14 applies (and East has violated some other law during the play).

blackshoe, on Feb 18 2010, 05:30 PM, said:

Of note is that fact that Law 13 uses the phrase "award an adjusted score" several times, but the phrase "award an artificial adjusted score" (emphasis mine) only once - and that one does not apply to this case. So I agree that an artificial adjusted score is not appropriate.

Not only is an artificial adjusted score inappropriate, but I see no legal reason for the Director to award an assigned adjusted score less favourable to the non-offending side than the score that would be automatic if ruled entirely under Law 14. The only way Law 13 can come into the picture is by a different violation of Law 7 committed by the offending side. Such an additional violation of law by the offending side should not possibly result in a final result on the board less favourable to the non-offending side than the result had this additional violation of law not occurred.

The Director is fully able to determine a result on the play after 12 tricks have been played. Law 12 instructs him when able to award an assigned adjusted score to do just that.

[pran]

bluejak, on Feb 18 2010, 06:05 PM, said:

pran, on Feb 18 2010, 09:25 AM, said:

I must challenge all those who argue that the Director should investigate what would probably have happened had no irregularity taken place, and award an assigned adjusted score accordingly:

Law 12 said:

B. Objectives of Score Adjustment
1. The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a nonoffending
side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending
side through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction,
an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have
been the expectation had the infraction not occurred – but see C1.

How do you know whether damage has occurred if you are going to completely ignore what would have happened without the infraction?

Law 12 said:

C. Awarding an Adjusted Score
1. [c] In order to do equity, and unless the Regulating Authority forbids it,
an assigned adjusted score may be weighted to reflect the
probabilities of a number of potential results.

You are suggesting that only potential results that include the irregularity are to be included?

Do you normally give assigned scores with no consideration whatever for what would have happened without the irregularity?

At the completion of trick 12 the situation (as known to us) is that West has started off with only 12 cards from the beginning. The play is about to be completed; essentially is is completed when there is only one trick left to play.

At this stage declarer has an expectation of (at least) a 95% score on the board, the fact that West does not have a 13th card to lead does not change this expectation in any way unfavourable to declarer.

Now a new irregularity is revealed: East has an extra card, and the Director must of course also handle this irregularity.

If the Director now rules that the final rectification should result in any score less favourable to the non-offending side than the above expected 95% score obtained at the table then this ruling actually damages the non-offending side and therefore is a violation of Law 12 by the Director!

[B]A second violation of law by an already offending side in a first violation of law cannot justify a total rectification less favourable to the non-offending side than the rectification had only the first violation of law occurred.

[blackshoe]

I give up. Apparently there is no difference between "fact" and "assumption". You guys have fun. I'm out of this one.

[pran]

blackshoe, on Feb 18 2010, 10:51 PM, said:

I give up. Apparently there is no difference between "fact" and "assumption". You guys have fun. I'm out of this one.

Have we at any time been offered the suggestion that the board was fouled so that the thirteen cards held by North and South respectively and the twelve cards originally held by West were not correct?

I haven't bothered to engage in speculations along such a line which to me would mean a complete derailment of the case. (If the board was fouled then of course no result can stand, this is too basic to waste time on. If the board was not fouled we indeed have enough information to rule.)

Sven

[axman]

pran, on Feb 18 2010, 01:56 PM, said:

bluejak, on Feb 18 2010, 06:05 PM, said:

pran, on Feb 18 2010, 09:25 AM, said:

I must challenge all those who argue that the Director should investigate what would probably have happened had no irregularity taken place, and award an assigned adjusted score accordingly:

Law 12 said:

B. Objectives of Score Adjustment
1. The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a nonoffending
side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending
side through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction,
an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have
been the expectation had the infraction not occurred – but see C1.

How do you know whether damage has occurred if you are going to completely ignore what would have happened without the infraction?

Law 12 said:

C. Awarding an Adjusted Score
1. [c] In order to do equity, and unless the Regulating Authority forbids it,
an assigned adjusted score may be weighted to reflect the
probabilities of a number of potential results.

You are suggesting that only potential results that include the irregularity are to be included?

Do you normally give assigned scores with no consideration whatever for what would have happened without the irregularity?

At the completion of trick 12 the situation (as known to us) is that West has started off with only 12 cards from the beginning. The play is about to be completed; essentially is is completed when there is only one trick left to play.

At this stage declarer has an expectation of (at least) a 95% score on the board, the fact that West does not have a 13th card to lead does not change this expectation in any way unfavourable to declarer.

Now a new irregularity is revealed: East has an extra card, and the Director must of course also handle this irregularity.

If the Director now rules that the final rectification should result in any score less favourable to the non-offending side than the above expected 95% score obtained at the table then this ruling actually damages the non-offending side and therefore is a violation of Law 12 by the Director!

[B]A second violation of law by an already offending side in a first violation of law cannot justify a total rectification less favourable to the non-offending side than the rectification had only the first violation of law occurred.

I don't particularly like it when, in a fit of stupor, I go about apologizing for producing rubbish when in fact my apology was not supported by the facts- it was [the apology] that was rubbish.

As for this situation it has been suggested that it is lawful that NS receive a score for taking at least 9 tricks; as I attempted to patiently explain, once the TD has been called the law provides that once ascertaining the facts of the hypothetical then the cards are returned forthwith to the pockets 14/12 and all and an artificial score is awarded. Me [as in TD]- I am assessing a 50% PP for W not counting his cards [due to an adjusted score] and the same for E- which works out to be about the same as what some jurisdictions assess for misduplication.

It then behooves the TD to stay close for the next round so that he can get this board 'started' first and make sure the cards are counted- and then he can lawfully go about his figuring out how to restore the board while the other boards are being finished.

Now there is no one who thinks these shenanigans are more preposterous than I so others should realize that their mention is not made lightly, and certainly not in jest. The law could easily have been written 'if an incorrect card is found in a hand it shall be corrected' rather than taking the difficult pains to construct it as is.

As for the hapless NS who have been deprived of their share of the tops being dispensed by EW I can explain that the ruling was rigorous as provided by law which is [the law] quite wrong headed; and that the best** way to try to get satisfaction is to take it up with the WBF.

** not that it will turn out to be at all satisfying

[Vampyr]

pran, on Feb 18 2010, 07:56 PM, said:

A second violation of law by an already offending side in a first violation of law cannot justify a total rectification less favourable to the non-offending side than the rectification had only the first violation of law occurred.

I hope that this will satisfy those who think that EW should get the benefit of having defended with their correct hands.

[bluejak]

Perhaps so if I had the faintest idea what this is about.

Are you suggesting the hand was played for the first eleven tricks with 51 cards, and then and only then a card fell off a passing flying pig and landed in the player's hand?

If not, what "first" violation and what "second" violation?

[pran]

bluejak, on Feb 19 2010, 02:35 PM, said:

Perhaps so if I had the faintest idea what this is about.

Are you suggesting the hand was played for the first eleven tricks with 51 cards, and then and only then a card fell off a passing flying pig and landed in the player's hand?

If not, what "first" violation and what "second" violation?

I am "suggesting" that until trick 12 the board was for all practical purposes indeed played with 51 cards, and the initial situation when West had no card to lead to trick 13 was a clear cut Law 14 case. This was the original irregularity.

According to the prescriptions in Law 14 the Director made (I assume) a search for the missing card and found it (again I assume) in possesson of East. (Both my assumptions are based on the facts presented with the OP and I have not noticed any fact contradicting these)

Had the card not been found at all, or found anywhere else (except of course in possession of North or South), we would still have had a clear cut Law 14 case with no question of awarding any adjusted score (other than possible rectifications as prescribed in Law 14).

However, as the card was found with East the case is changed into a Law 13 case, and now we have evidence of a second irregularity, also committed by a player (East this time) on the offending side in the original irregularity. We cannot tell the exact nature of this irregularity, it may be a violation of Law 7 or it may be a violation of some other law(s).

But can this second irregularity by the same offending side justify an eventual assigned adjusted score that is less favourable to the non-offending side than the score would have been without this second irregularity?

I shall never unerstand such a possibility.

Finally, let me call attention to the minutes from Beijing Oct 10th 2008 where we have a resolution on multiple revokes:

Law 64C – If there are two revokes on the same board the equity in the case of the second revoke is determined by reference to the position after the first revoke.

Although this resolution is not explicitly relevant to our case it makes it clear (at least to me) that equity in the case of multiple irregularities shall be considered for each new irregularity by reference to the position following the last previous irregularity.

[bluejak]

It was not played "for all practical purposes" or in any other way with 51 cards: it was played with 52 cards throughout.

If we assume that one player started with 12 and one with 14 then there was a violation at the start of not counting cards. There was no violation at trick 11: that is ridiculous.

The only argument that has any validity of a "second violation" is the fact that both members of a partnership did not count their cards correctly, which if you are pedantic is two violations. But it would only have relevance if you were issuing PPs, perhaps if these players habitually fail to count their cards and had been warned: then you might give them a PP each, or a double PP for the pair.

But for rectification purposes this is a Law 13 case and always was.

Yes, ok, Ed, if after investigation you find the obvious has happened: I am not arguing that one in 10000 times something different has happened or that you should not investigate. But I think this hand worth discussing on the basis that the obvious has occurred, and there was no second violation at trick 11.

[blackshoe]

On the assumption that both East and West failed to count their cards, and that one started the hand with 12 and the other 14, then yes, it's a straight Law 13 case. First though, I want to know how the situation came about. Since we're making assumptions, I'll assume that the hand was misboarded at the previous table. I will find out who's at fault, and they will get a PP(Warning), at least. EW at this table will get a PP(Warning) or more as well, for failing to count their cards. Then I will try to identify which card in East's hand belongs in West's. I will try to apply Law 13A first, only going to 13B if absolutely necessary. Since we're making assumptions, I'll assume that West's missing card is one of the two unplayed cards in East's hand. I'll tell him to give it to his partner, and his partner to lead it. And, most likely, the table result will stand.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on Feb 19 2010, 10:11 PM, said:

The only argument that has any validity of a "second violation" is the fact that both members of a partnership did not count their cards correctly, which if you are pedantic is two violations.

I am certain that this is what Sven meant, and I think that it is a valid argument.

[bluejak]

A valid argument for what? Two failures to count cards are going to get two PPs, if you like, but it does not mean you deliberately rule under the wrong Law as has been suggested.



The reason that I assume 12/14 means a card has shifted is because it very nearly always is, so it is a valid assumption when giving advice on a forum. However, the assumption that the particular card is one of the two left is very unlikely indeed.