[axman]

Vampyr, on Feb 19 2010, 08:25 PM, said:

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.

Given the premise that the board has been previously played the thing that is certain is that after twelve tricks one player holds no cards and his partner 2 cards. It is a valid conclusion that one card/ [or more than one card] are in different hands than when played previously.

While it is no particularly great crime to not count one’s cards before looking at them, it is a great crime to look at one’s cards when you possess other than the requisite 13 because of the likelihood of fouling a scheduled comparison that could easily have been prevented.

In this case there is a very strong likelihood that E and W have committed the great crime of looking at their cards when they did not hold the requisite 13.

But that does not mean that there hasn’t been collateral crime. Twelve tricks having been completed there is the possibility [that is highly probable] that other even greater crimes have been committed; a player [be it E or N or S] that wound up with W’s card may have played it to a previous trick thereby making the trick defective; and poor W may well have discarded on a trick when had he instead possessed his 13th card he could have followed suit.

[pran]

Vampyr, on Feb 20 2010, 02:25 AM, said:

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.

That is precisely what I meant, and while disregarding any interest at all in the PP question I cannot accept any Director ruling that there was only one irregularity in this situation. East and West have both independently committed violations of laws.

What is pedantic is that we cannot tell for sure exactly which law each of them has violated. However, I don't see how this is material as far as Declarer (NOS) is concerned.

But I notice with interest that because of the two independent violations of laws by the same side David finds it correct to rule a less favourable result to the non-offending side than the automatic ruling had East's violation not been discovered.

(East could for instance have disposed of his extra card somehow, or he might even never have had that extra card in his hand and thus not committed any second violation).

[lamford]

bluejak, on Feb 19 2010, 10:21 PM, said:

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.

I agree that it is overwhelmingly likely that the players started with 12 and 14, allthough one playing two to a previous trick and one zero is also possible. At my club, it could be one person playing two cards to two tricks and none to three tricks as well!

However, being pedantic, the probability of the card from the wrong hand being one of the two remaining cards is around 2/13, surely, (just based on the statement that someone has 2 cards left and his partner none) which is not "very unlikely indeed".

[campboy]

lamford, on Feb 20 2010, 01:50 PM, said:

However, being pedantic, the probability of the card from the wrong hand being one of the two remaining cards is around 2/13, surely, (just based on the statement that someone has 2 cards left and his partner none) which is not "very unlikely indeed".

1/7, assuming the person with two left started with 14.

[bluejak]

lamford, on Feb 20 2010, 01:50 PM, said:

bluejak, on Feb 19 2010, 10:21 PM, said:

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.

I agree that it is overwhelmingly likely that the players started with 12 and 14, although one playing two to a previous trick and one zero is also possible. At my club, it could be one person playing two cards to two tricks and none to three tricks as well!

However, being pedantic, the probability of the card from the wrong hand being one of the two remaining cards is around 2/13, surely, (just based on the statement that someone has 2 cards left and his partner none) which is not "very unlikely indeed".

Of course it is very unlikely: one time in eight, I believe. If you had two lines of play, one a one in eight chance, one a seven in eight chance, and nothing to choose between them, you would be perverse, to put it mildly, if you chose th one in eight chance. Therefore, if you had no other way of finding out, to presume that one of the two cards left was the card, rather than one of the eleven previously played, is a very silly approach.



Now we have a suggestion that if we assume the deck has 51 cards we would do something, therefore that I am suggesting we give declarer a worse score because it has 52 cards. That is beyond belief. Of course we rule differently in different circumstances, and a suggestion that we decide how we rule because of the results of a totally different situation ruled under a different Law is pointless and of no practical use, and no competent TD will consider it for a moment.



let us start again, hopefully without the foolish and/or irrelevant flights of fancy.

bluejak, on Feb 9 2010, 02:05 AM, said:

South is declarer in 3NT and thanks to the worst defence ever she wins the first 9 tricks and is expecting 95%+.  However, West is on lead to trick 13 but has no cards left to lead!  East has two cards remaining.

First, we find out what happened, as Ed points out. We do not rule on presumptions unless we cannot decide otherwise. In practice, findings of fact are often based on judgement. Let us suppose for argument's sake, that we find a specific card is missing from one hand and has appeared in the other hand. Other possibilities are wildly unlikely. That does not mean they do not happen. It means that what discussing what to do in a forum it is better to make certain assumptions than refuse to answer the question because of wildly unlikely possibilities.

Now, on that assumption, and if no-one has noticed anything strange, it is a reasonable deduction that they started with 12 and 14 cards. For a card to move during a hand is prcactically unheard of, with the exception of dummy's cards, which have moved before now. But we are dealing with defenders here.

Were there two violations? Yes, if you like. It makes no difference, apart from the possibilities of PPs. We all know when we would give a PP, and in this case you give PPs or not, it does not really affect anything.

We then look up the Law. Since there were 52 cards in the hand throughout it is a Law 13 case. Comparisons with Law 14 get us nowhere, since it is not a Law 14 case: you might just as well compare what would have happened if there was a bid out of turn. Since it did not happen there is no reason for such a comparison.

So, we look at Law 13. Has a call been made by a hand containing an incorrect number of cards? Yes, clearly since it is trick 13. So it is not Law 13D.

Play had not finished, so it is not Law 13C.

How about Laws 13A and 13B? As a generality, Law 13A is rarely applied once the auction has got very far, but it could be. I suppose the TD could decide which card was to be moved, and especially if it happens to be one of the two remaining cards, move it. But in general, I doubt he would get much support for this, since the general approach is to move cards if they have not affected matters much, primarily moving them early in the auction only. Of course, it is easier to move a card nowadays, since you can apply Law 13A and still change your mind and award an adjusted score at the end.

The simple solution is to award an adjusted score under Law 13B, as I am sure in practice most TDs would.

So, how do we award an adjusted score? Perhaps we should read Law 12, yes? Or should we just make our own rules up? Go on: try reading the Law!

[pran]

bluejak, on Feb 20 2010, 02:59 PM, said:

The simple solution is to award an adjusted score under Law 13B, as I am sure in practice most TDs would.

So, how do we award an adjusted score?  Perhaps we should read Law 12, yes?  Or should we just make our own rules up?  Go on: try reading the Law!

That is exactly what I have wanted to do all the time. The question has been which score to award (and why).

First of all we have Law 12A2: The Director awards an artificial adjusted score if no rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board

I see no reason to rule that the play already done on this board was not "normal" unless the Director finds that the "misplaced" card was a direct cause for "the worst defence ever". We haven't been given any information to this effect. And there is no restriction in Law 13B against awarding an assigned adjusted score.

Consequently, I consider the Director able to award an assigned adjusted score corresponding to the result on the board as it has been played, see 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.

I have a huge problem understanding why the Director should ignore "the worst defence ever" when deciding on which adjusted score to award.

(And I have a problem understanding why the additional violation of law apparently committed by East shall have a positive effect for the offending side when it comes to rectification. Shall East/West be favoured by the card missing in West turning up undetected in East's hand instead of being found on the floor or anywhere else?)

[bluejak]

Quote

I have a huge problem understanding why the Director should ignore "the worst defence ever" when deciding on which adjusted score to award.

So have I. Who said we should ignore it?

Quote

And I have a problem understanding why the additional violation of law apparently committed by East ....

On the other hand, this is still a waste of time: there were two violations, simultaneously, and Law 13 deals with them. It is this strange idea of two violations at different times that seems nonsensical.

[blackshoe]

I think perhaps we should look at it this way: there have been two violations by one contestant (EW), sure. The fact that there were two does not, says Sven, affect the principle that NS (the NOS) are due an adjustment to their expectation had their been no infractions, which in this case was 95% of the MPs. I agree. Does anyone not?

[lamford]

campboy, on Feb 20 2010, 07:59 AM, said:

lamford, on Feb 20 2010, 01:50 PM, said:

However, being pedantic, the probability of the card from the wrong hand being one of the two remaining cards is around 2/13, surely, (just based on the statement that someone has 2 cards left and his partner none) which is not "very unlikely indeed".

1/7, assuming the person with two left started with 14.

I know it is not very relevant, but I disagree, and now I think my original figure of 2/13 is probably wrong too! Say that on the previous board we know that one card of West's was put back in East's hand after the deal was played. What is the probability that it remained unplayed after 12 tricks had been played the next time it is played? We must assume East would not revoke if he could play the transferred card. On some occasions, therefore, East would be forced to play the transferred card, on others he would have a choice and would use bridge ability (allied to his undoubted counting ability) to decide. I gave up on trying to assess the true probability, and bitterly regret raising the subject! As Catherine Tate might say, "Am I bovvered?"

But back to the problem in question. Bluejak is right that it is just a Law 13 case, as it is almost inconceivable that there were not 52 cards present throughout, unless it is the Magic Circle Annual Pairs. I would, however, regard the chances of FUBARation (with apologies to any scrabble players, as I know it is not allowed) being during the play as signficant in comparison with the 12-14 starting layout theory, based on my experience of the ineptitude of bridge players. So, the director makes a decision about what happened in accordance with 85A1, and then applies the Laws. I guess I am just agreeing with everyone.

[pran]

blackshoe, on Feb 20 2010, 07:58 PM, said:

I think perhaps we should look at it this way: there have been two violations by one contestant (EW), sure. The fact that there were two does not, says Sven, affect the principle that NS (the NOS) are due an adjustment to their expectation had their been no infractions, which in this case was 95% of the MPs. I agree. Does anyone not?

Thanks. At last I feel that some people begin to grasp what I have tried to express through a variety of examples and references.

And yes, I feel that several people have expressed their disagreement by wanting to evaluate what might have happened had both West and East had their correct hands all the time, before they decide on an adjusted score.

IMHO these people fail to realize that the true expectation for NOS had no irregularity taken place is still the 95% score "caused by the worst defence ever".

[bluejak]

No, we do not fail to realise any such thing. We just apply the Laws, which you seem unprepared to do. TDs apply Laws, such as Law 12C, not just rule as they feel seems fair.

[pran]

bluejak, on Feb 21 2010, 09:34 PM, said:

No, we do not fail to realise any such thing.  We just apply the Laws, which you seem unprepared to do.  TDs apply Laws, such as Law 12C, not just rule as they feel seems fair.

Did the poor old declarer keep the 95% score that was her expectation had no irregularity occurred?

(I do not consider "the worst defence ever" an irregularity)

[bluejak]

Suppose you hold

KJT
652
KJ53
Q3

and lead the ♦3 against 3NT.

But in fact, without the irregularity, your hand is

KQJT
652
KJ53
Q3

Convince me that the defence would be the same. No, not would, might.

[mycroft]

"would"? No.

"might"? How often have you put your hand down after the auction to write down the contract, brought it back up, and got 3=3=4=2? Now you, and I, and everyone here, will almost always see that the hand's wrong, but we also count the hands face down before we look at them, and count the distribution once we've sorted it (I've caught it a couple of times myself just turning them over).

This West did neither. Is he going to notice? Or is he going to notice that he's sorted the ♠Q as the ♣Q (well, this time he will. Okay, the ♠J for the ♣J)?

As far as I'm concerned if he didn't notice he was playing with a 12-card hand until trick 12, he's not going to notice that the SQ is stuck behind the D5 either.

That's "might" for you. Is it enough? Don't know.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on Feb 23 2010, 04:17 PM, said:

Suppose you hold

KJT
652
KJ53
Q3

and lead the ♦3 against 3NT.

But in fact, without the irregularity, your hand is

KQJT
652
KJ53
Q3

Convince me that the defence would be the same.  No, not would, might.

The defense won't be the same. So what? Are you going to give the OS a more favourable score than the one that was obtained after the irregularity?

[bluejak]

Perhaps. We have a Law that basically says "Cancel the board and give artificial adjusted scores". Now we are looking at assigning a score, but to assign a score, we have to follow the general rules of assigning, which are to consider what would have happened without the irregularity. If we believe that without the irregularity declarer would not have got his good score, can we honestly assign him a good score?

[pran]

bluejak, on Feb 24 2010, 02:04 AM, said:

Perhaps.  We have a Law that basically says "Cancel the board and give artificial adjusted scores".  Now we are looking at assigning a score, but to assign a score, we have to follow the general rules of assigning, which are to consider what would have happened without the irregularity.  If we believe that without the irregularity declarer would not have got his good score, can we honestly assign him a good score?

Which law is that? The only part of law 13 that uses the word "artificial" is definitely irrelevant because it only applies when the irregularity is discovered before any call has been made.

Here a result has been obtained, good to declarer allegedly because of the worst defence ever. It is possible that this misdefence was caused by the offending side's own irregularity, so what?

I assume you will never award an adjusted score taking away a good result from a non-offending side for the basic reason that opponents' play was irrational?