[dburn]

pran, on Jul 26 2010, 07:44 AM, said:

A physical difference between two hands that should be identical or a discrepancy in a pack from its specifications is absolute.

No, it isn't. If it were, then Laws 13 and 14 would not exist - or if they did exist, they would make no provision for play to continue in any circumstances whatsoever.

[blackshoe]

Neither law 13 nor law 14 covers the case in hand, and you know it, David.

The point here is that a deck that does not conform to Law 1 cannot be used to play a legitimate hand of bridge.

The question "does or does not the deck conform to Law 1?" is, as David pointed out, one of law rather than judgment.

[dburn]

blackshoe, on Jul 27 2010, 05:36 PM, said:

Neither law 13 nor law 14 covers the case in hand, and you know it, David.

The point here is that a deck that does not conform to Law 1 cannot be used to play a legitimate hand of bridge.

The question "does or does not the deck conform to Law 1?" is, as David pointed out, one of law rather than judgment.

Well, a deck with 51 cards does not conform to Law 1, and so "cannot be used to play a legitimate hand of bridge" - or can it?

Why, yes it can. If for example the players bid and play and score with a deck of 51 (through no fault of their own - the duplimate machine ate the six of spades during its lunch break), then not only is the hand they play with it and the result they obtain on it "legitimate", but the poor fellow who played with twelve cards throughout may be deemed to have revoked.

Of course, this is his fault for not counting his cards before he started to play them. But it is simply and incontrovertibly false to say, as you have said above, that "a deck that does not conform to Law 1 cannot be used to play a legitimate hand of bridge".

[blackshoe]

You're playing word games. To Hell with that.

[dburn]

blackshoe, on Jul 27 2010, 06:07 PM, said:

You're playing word games. To Hell with that.

Well, bridge is a game and its Laws consist of words. Anyone who attempts to interpret those Laws is to that extent "playing word games"; his destination in the afterlife is a matter for the judgement of his Maker, to whom Laws 92 and 93 probably do not apply.

But I assure you that I am being entirely serious. mjj29 raised this perfectly sensible question:

mjj29 said:

I don't think anyone's mentioned this yet, but is it legal for the TD to judge that it would have made no difference to the play of the board (say there are two ♠6 and no ♠5 and spades all trivially fall under honours, or get ruffed) and let the table result stand?

and received short shrift from (among others) pran, who said:

pran said:

The board does not conform with the specifications in Law 1 and the Director is not at liberty to rule that the difference does not matter

But this is a complete non sequitur, for the Law quoted below:

Law 13A said:

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.

expressly provides for the Director to use his judgement in at least one case of a deck that does not conform to Law 1, and rule that the difference does not matter.

Moreover, Law 14 expressly provides for the Director to rule that a result obtained in at least one case of a deck that does not conform to Law 1 should stand as a "legitimate" result on the board (indeed, he may not rule that it should not).

If "at least one", why not more than one?

[pran]

dburn, on Jul 28 2010, 12:27 AM, said:

Law 13A said:

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.

expressly provides for the Director to use his judgement in at least one case of a deck that does not conform to Law 1, and rule that the difference does not matter.

Moreover, Law 14 expressly provides for the Director to rule that a result obtained in at least one case of a deck that does not conform to Law 1 should stand as a "legitimate" result on the board (indeed, he may not rule that it should not).

If "at least one", why not more than one?

Law 13A can only apply when an error is discovered early enough to be rectified before (in the Director's opinion) this error can impact the result on the board. And even when the Director has allowed play to be completed he may afterwards rule that the error did have impact on the result and award an adjusted score.

You should have read a little further and found that if play for instance has been completed without such rectification the Director has no choice but to cancel the result (Law13C): When it is determined after play ends that a player’s hand originally contained more than 13 cards with another player holding fewer (but see Law 13F), the result must be cancelled and an adjusted score awarded (Law 86D may apply). An offending contestant is liable to a procedural penalty.

(Law 13F: Any surplus card not part of the deal is removed if found. The auction and play continue unaffected. If such a card is found to have been played to a quitted trick an adjusted score may be awarded.)

Law 14 only applies when a card is missing from the pack and a player holding less than thirteen cards has failed to count his cards properly. This is a specific law stating that the offender shall be ruled against as if he had had his complete hand all the time, Law 14 leaves no judgment option for the Director.

Neither of laws 13 or 14 applies when all four hands originally contained 13 cards but the pack did not conform to the specifications in Law 1

[mjj29]

pran, on Jul 28 2010, 03:25 AM, said:

Neither of laws 13 or 14 applies when all four hands originally contained 13 cards but the pack did not conform to the specifications in Law 1

Sure, I don't think that's what dburn is suggesting, he was merely pointing out that there is some scope for letting the score stand in certain cases where the pack is defective and therefore it would not be an unreasonable change for that to apply in other cases. I suspect this is the point we move the thread to "Changing Laws and Regulations" (-:

[dburn]

Sven, I know how to read. I also know that this statement:

Quote

A physical difference between two hands that should be identical or a discrepancy in a pack from its specifications is absolute.

is false. If at one table in a match a deal is played with 52 cards, while at the other table the supposedly identical deal is played with 51 (or with 53), the deal is not necessarily cancelled because the deck at the second table did not conform to Law 1, which is therefore not necessarily "absolute".

You really must get out of the habit of saying "such and such a Law applies only in case X." This means no more than "I apply this Law only in case X, because I haven't actually thought about what it means, nor about how it might apply in case Y".

[pran]

dburn, on Jul 28 2010, 01:38 PM, said:

Sven, I know how to read. I also know that this statement:

Quote

A physical difference between two hands that should be identical or a discrepancy in a pack from its specifications is absolute.

is false. If at one table in a match a deal is played with 52 cards, while at the other table the supposedly identical deal is played with 51 (or with 53), the deal is not necessarily cancelled because the deck at the second table did not conform to Law 1, which is therefore not necessarily "absolute".

You really must get out of the habit of saying "such and such a Law applies only in case X." This means no more than "I apply this Law only in case X, because I haven't actually thought about what it means, nor about how it might apply in case Y".

If a pack of cards contains more than 52 cards then Law 13 always applies. Most often this will be Law 13F (only).

If a pack of cards contains less than 52 cards then Law 13 always, and most often also law 14 apply.

In both cases there will have been a violation of Law 7B unless the error is discovered before a player with an incorrect number of cards has looked at his cards.

These laws enable the Director to let play continue on certain conditions after proper rectification.

I have never that I am aware of said anything else about such cases.

When a pack of cards does not comply with Law 1, except for the deviations specifically handled by Laws 13 and 14 then no result obtained with a deal from this pack may stand.

In any case a deviation in the properties of a pack from the specifications in Law 1 is absolute; either there is a deviation or there is not.

There is no such thing as "almost a deviation", no more than a woman can be "almost pregnant".