[JoAnneM]

This may sound incredible but this is what actually happened.

At the start of Friday's game (I was directing) table 4 shuffled the boards (4) and got ready to play. One of the players noticed a gray card on the floor, under the table. There were two boards with gray cards so they counted their cards in the first board and assumed it belonged to the second board. When they got to the second board with gray cards they counted their hands and they all had 13 cards so they just put the card under the table marker and played the hand. When they finished the round NOW they called me.

1. All the hands for both grey boards are, of course, returned to the boards, the hands are over, and scored.
2. I told them to once again count their hands in both boards. This brought protests, but I insisted. Guess what?? The second board was short a card in the north hand, she had miscounted. How did they get through the hand? Well, west had claimed and no one noticed.

Now, my questions about proceeding: I really can't have them reconstruct the hand, none of them are really capable of doing that, and by now we are well into the 2nd round. North miscounted, but both sides played a fouled board. No one called me with the obvious problem after counting the second board. The whole problem could have been solved right then.

[blackshoe]

Issue a small* PP to both sides, as a reminder to North to be more careful, and to all four to call the director when there's a problem.

Yeah, yeah, I know. "It's a club game, you can't issue PPs". Pfui.

What about score adjustment? Well, Laws 14B2 and B4 apply, but it seems it's not going to be possible to determine whether there was a revoke (for example), or whether the NOS (EW) were damaged — unless the card was the Ace of trumps. Was it? If not, I'd just let the score stand.

*The "standard" PP in ACBL Tournaments is 25% of a top, but that doesn't mean you have to issue one that large. There was a poster here (I think) in the last day or so who issued a PP of 1% of a top. I was a bit surprised at the small size (maybe it was a typo), but on reflection I figure "why not?"

[PrinceNep]

blackshoe, on Sep 29 2010, 02:14 PM, said:

Issue a small* PP to both sides, as a reminder to North to be more careful, and to all four to call the director when there's a problem.

Yeah, yeah, I know. "It's a club game, you can't issue PPs". Pfui.

What about score adjustment? Well, Laws 14B2 and B4 apply, but it seems it's not going to be possible to determine whether there was a revoke (for example), or whether the NOS (EW) were damaged — unless the card was the Ace of trumps. Was it? If not, I'd just let the score stand.

*The "standard" PP in ACBL Tournaments is 25% of a top, but that doesn't mean you have to issue one that large. There was a poster here (I think) in the last day or so who issued a PP of 1% of a top. I was a bit surprised at the small size (maybe it was a typo), but on reflection I figure "why not?"

Just a comment on the procedural penalties ..

I enjoy reading the commentary on situations regarding law on the forums. Situations can be so unique and dealing with them can be ridiculously complicated.

The one thing I always shake my head over, however, is the amount of Procedural Penalties that you people would hand out.

Procedural Penalties, especially at the CLUB level, should be reserved for situations in which someone intentionally attempted to foul the board or cheat (and maybe loosely for those who have a record of being told the same thing over and over and just not getting it).

Not everyone can be as savvy regarding the laws as the majority of you here. You need to take a step back and realize that the PURPOSE of these people to gather in a room is to PLAY a GAME and ENJOY themselves. What is the point in punishing someone because they didn't follow the LAWS exactly to the tee?

Those who assign a PP every chance they get, need to reevaluate why we get together to play cards in the first place. Certainly there is a time and place for Procedural Penalties, and if it is absolutely necessary in order to restore equity, then that route must be taken.

I would expect any good club owner to attempt to restore equity to the best of their ability without giving Procedural Penalties that aren't merited.

Education is the goal here ... not punishment.

[bluejak]

Enjoyment is the goal - and when a player's enjoyment is severely compromised by someone else, now a PP is appropriate. You should not just consider the enjoyment of the law-breaker, but also of the victims - and too many people forget the victims.

For example if a board is fouled and you can sort it out so the next table plays it then you do not issue a PP. But if they cannot play it you should issue a PP.

Remember: victims have a right to enjoyment too.

[JoAnneM]

I posted a reply and the next time I looked it was gone, very strange. I will try again.

No procedural penalties. I was concerned that the missing card would change the bidding and play too much so I had the next table shuffle the board. I gave n/s an average minus and e/w an average plus. E/w did count their cards correctly. I told them all they should have discovered where the card belonged before they started playing, and called me if they had a problem. I don't know where they thought that card came from.

[mrdct]

A not dissimilar thing happened to me just a couple of days ago. I live in a town on the Murray River on the Victoria/NSW border where golf and gambling are big earners for the local tourism industry. One of Australia's "bridge holiday" operators has a group of 50 or so retirees here for the week for a programme of workshops, walk-ins and little two-session events. To pad out his numbers, he encourages members of the local bridge club to participate, so my son and I played in the two-session matchpoint pairs "championship" on Monday and Tuesday night (winning quite comfortably with 67% in the qualifying and 68% in the final).

The qualifying had two six-table sections playing a share-mitchell movement with an arrow-switch in the last round so that each section would produce a top-six to progress to Tuesday night's final. At the end of the second of six rounds, the table next to us (from which we were receiving our boards) called the director to advise him that a card was on the floor. The director had everyone count their cards from the set that they just played and it was 13 all round so in the interests of keeping things moving, he called the move expecting that at some point he will be called by a player with only 12 cards and can reinstate the correct hand and work out how to score the board at the tables where it was fouled. As it happens nobody every called him.

At the end of the round, the north-south pair at the table which found the card on the floor grabbed the boards from their first round and after counting all the hands, discovered the deficient board from their first round which had been played at all five of the other tables (including my own table) without anyone noticing. As it happens the north-south cards had 13 top tricks in NT and the deficient hand was west with a balanced 3-count. At my table we bid and made 7NT and I claimed at trick one. The other five tables were all in various small slams, but I doubt any table played beyond trick 4 or 5 so it is understandable that nobody noticed the deficient hand.

In the context of this being a bridge holiday event the director scored the board as though it had been in its correct state throughout. He also declined the opportunity to assess any procedural penalties, even though it was obvious who had fouled the board and five wests had failed to count their cards. Personally I think it was a sensible "ruling".

[PrinceNep]

bluejak, on Sep 29 2010, 08:22 PM, said:

Enjoyment is the goal - and when a player's enjoyment is severely compromised by someone else, now a PP is appropriate. You should not just consider the enjoyment of the law-breaker, but also of the victims - and too many people forget the victims.

For example if a board is fouled and you can sort it out so the next table plays it then you do not issue a PP. But if they cannot play it you should issue a PP.

Remember: victims have a right to enjoyment too.

I have no qualms with that ... but I consider that a situation in which a Procedural Penalty is the only way to restore equity.

Certainly those who are affected by the irregularity should be taken into consideration as well.

[campboy]

blackshoe, on Sep 29 2010, 08:14 PM, said:

*The "standard" PP in ACBL Tournaments is 25% of a top, but that doesn't mean you have to issue one that large. There was a poster here (I think) in the last day or so who issued a PP of 1% of a top. I was a bit surprised at the small size (maybe it was a typo), but on reflection I figure "why not?"

I didn't see the post, but it sounds like a typo. The standard PP in England is 10% of a top, so perhaps that is what was meant.

[blackshoe]

PrinceNep, on Sep 30 2010, 02:33 PM, said:

I have no qualms with that ... but I consider that a situation in which a Procedural Penalty is the only way to restore equity.

No. The point is that you issue a PP because you can't restore equity.

Campboy said:

The standard PP in England is 10% of a top, so perhaps that is what was meant.

Yeah, that's one reason I mentioned the possibility. But I think the poster might have been North American.