Laws Question. 51 Card Deck.

[pgmer6809]

Hello,
I have sent this to ACBL rulings email But no reply yet.
Be interested to hear what people here think.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I have asked a couple of our local directors about the following and
neither was 100% sure of the correct procedure.

We were E/W at a club game. In the third round of a 9 table event we
were playing board #27. After Trick 11 had been played my partner
realized that she had only one card left, while everyone else had two.
We called the director, and we could not find the missing card at our
table. The director went to the other two tables that had played the
hand, and could not find the missing card anywhere. After a few
minutes
we checked board #28, (which was not in play and still in the
director's
travelling case) and found the missing card mixed in with the other
cards in that tray. These were pre-dealt hands, and either the dealing
machine, or human error had misplaced one of the cards.

I know that the law (law Number ??) says that if a pair does not count
their cards and there are not the correct number they can be penalized
for negligence.
My questions:
1) Is average minus for my pair fair in this case?
2) If E/W at our table get AVG-MINUS then what do N/S get? AVG?
AVG-PLUS? (Avg plus seems generous since they are essentially
uninvolved.)
3) At the other two tables neither N/S nor E/W even noticed that
something was wrong. They just agreed, and reported, a bridge result.
As I understand it the scores they reported cannot stand as this was
not
a legal bridge deal. Therefore, what scores do they get at these other
two tables?

As dealing machines become more widespread I think we can assume that
similar cases will arise more frequently.
=======================================
UPDATE:
A director has informed me that the missing card is deemed to have
been in the proper hand. Failure to play the missing card at the
correct opportunity counts as a revoke and hence the Law regarding
revokes applies.
Q1. Is this correct?

Q2. Would the same result apply at the other tables?

If the revoke law applies, then it is possible that the outcome would
be different at different tables.
In this case the missing card was the Master trump. (I had Jx, and
Pard had Tx but would have had QTx.)
At our table declarer played 3 rounds of trump, and of course on the
third round neither of us followed, establishing the 'revoke'.
At a different table maybe the declarer left the master trump
outstanding, and at some point claimed, conceding the (missing) master
trump trick.

Q3. If that happened would their table result stand?
Q4. How could it, when the board was not a proper bridge hand.
-----------------------------------------------------------
pgmer6809

[derek]

On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 9:30:51 PM UTC-4, pgmer6809 wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have sent this to ACBL rulings email But no reply yet.
>
> Be interested to hear what people here think.

First of all, you are required to count your cards when you take them out of the board AND when you put them back. The player at the previous table who put the 14th card back in board should also be penalized.

Yes, if you didn't count your cards first, unless you didn't manage to fail to follow to the suit of the missing card until trick 12, you've revoked, with the accompanying penalty.

But you don't get Ave-/Ave/Ave+ for the hand - failing to count is a Procedural offense, and you might be subject to a procedural penalty (along with the possible revoke penalty).

Q1. Is this correct? [missing a card being equivalent to a revoke]
yes

Q2. Would the same result apply at the other tables?

No, unless the previous table(s) can demonstrate that the missing card was already in the wrong board when they got it (it actually seems the most likely cause to me - when I make boards with the dealing machine, I have found a card from a previous hand in the machine two boards later!). But if they want to claim that it was wrong when they got it, and STILL wrong when they passed the board on, I'm definitely hitting them with a procedural penalty and a revoke penalty where appropriate.

Q3. If that [not revoking] happened would their table result stand?
Absolutely - but they're getting a procedural penalty. If you win a bunch of tricks, and know that the boss trump is outstanding, and then make a valid claim that includes "and you get your trump whenever you want to take it", then it doesn't matter if the person who _should_ have that card in their hand doesn't actually have it - EVEN if both opponents then say "I don't have a trump...".

Q4. How could it, when the board was not a proper bridge hand.

It was - it's just that one person was concealing one of their cards. If he'd dropped the card on the floor, would you consider it "not a proper bridge hand"? So hiding it in the next board is the same thing :)

[derek]

On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 10:47:48 PM UTC-4, derek wrote:

Darn. Just realized that you said that board 28 was actually not in play, so:

- BOTH players who failed to count their cards previously will be given a 1/4 board procedural penalty (and just to stress how bad I think it was that they actually played the hand and returned the cards to the board without counting EITHER time, YOUR player will only get a warning).
- I will try to reconstruct the play at the two previous tables, and they may also end up with revoke penalties.

[Stu Goodgold]

Yes. Law 14 B2 states "if the card is found elsewhere, it is restored to the deficient hand. Retification and/or penalties may apply (See B4 below)."
B4 says essentially what you attribute to the director you quote.

>
>
>
> Q2. Would the same result apply at the other tables?

That depends on whether the hand was defective when the board was played at the other tables. It would be hard to determine a hand was defective if all 4 players scored it up and went on to the next hand.

>
>
>
> If the revoke law applies, then it is possible that the outcome would
>
> be different at different tables.
>
> In this case the missing card was the Master trump. (I had Jx, and
>
> Pard had Tx but would have had QTx.)
>
> At our table declarer played 3 rounds of trump, and of course on the
>
> third round neither of us followed, establishing the 'revoke'.
>
> At a different table maybe the declarer left the master trump
>
> outstanding, and at some point claimed, conceding the (missing) master
>
> trump trick.
>
>
>
> Q3. If that happened would their table result stand?

It is up to the non-offending side to determine there was a revoke. If another board is started before the revoke is mentioned, then there are no penalties, only restoration of equity.

>
> Q4. How could it, when the board was not a proper bridge hand.

Read law 14B.

Note that not counting your hand (or counting it improperly), is a violation of Law 7B2. The director may assess a procedural penalty for that.

-Stu Goodgold
San Jose, CA
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> pgmer6809

[Peter Smulders]

Even though it was the organizer who was at fault, by supplying one of
the hands with only 12 cards, I agree with a penalty for the players who
didn't notice their hand was incomplete. But for revoke penalties it is
too late, Law 64B.

[Co Wiersma]

Op 13-2-2013 12:17, Peter Smulders schreef:

Is there some misunderstanding here about who might have revoked?

[Dave Flower]

On Wednesday, 13 February 2013 11:17:48 UTC, Peter Smulders wrote:
> On 13-2-2013 3:51, derek wrote: > On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 10:47:48 PM UTC-4, derek wrote: > > Darn. Just realized that you said that board 28 was actually not in play, so: > > - BOTH players who failed to count their cards previously will be given a 1/4 board procedural penalty (and just to stress how bad I think it was that they actually played the hand and returned the cards to the board without counting EITHER time, YOUR player will only get a warning). > - I will try to reconstruct the play at the two previous tables, and they may also end up with revoke penalties. Even though it was the organizer who was at fault, by supplying one of the hands with only 12 cards, I agree with a penalty for the players who didn't notice their hand was incomplete. But for revoke penalties it is too late, Law 64B.

Yes, it seems that the revoke penalty cannot apply to the first two times the board was played.

However, offenders' opponents are blameless, and I would award Av+/Av- (or the actual table score, if better) under L12A1, in addition to a procedural penalty

Dave Flower

[Mark Brader]

"Derek":

> First of all, you are required to count your cards when you take them
> out of the board

Yes, Law 7B2.

> AND when you put them back.

WRONG. You are only required to shuffle them. Law 7C.
--
Mark Brader | In the face of such devastating logic as "despite
Toronto | what you say you mean, you must mean this and you
m...@vex.net | are wrong", I cede the territory. --Truly Donovan

My text in this article is in the public domain.

[derek]

On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 7:27:11 AM UTC-4, Co Wiersma wrote:
> Op 13-2-2013 12:17, Peter Smulders schreef:
>

> > Even though it was the organizer who was at fault, by supplying one of
> > the hands with only 12 cards, I agree with a penalty for the players who
> > didn't notice their hand was incomplete. But for revoke penalties it is
> > too late, Law 64B.

Ah, right. Specifically 64B5.

> Is there some misunderstanding here about who might have revoked?

No, it's simply to late to get redress. Call that a penalty for the side who failed to notice their opponents weren't playing with a full deck: the other side, after all, is already getting a bad result with a PP.

[derek]

On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 8:09:29 AM UTC-4, Mark Brader wrote:
> "Derek":
>
> > First of all, you are required to count your cards when you take them
> > out of the board
>
> Yes, Law 7B2.
>
> > AND when you put them back.
>
> WRONG. You are only required to shuffle them. Law 7C.

NOT wrong. 7C: "After play has finished, each player should shuffle his original 13 cards, after which he restores them..."

Now, if you know a way to ensure that you have the original 13 cards without counting them, you're entitled to use it, however, you'll have a hard time convincing me.

[derek]

On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 7:34:04 AM UTC-4, Dave Flower wrote:

> However, offenders' opponents are blameless, and I would award Av+/Av- (or the actual table score, if better) under L12A1, in addition to a procedural penalty

I disagree they're blameless. Unless a claim was made early enough to not see offender's whole hand, AND offender wasn't dummy, they should be aware of how many cards are in play. They have an obligation to play the game under the laws, one of the most basic of which is that everybody has 13 cards. I see no reason to adjust their scores in the cases where they _should_ have known one hand was defective, and if there was a claim before they should have known, surely "equity" is the actual result.

[Co Wiersma]

Op 13-2-2013 15:02, derek schreef:

If you are at trick eleven , then its not to late, is it?

Co Wiersma

[Barry Margolin]

In article <77eb37ab-fc6f-47e6...@googlegroups.com>,

I think that's really a stretch. Law 7B2 explicitly says that players
count their cards when removing them from the board. If they intended
that players must count when replacing them, they would have said so,
not implied it so obliquely.

I'm also not sure that failing to count cards is subject to a PP. The
introduction says: "Established usage has been retained in regard to
'may' do (failure to do it is not wrong), 'does' (establishes correct
procedure without suggesting that violation be penalized) 'should' do
(failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor�s rights
but not often penalized), 'shall' do (a violation will incur a
procedural penalty more often than not), 'must' do (the strongest word,
a serious matter indeed)."

7B2 says "Each player counts his cards face down to be sure he has
exactly thirteen" -- this is a "does", not a "must", so there's no
suggestion of a penalty. 7C says "should shuffle", but doesn't clearly
say anything about the counting (as I said above, it's at best implied).
There's no way an action just suggested this way could be deemed to be a
"shall" or "must".

--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA

[axm...@hotmail.com]

pgmer6809 wrote:

> Hello,
> I have sent this to ACBL rulings email But no reply yet.
> Be interested to hear what people here think.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> I have asked a couple of our local directors about the following and
> neither was 100% sure of the correct procedure.
>
> We were E/W at a club game. In the third round of a 9 table event we
> were playing board #27. After Trick 11 had been played my partner
> realized that she had only one card left, while everyone else had two.
> We called the director, and we could not find the missing card at our
> table. The director went to the other two tables that had played the
> hand, and could not find the missing card anywhere. After a few
> minutes
> we checked board #28, (which was not in play and still in the
> director's
> travelling case) and found the missing card mixed in with the other
> cards in that tray. These were pre-dealt hands, and either the dealing
> machine, or human error had misplaced one of the cards.

The card has been found which has created certainty where it has been.
[incorrect deal verified].

L14B2. if the card is found elsewhere, it is restored to the deficient
hand. Rectification and/or penalties may apply (see 4 following).

Care should be taken to avoid revealing the identity of the card
unnecessarily [UI restrictions have been avoided].

L14B4. a card restored to a hand under the provisions of Section B of
this Law is deemed to have belonged continuously to the deficient
hand. It may become a penalty card (Law 50), and failure to have
played it may constitute a revoke.

1. Therefore, restore the card to hand, notify that revoke remedies
may apply, and complete play.
2. Verify after the completion of play revoke status and remedy
accordingly.

> I know that the law (law Number ??) says that if a pair does not count
> their cards and there are not the correct number they can be penalized
> for negligence.
> My questions:
> 1) Is average minus for my pair fair in this case?

Your cards were remedied, the board is played to completion [subject??
to revoke penalties], you have a result. It is improper to assign an
artificial score. A score PP for not counting cards correctly will
probably be over the top given L64, but a PP of admonishment would be
appropriate.

> 2) If E/W at our table get AVG-MINUS then what do N/S get? AVG?
> AVG-PLUS? (Avg plus seems generous since they are essentially
> uninvolved.)

n/a

> 3) At the other two tables neither N/S nor E/W even noticed that
> something was wrong. They just agreed, and reported, a bridge result.
> As I understand it the scores they reported cannot stand as this was
> not
> a legal bridge deal. Therefore, what scores do they get at these other
> two tables?

L6D1. If it is ascertained before the auction first begins on a board
that the cards have been incorrectly dealt or that during the shuffle
and deal a player could have seen the face of a card belonging to
another player there shall be a new shuffle and deal. Thereafter Law
16C applies to the accidental sighting of a card belonging to another
player’s hand before completion of the play of the board (but see Law
24). Any** illegally dealt board is a fouled board, and for any other
irregularity see the relevant Law.


In this case the earlier rounds created fouled boards [L6D1]**- as
results have been agreed they are scored as such. As the fouling
would have been prevented by fulfilling L7B2 [counting cards prior to
play] those players should be assessed a PP.

With regard to L64C, as the cards have been mixed it should be ruled
that any attribution of a revoke cannot be verified and there is no
applicable revoke remedy. The result has been agreed and they moved
on. The cards have been corrected. My view is that any attempt to
reconstruct the play improperly taints every result in the event since
it will distract the affected players from doing their best for the
entire event.

** it is beyond me why some bozo would put this into law [if it is
dealt missing a card it is fouled]. It’s not like players have UI or
such.

> As dealing machines become more widespread I think we can assume that
> similar cases will arise more frequently.
> =======================================
> UPDATE:
> A director has informed me that the missing card is deemed to have
> been in the proper hand. Failure to play the missing card at the
> correct opportunity counts as a revoke and hence the Law regarding
> revokes applies.

> Q1. Is this correct?

Failure to follow suit when deemed able to follow suit is a revoke.
In this case it must be verified that a revoke occurred [and its
establishment] before invoking revoke remedies.

> Q2. Would the same result apply at the other tables?

See L64C section above.

> If the revoke law applies, then it is possible that the outcome would
> be different at different tables.

See section that begins with L6D1

> In this case the missing card was the Master trump. (I had Jx, and
> Pard had Tx but would have had QTx.)
> At our table declarer played 3 rounds of trump, and of course on the
> third round neither of us followed, establishing the 'revoke'.

Except in certain circumstances a revoke is established by play of the
revoking side to the following trick. In your case if the revoke is
not established you can correct. If established then it is subject to
penalty and possibly indemnity [L64C].

> At a different table maybe the declarer left the master trump
> outstanding, and at some point claimed, conceding the (missing) master
> trump trick.

Well, yes…

> Q3. If that happened would their table result stand?

As before [too late to penalize], yes.

Personally, in a case if such facts are established it would be a just
outcome. Consider, by claiming, play having ceased…it was imagined
that the missing card was not missing. The equivalent of all present
and accounted for, sir.

> Q4. How could it, when the board was not a proper bridge hand.

From an aesthetic view, recall that the ‘missing card’ is deemed to
have belonged continuously to the hand; L14B4 not having explicitly
excluded the condition of the previous rounds.

> pgmer6809

regards
axman

[Adam Beneschan]

On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 6:04:59 AM UTC-8, derek wrote:

> > > AND when you put them back.
>
> > WRONG. You are only required to shuffle them. Law 7C.
>
> NOT wrong. 7C: "After play has finished, each player should shuffle his original 13 cards, after which he restores them..."
>
> Now, if you know a way to ensure that you have the original 13 cards without counting them, you're entitled to use it, however, you'll have a hard time convincing me.

If you are at declarer's right, and declarer claims as soon as dummy comes down, I think it's safe to put your hand back in the board without counting. Most likely it's safe for the opening leader to do the same, because he knows he's holding 12 cards, and he can tell immediately whether the one card he's played is still on the table or has fallen off.

I suspect that even when the play goes on for a long time, if a player has been paying enough attention so that he would know whether a card has fallen off the table or moved, or if a card from another hand might have found its way to the wrong spot, it's probably safe to put the hand back without counting if you're sure the cards haven't been moving around. The problem, of course, is that people sometimes think they're paying more attention than they really are, and then they make mistakes.

But I think Mark is right that while it's a violation of Law 7C to put back a hand that doesn't have 13 cards, it's not actually a violation not to count. So if you put your hand back in the board after an early claim, without counting, you are *not* violating any law.

-- Adam

[Barry Margolin]

In article <511bb352$0$6843$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl>,

Since he said "side who failed to notice their opponents weren't playing
with a full deck", he must be referring to the earlier rounds, not the
hand in progress.

Although if the hands were completed via a claim, it probably wouldn't
be noticeable to the other players that one of the hands was deficient.

[bhmwe...@gmail.com]

Let's say you are dummy, and someone spills his drink so that your cards get soaked. You decide to switch dummy's cards and pick new cards from somewhere.
Now you are actually breaking the law, as you are not restoring the original 13 cards to the board...

[Mark Brader]

"Derek":
>>> First of all, you are required to count your cards when you take them
>>> out of the board

Mark Brader:

>> Yes, Law 7B2.
>>
>>> AND when you put them back.
>>
>> WRONG. You are only required to shuffle them. Law 7C.

"Derek":

> NOT wrong. 7C: "After play has finished, each player should shuffle his
> original 13 cards, after which he restores them..."

> Now, if you know a way to ensure that you have the original 13 cards
> without counting them, you're entitled to use it, however, you'll have a
> hard time convincing me.

And how would counting the cards prove that they were the original ones?
You're just being argumentative.
--
Mark Brader | "Red lights are not my concern.
Toronto | I am a driver, not a policeman."
m...@vex.net | --statement made after collision, 1853

[derek]

On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 11:37:57 AM UTC-4, Co Wiersma wrote:
> Op 13-2-2013 15:02, derek schreef:
>
> > On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 7:27:11 AM UTC-4, Co Wiersma wrote:
>
> >> Op 13-2-2013 12:17, Peter Smulders schreef:
> >>> Even though it was the organizer who was at fault, by supplying one of
> >>> the hands with only 12 cards, I agree with a penalty for the players who
> >>> didn't notice their hand was incomplete. But for revoke penalties it is
> >>> too late, Law 64B.
>
> > Ah, right. Specifically 64B5.
> >
> >> Is there some misunderstanding here about who might have revoked?
> >

> > No, it's simply too late to get redress. Call that a penalty for the side who failed to notice their opponents weren't playing with a full deck: the other side, after all, is already getting a bad result with a PP.

> >
> If you are at trick eleven , then its not to late, is it?

Not at all - but I understand Peter to have been correcting my ruling as to what should happen at the previous two tables that played. At the third table, where the missing card was discovered, revoke penalties should be applied as appropriate.

[derek]

On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 11:45:05 AM UTC-4, Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article <77eb37ab-fc6f-47e6...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 8:09:29 AM UTC-4, Mark Brader wrote:
>
> > > "Derek":
> > > > First of all, you are required to count your cards when you take them
> > > > out of the board
> > >
> > > Yes, Law 7B2.
> > >
> > > > AND when you put them back.
> > >
> > > WRONG. You are only required to shuffle them. Law 7C.
> >
> > NOT wrong. 7C: "After play has finished, each player should shuffle his
> > original 13 cards, after which he restores them..."
> >
> > Now, if you know a way to ensure that you have the original 13 cards without
> > counting them, you're entitled to use it, however, you'll have a hard time
> > convincing me.
>
> I think that's really a stretch. Law 7B2 explicitly says that players
> count their cards when removing them from the board. If they intended
> that players must count when replacing them, they would have said so,
> not implied it so obliquely.

It's not a stretch to say that they are required to replace the same 13 cards they started with - I maintain you can't do that without counting them, except perhaps as Adam says, with a claim at trick 1.

> I'm also not sure that failing to count cards is subject to a PP.

In this case, it's very clear. 90B7: "Offenses Subject to Procedural Penalty"
"errors in procedure (such as failure to count cards in one’s hand,...)" so failing to count very definitely is subject to PPs.

Now, it goes on to say "that require an adjusted score for any contestant.", and I think a lawyer could argue that because you can't adjust for a revoke that happened in a prior hand, you can't issue a PP for those two prior tables, but I'm not buying it.

[derek]

On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 12:24:35 PM UTC-4, bhmwe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Let's say you are dummy, and someone spills his drink so that your cards get soaked. You decide to switch dummy's cards and pick new cards from somewhere.
>
> Now you are actually breaking the law, as you are not restoring the original 13 cards to the board...

Er, yeah. What's your point? You surely aren't advocating that they do something like this without getting the director involved?

In fact, at a club with a dealing machine, I wouldn't let them do that. I'd blot up the liquid, make dummy play those specific cards, and make up a new board to give to the next table. Without a dealing machine, it's probably best to do the same thing anyway. You do NOT want players messing with cards from two different decks. That way lies danger.

[pgmer6809]

Thanks very much to everyone for their clarifications.
Just to re-iterate, the missing card was missing from the very
beginning of the event. No one player misplaced it. No one else had 14
cards.
It was never seen by anyone until the director discovered it away from
the playing area.
I have no idea how the play went at the two tables who 'played' the
board (with 51 cards) before it got to us.
Aside: ==>Given that this is a club game, the director is NEVER going
to assign a PP for a mistake that originated with him. :)!
pgmer6809

[Barry Margolin]

In article
<736e4d47-1a0d-4906...@cd3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

pgmer6809 <pgme...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Aside: ==>Given that this is a club game, the director is NEVER going
> to assign a PP for a mistake that originated with him. :)!

How did the failure to count cards originate in his incorrect
duplication?

[derek]

On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 7:07:29 PM UTC-4, pgmer6809 wrote:

> Aside: ==>Given that this is a club game, the director is NEVER going
> to assign a PP for a mistake that originated with him. :)!

That's sad. I wasn't at all surprised to see that the board had been defective from the beginning - before I realized exactly what had happened, I'd already said that I expected it happened pretty much that way. Yes, if it happened in my game, it might strictly be my fault (probably, not, actually - I only direct one game a week, and I make boards for a later game and somebody else makes my boards), but it's still the _players_ fault for not counting - they're the ones who violated the Law. And I am _really_ annoyed with the people who through their own failure to follow the laws made it impossible for the future tables to get fair results. At least the 3rd table made sure that the subsequent tables would play the right board, which is why they only get a warning for not counting.

[derek]

On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 4:58:54 PM UTC-4, Mark Brader wrote:

> And how would counting the cards prove that they were the original ones?
> You're just being argumentative.

He's got TWELVE cards! What's argumentative about pointing out that if he counted them he'd know he wasn't putting his "original 13 cards" back in the board? Yes, they ARE actually the original cards, but they aren't thirteen!

[Mark Brader]

Mark Brader:

> > And how would counting the cards prove that they were the original ones?
> > You're just being argumentative.

"Derek":

> He's got TWELVE cards! What's argumentative about pointing out that if
> he counted them he'd know he wasn't putting his "original 13 cards" back
> in the board?

What's argumentative about it is that that it's an attempt to distract.
Although a true statement, it's irrelevant to your erroneous assertion
that Law 7C requires a second counting of the cards.
--
Mark Brader | "Don't be a luddy-duddy! Don't be a mooncalf!
Toronto | Don't be a jabbernowl! You're not those, are you?"
m...@vex.net | --W.C. Fields, "The Bank Dick"

[David Stevenson]

pgmer6809 wrote
>Hello,
>I have sent this to ACBL rulings email But no reply yet.
>Be interested to hear what people here think.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>I have asked a couple of our local directors about the following and
>neither was 100% sure of the correct procedure.
>
>We were E/W at a club game. In the third round of a 9 table event we
>were playing board #27. After Trick 11 had been played my partner
>realized that she had only one card left, while everyone else had two.
>We called the director, and we could not find the missing card at our
>table. The director went to the other two tables that had played the
>hand, and could not find the missing card anywhere. After a few
>minutes
>we checked board #28, (which was not in play and still in the
>director's
>travelling case) and found the missing card mixed in with the other
>cards in that tray. These were pre-dealt hands, and either the dealing
>machine, or human error had misplaced one of the cards.
>

>I know that the law (law Number ??) says that if a pair does not count
>their cards and there are not the correct number they can be penalized
>for negligence.

Certainly, and should be if it leads to a lack of a result. If the TD
decides it was played with 51 cards at all three tables then three
players are at fault. However, if they get average minus then it is
quite normal not to bother to tack on a PP as well.

In this case I would probably issue a minimum PP to all three pairs:
perhaps they will follow a simple basic rule in future.

>My questions:
>1) Is average minus for my pair fair in this case?

It would be fair if no result was obtained: however, L13 allows a
result.

>2) If E/W at our table get AVG-MINUS then what do N/S get? AVG?
>AVG-PLUS? (Avg plus seems generous since they are essentially
>uninvolved.)

That's incredibly unfair. Average plus is routine, normal, and
completely fair for being uninvolved: is it their fault in any way what
has happened? What is this idea of penalising victims and where does it
come from?

>3) At the other two tables neither N/S nor E/W even noticed that
>something was wrong. They just agreed, and reported, a bridge result.
>As I understand it the scores they reported cannot stand as this was
>not
>a legal bridge deal. Therefore, what scores do they get at these other
>two tables?

See below: the Law treats it as a legal bridge deal.

>As dealing machines become more widespread I think we can assume that
>similar cases will arise more frequently.

Sounds a pretty tacky machine that accepts deals with 51 cards! Also,
most players follow the rules, especially very simple ones like counting
the cards.

>=======================================
>UPDATE:
>A director has informed me that the missing card is deemed to have
>been in the proper hand. Failure to play the missing card at the
>correct opportunity counts as a revoke and hence the Law regarding
>revokes applies.
>Q1. Is this correct?

Pretty much. L13B4 applies.

>Q2. Would the same result apply at the other tables?

Surely.

>If the revoke law applies, then it is possible that the outcome would
>be different at different tables.

Of course.

>In this case the missing card was the Master trump. (I had Jx, and
>Pard had Tx but would have had QTx.)
>At our table declarer played 3 rounds of trump, and of course on the
>third round neither of us followed, establishing the 'revoke'.

>At a different table maybe the declarer left the master trump
>outstanding, and at some point claimed, conceding the (missing) master
>trump trick.

And so?

>Q3. If that happened would their table result stand?

The Law says the card was continuously in the missing hand. If there
was no revoke, then there was no revoke.

>Q4. How could it, when the board was not a proper bridge hand.

How can any score stand up when the Laws of bridge are not followed
exactly? But it often happens, look at bids out of turn. Once you get
one it is not a proper bridge hand, but you just apply the Laws.

--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955
<webj...@gmail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412
bluejak666 on Skype Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm

[David Stevenson]

derek wrote

>On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 10:47:48 PM UTC-4, derek wrote:
>
>Darn. Just realized that you said that board 28 was actually not in play, so:
>
>- BOTH players who failed to count their cards previously will be given
>a 1/4 board procedural penalty (and just to stress how bad I think it
>was that they actually played the hand and returned the cards to the
>board without counting EITHER time, YOUR player will only get a warning).

There was a general approach espoused by the WBFLC when they changed
the Law many years ago that the player receiving the wrong number of
cards is primarily at fault: the person sending the wrong number would
not normally be penalised. So in this case you should penalise all
three players.

[David Stevenson]

Dave Flower wrote

You cannot give an artificial adjusted score under L12A1.

First, it would have to be an assigned adjusted score.

Second, what is the irregularity for which no penalty is given by the
Laws?

===========================================================
derek wrote

>On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 7:34:04 AM UTC-4, Dave Flower wrote:
>

>> However, offenders' opponents are blameless, and I would award
>>Av+/Av- (or the actual table score, if better) under L12A1, in
>>addition to a procedural penalty
>

>I disagree they're blameless. Unless a claim was made early enough to
>not see offender's whole hand, AND offender wasn't dummy, they should
>be aware of how many cards are in play. They have an obligation to play
>the game under the laws, one of the most basic of which is that
>everybody has 13 cards. I see no reason to adjust their scores in the
>cases where they _should_ have known one hand was defective, and if
>there was a claim before they should have known, surely "equity" is the
>actual result.

I still think this idea of penalising victims is shockingly unfair.
Just blame the people who break the Laws, and stop trying to penalise
their victims.

[David Stevenson]

Stu Goodgold wrote

>On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 5:30:51 PM UTC-8, pgmer6809 wrote:

>> Q2. Would the same result apply at the other tables?
>

>That depends on whether the hand was defective when the board was
>played at the other tables. It would be hard to determine a hand was
>defective if all 4 players scored it up and went on to the next hand.

TDs use judgement. Please tell me how a TD judges the hand was played
with the correct 52 cards when it reaches the next table with 51 cards
and the missing card is in the box the boards came out of.

[bhmwe...@gmail.com]

Den torsdagen den 14:e februari 2013 kl. 16:52:13 UTC+1 skrev David Stevenson:
> Sounds a pretty tacky machine that accepts deals with 51 cards!

Nothing states that the deal had just 51 cards. It's perfectly possible that the person who put the cards in the board failed to pick all the cards.

It's even happened that one card has fallen to the table. If the person reponsible for moving the cards to the board failed to notice this one card would be missing.

[Barry Margolin]

In article <+a5wTNFt...@blakjak.demon.co.uk>,

David Stevenson <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> >As dealing machines become more widespread I think we can assume that
> >similar cases will arise more frequently.
>
> Sounds a pretty tacky machine that accepts deals with 51 cards! Also,
> most players follow the rules, especially very simple ones like counting
> the cards.

I think the problems usually occur when transfering the hands from the
machine to the boards. This is unlikely if you use the flip-open boards
that can be put into the machine and filled automatically, but many use
traditional boards and have to put the cards into them by hand.

In this case, what presumably happened is that he left one of the cards
in the machine. Another easy mistake is to have the board rotated 180
degrees when transferring the cards.

[Barry Margolin]

In article <d7f10e3d-d55c-43ff...@googlegroups.com>,

In this case, the extra card was found in the next board. That's why I
concluded that he left the card in the machine when he was putting the
cards into board 27. Then when it dealt board 28, the extra card was
still there and got put into that board.

[Mark Brader]

David Stevenson:
> L13B4 applies.

Ah, would you believe 14B4?
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | Typos are a journalistic tradition of long
m...@vex.net | etaoin shrdlu. -- Truly Donovan

[David Stevenson]

wrote

That's what I said, a tacky machine. All the machines we use put the
cards in the board themselves. Furthermore, the machine counts them as
they go in, and signals an error if 51 cards go into the board.

==============================================================
Mark Brader wrote

>David Stevenson:
>> L13B4 applies.
>
>Ah, would you believe 14B4?

Sure.

[Steve Willner]

On 2013-02-12 8:30 PM, pgmer6809 wrote:
> We were E/W at a club game. In the third round of a 9 table event we
> were playing board #27. After Trick 11 had been played my partner
> realized that she had only one card left, while everyone else had two.

[and the missing card had been missing for the previous two rounds]

> 1) Is average minus for my pair fair in this case?

As others have written (sometimes giving incorrect law numbers), this
case is covered by Law 14B2, and Law 14B4 may apply. Your partner gets
the missing card back at trick 11, and failure to have played it earlier
may constitute a revoke, depending on how the play went and what card it
is. Your side may get a PP for your partner's failure to count her
cards at the start, though I wouldn't expect one. (What kind of club is
it where three successive players have failed to count their cards?!)

> 2) If E/W at our table get AVG-MINUS then what do N/S get?

It's the wrong ruling in this case, but in some different case, a pair
in no way at fault for being unable to play a board would get avg+. It
would be incredibly unfair for NS being deemed even partially at fault
for East or West failing to count their own cards. (OK, NS could be at
fault if they somehow discouraged or prevented EW from counting their
cards, but there's no evidence of that here.)

> 3) At the other two tables neither N/S nor E/W even noticed that
> something was wrong. They just agreed, and reported, a bridge result.

This is tricky. Laws 13A and 13B seem to be the relevant ones, but it
isn't clear to me how they should be applied in practice. 13A includes
"can be corrected and played," which I read as meaning played _after_
correction, so I don't think it applies. If that's right, it leads to
13B, which calls for an adjusted score. I think in this situation, with
the board never played in correct form, it means an artificial score:
avg- (and possibly a PP) to EW, avg+ to NS.

The only alternative I see is to say "corrected and played" means
corrected per L14B, which means going through the entire play and
checking for a revoke. That doesn't seem practical to me, so I wouldn't
rule that way. As others have said, there wouldn't be any tricks
transferred as a revoke rectification (which we used to call "penalty"),
but if the revoke gained tricks, those would be taken away.

I admit I could be missing something in this part, though.

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@nhcc.net
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA

[Barry Margolin]

In article <qA6VlJPg...@blakjak.demon.co.uk>,

David Stevenson <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> wrote
> >Den torsdagen den 14:e februari 2013 kl. 16:52:13 UTC+1 skrev David
> >Stevenson:
> >> Sounds a pretty tacky machine that accepts deals with 51 cards!
> >
> >Nothing states that the deal had just 51 cards. It's perfectly possible
> >that the person who put the cards in the board failed to pick all the
> >cards.
> >
> >It's even happened that one card has fallen to the table. If the person
> >reponsible for moving the cards to the board failed to notice this one
> >card would be missing.
>
> That's what I said, a tacky machine. All the machines we use put the
> cards in the board themselves. Furthermore, the machine counts them as
> they go in, and signals an error if 51 cards go into the board.

Can they do that without specially designed boards? Most machines will
put the cards in the boards if you use the special boards, but if you
use traditional boards you have to do it yourself.

So it's not a tacky machine, just a club that didn't want to spend extra
for new boards.

[derek]

On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 8:55:57 PM UTC-4, Mark Brader wrote:
> Mark Brader:
>
> > > And how would counting the cards prove that they were the original ones?
> > > You're just being argumentative.
>

> > He's got TWELVE cards! What's argumentative about pointing out that if
> > he counted them he'd know he wasn't putting his "original 13 cards" back
> > in the board?
>
> What's argumentative about it is that that it's an attempt to distract.
> Although a true statement, it's irrelevant to your erroneous assertion
> that Law 7C requires a second counting of the cards.

"Argumentative" is stating that you don't have to count the cards to know you're putting the right number of cards back in the board. The law doesn't need to say "count the cards" for everybody to know that you can't follow the law without doing so. There's no "attempt to distract" - you have to count the cards to follow the law!

[derek]

On Thursday, February 14, 2013 11:52:13 AM UTC-4, David Stevenson wrote:
>
> >As dealing machines become more widespread I think we can assume that
> >similar cases will arise more frequently.
>
> Sounds a pretty tacky machine that accepts deals with 51 cards!

That's neither likely, not what apparently happened. Typically, the machine can either deal directly into the fold-out boards, or onto a platform from which the person preparing the hands removes them and inserts them into the board.

So what happens is that it's dealt onto the platform, and a card gets left behind when transferring the hand to the board (on the Dealer4, I'm pretty sure they get caught higher in the mechanism, so aren't actually sitting on the platform). I've fairly frequently discovered that _as_ I put cards in the board, so I'd be surprised if I've never actually caused a board to have 51 cards and a subsequent board to have 53.

[derek]

On Thursday, February 14, 2013 8:46:24 PM UTC-4, David Stevenson wrote:
> wrote
>
> >Den torsdagen den 14:e februari 2013 kl. 16:52:13 UTC+1 skrev David Stevenson:
>
> >> Sounds a pretty tacky machine that accepts deals with 51 cards!
> >
>
> >Nothing states that the deal had just 51 cards. It's perfectly possible
> >that the person who put the cards in the board failed to pick all the
> >cards.
> >
> >It's even happened that one card has fallen to the table. If the person
> >reponsible for moving the cards to the board failed to notice this one
> >card would be missing.
>
> That's what I said, a tacky machine. All the machines we use put the
> cards in the board themselves. Furthermore, the machine counts them as
> they go in, and signals an error if 51 cards go into the board.

That's not what HE said. afaik, all the commercial dealing machines will put the cards into the boards directly. However, many clubs still use boards that the machine can't load automatically. So what he, and I, pointed out is that it's always human error.

[Ed Reppert]

In article
<2fd06889-586d-4e40...@k4g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,

"axm...@hotmail.com" <axm...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> The equivalent of all present and accounted for, sir.

Well, no. The phrase is "all present *or* accounted for", and it means
that all members of the unit are present, or are known to be authorized
to be absent. In this case the card was not authorized to be absent. The
correct phrasing of the statement would be "51 present, one absent
without leave".

[axm...@hotmail.com]

It seems important to point out that when a claim is made prior to an
appointed time for contributing the errant paste board, and as if the
errant paste board is not errant, it matters not where the errant
paste board is- as in the errant paste board was accounted for.

regards
axman

[David Stevenson]

Barry Margolin wrote

That's one way of looking at it, but sounds like a small saving to add
work and other problems unnecessarily.

[Barry Margolin]

In article <Wy$65sBIA...@blakjak.demon.co.uk>,

David Stevenson <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> Barry Margolin wrote
> >In article <qA6VlJPg...@blakjak.demon.co.uk>,
> > David Stevenson <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> wrote
> >> >Den torsdagen den 14:e februari 2013 kl. 16:52:13 UTC+1 skrev David
> >> >Stevenson:
> >> >> Sounds a pretty tacky machine that accepts deals with 51 cards!
> >> >
> >> >Nothing states that the deal had just 51 cards. It's perfectly possible
> >> >that the person who put the cards in the board failed to pick all the
> >> >cards.
> >> >
> >> >It's even happened that one card has fallen to the table. If the person
> >> >reponsible for moving the cards to the board failed to notice this one
> >> >card would be missing.
> >>
> >> That's what I said, a tacky machine. All the machines we use put the
> >> cards in the board themselves. Furthermore, the machine counts them as
> >> they go in, and signals an error if 51 cards go into the board.
> >
> >Can they do that without specially designed boards? Most machines will
> >put the cards in the boards if you use the special boards, but if you
> >use traditional boards you have to do it yourself.
> >
> >So it's not a tacky machine, just a club that didn't want to spend extra
> >for new boards.
>
> That's one way of looking at it, but sounds like a small saving to add
> work and other problems unnecessarily.

I suspect it happens more with units and districts, who have LOTS of
boards that would require replacing. Clubs only have a few sets of
boards, so it's not as expensive to replace them. On the other hand,
clubs may not have as much cash to spend on this -- just buying the
Duplimate may be a big expense, and adding the cost of new boards on top
of it could be a problem.

[David Babcock]

On Friday, February 15, 2013 2:09:34 PM UTC-5, derek wrote:

afaik, all the commercial dealing machines will put the cards into the boards directly. However, many clubs still use boards that the machine can't load automatically. So what he, and I, pointed out is that it's always human error.

It isn't *always* the players who misplace a card, with Dealer4 anyway. A card can get to the right compartment but then stand on edge against one wall, and the photo-interruptors that should have recorded the transit of the card did so and the ones that shouldn't have, didn't, so there is no indication of an error. The card then falls over into the tray on a later board, out of sight of the photo-interruptors, so, again, no error indication. This is by no means common - we have found this at the table maybe three times in two years, playing five sessions a week - but it does happen. The players counting their cards on the first play of the board fully addresses this, of course, so, yes, it is still always human error that a board is played without 13 cards in each hand.

I don't mean to suggest that the Dealer4 is anything less than a superb product day in and day out; I'm just noting this one, rare, very easy-to-live-with quirk. We are very happy with our choice to buy the machine.

DavidB

[derek]

On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 11:15:09 AM UTC-3, David Babcock wrote:
> On Friday, February 15, 2013 2:09:34 PM UTC-5, derek wrote:
>
> afaik, all the commercial dealing machines will put the cards into the boards directly. However, many clubs still use boards that the machine can't load automatically. So what he, and I, pointed out is that it's always human error.
>
> It isn't *always* the players who misplace a card, with Dealer4 anyway.

I agree - it's not the humans who misplace it in the first place

> A card can get to the right compartment but then stand on edge against one wall,

Ah. I'd wondered at the mechanics of that. I've found an extra card not just in with the cards for the next board, but sometimes a board two or three later - and couldn't figure that out.

> This is by no means common - we have found this at the table maybe three times in two years, playing five sessions a week - but it does happen.

We've been using the machine for 10 sessions a week, for about the same length of time, but I imagine something like this could happen and some of our directors wouldn't have a clue _how_ when it's discovered at the table. I have seen it at the table exactly once in my once a week game.

> The players counting their cards on the first play of the board fully addresses this, of course, so, yes, it is still always human error that a board is played without 13 cards in each hand.

Right.

>
> I don't mean to suggest that the Dealer4 is anything less than a superb product day in and day out; I'm just noting this one, rare, very easy-to-live-with quirk. We are very happy with our choice to buy the machine.

It might be possible to guarantee that all the cards reach the correct pockets in the correct boards if using (marked) fold-out boards and marked cards. Even then I expect there'd be a tiny failure rate. Using regular playing cards, I think the Dealer4 is probably about as good as can be hoped for with modern technology. I'm sure it eliminates well over 99% of the errors introduced when players make the boards themselves.