[mjj29]

(Thread spawned from http://forums.bridge...howtopic=40491)

So, as dburn pointed out, some packs not conforming to law 1 and yet played may have the result stand if the director deems appropriate whereas other violations of law 1 the law would seem to always require an artificial adjusted score.

In cases such as the previous OP, where one small card was replaced with an adjacent small card in the same suit, I think the director should have the ability to let the score stand on tables where a result was obtained if he judges that any inaccuracy in the pack was irrelevant for the score produced.

Opinions?

[campboy]

I do not think Law 14 is about "packs which do not conform to Law 1" at all; rather it covers the situation where the pack does conform to Law 1 -- at least as far as we can tell -- but not all of the pack is where it should be. This is normally because a card has been left in the board or dropped during the auction or play, and there has been no Law 1 violation; even if we can't find the missing card we can't be sure when it went missing (and of course it is always possible that a player has slyly eaten it).

[pran]

campboy, on Jul 28 2010, 06:03 PM, said:

I do not think Law 14 is about "packs which do not conform to Law 1" at all; rather it covers the situation where the pack does conform to Law 1 -- at least as far as we can tell -- but not all of the pack is where it should be. This is normally because a card has been left in the board or dropped during the auction or play, and there has been no Law 1 violation; even if we can't find the missing card we can't be sure when it went missing (and of course it is always possible that a player has slyly eaten it).

At the Directors' training courses we tell the candidates that the missing card might be found in the Director's pocket or left at his home - that makes no difference.

As soon as the player looks at his hand with less than thirteen cards originally he is responsible for any missing card just as if he had had all his thirteen cards from the beginning.

[dburn]

Your hand contains twelve spades and Mrs Bun the Baker's Wife. Do you have an incorrect number of cards?

[iviehoff]

dburn, on Jul 29 2010, 10:21 AM, said:

Your hand contains twelve spades and Mrs Bun the Baker's Wife. Do you have an incorrect number of cards?

Yes. But we can't treat you in the same way as someone who failed to count his cards before looking at them. You couldn't tell you only had 12 cards until you looked at them.

Likewise I would suggest for many of the purposes of Laws 13 and 14 the person who had the S6 from another deck actually only had 12 cards, but it wasn't reasonable to expect him to realise at all.

[campboy]

dburn, on Jul 29 2010, 10:21 AM, said:

Your hand contains twelve spades and Mrs Bun the Baker's Wife. Do you have an incorrect number of cards?

Not yet. But Mrs. Bun is about to be removed as per Law 13F, at which point I shall have an incorrect number.

[pran]

campboy, on Jul 29 2010, 04:08 PM, said:

dburn, on Jul 29 2010, 10:21 AM, said:

Your hand contains twelve spades and Mrs Bun the Baker's Wife. Do you have an incorrect number of cards?

Not yet. But Mrs. Bun is about to be removed as per Law 13F, at which point I shall have an incorrect number.

You have correctly counted your cards face down to ensure that you have been given exactly thirteen cards. Then when you look at your cards (the face sides) you discover that one of your cards is a bogus card.

Of course you call the Director immediately and have your hand reconstructed before any damage could occur.

The applicable Law is 13D, and so far nothing indicates that there is any player responsible for the irregularity.

What is the problem?

[dburn]

pran, on Jul 29 2010, 02:12 PM, said:

campboy, on Jul 29 2010, 04:08 PM, said:

dburn, on Jul 29 2010, 10:21 AM, said:

Your hand contains twelve spades and Mrs Bun the Baker's Wife. Do you have an incorrect number of cards?

Not yet. But Mrs. Bun is about to be removed as per Law 13F, at which point I shall have an incorrect number.

You have correctly counted your cards face down to ensure that you have been given exactly thirteen cards. Then when you look at your cards (the face sides) you discover that one of your cards is a bogus card.

Of course you call the Director immediately and have your hand reconstructed before any damage could occur.

The applicable Law is 13D, and so far nothing indicates that there is any player responsible for the irregularity.

What is the problem?

Do you seriously suggest, Sven, that a Director should look at a player's hand in the course of making a ruling?

[blackshoe]

Do you seriously suggest, David, that the TD, told that a player's hand contains 12 legal cards and "Mrs. Bun", should not look at the player's hand (and indeed the other three at the table) or a hand record, in order to determine which card is missing? Okay, perhaps not until after he's looked around to see if there's a loose card on the floor or somewhere. But it's impossible to know which of the 13 cards that are supposed to be in his hand is not in his hand without knowing what the other 12 cards are.

I suspect you know that, and are just stirring the pot. If so, cut it out.

[pran]

dburn, on Jul 30 2010, 12:41 AM, said:

pran, on Jul 29 2010, 02:12 PM, said:

campboy, on Jul 29 2010, 04:08 PM, said:

dburn, on Jul 29 2010, 10:21 AM, said:

Your hand contains twelve spades and Mrs Bun the Baker's Wife. Do you have an incorrect number of cards?

Not yet. But Mrs. Bun is about to be removed as per Law 13F, at which point I shall have an incorrect number.

You have correctly counted your cards face down to ensure that you have been given exactly thirteen cards. Then when you look at your cards (the face sides) you discover that one of your cards is a bogus card.

Of course you call the Director immediately and have your hand reconstructed before any damage could occur.

The applicable Law is 13D, and so far nothing indicates that there is any player responsible for the irregularity.

What is the problem?

Do you seriously suggest, Sven, that a Director should look at a player's hand in the course of making a ruling?

Sure, this is not a judgment ruling - this is about reconstructing a deal that has been corrupted in some way and on which the player with a deficient hand has not taken any action other than to call the director.

So the only information the Director gives away by looking at the cards is that the deal is now reconstructed and OK.

(The situation would have been slightly different if the player with a deficient hand had made any call before summoning the Director. Again the Director will of course need to look at the hands in order to reconstruct the deal, but now he will also have to judge whether the fact that the player had made a call on his deficient hand makes the deal unplayable or if the play can be allowed to continue.)

You already knew all this didn't you?
(If not I suggest that you carefully read the entire Law 13 and make sure you also understand all of what you read.)

[dburn]

Thanks, Sven. That is precisely the answer I expected from a first-class Director.

Of course, it does not answer the question I actually asked, which was this: does the player with twelve spades and Mrs Bun have an incorrect number of cards? Or, to put the matter more realistically and to align it better with the question that began the entire business, does a player who sorts his hand thus:

♠AQ764 ♥J98 ♦7 ♣K863

have an incorrect number of cards if it turns out that both those black sixes are in fact the six of spades, while neither of them is the six of clubs?

Again, try to concentrate on the question asked, and not on what you as a Director would do if the hand I have shown actually occurred at the table. Either the player with this hand has an incorrect number of cards or he does not, nicht wahr? Say which.

[pran]

dburn, on Jul 30 2010, 08:48 AM, said:

Thanks, Sven. That is precisely the answer I expected from a first-class Director.

Of course, it does not answer the question I actually asked, which was this: does the player with twelve spades and Mrs Bun have an incorrect number of cards? Or, to put the matter more realistically and to align it better with the question that began the entire business, does a player who sorts his hand thus:

♠AQ764 ♥J98 ♦7 ♣K863

have an incorrect number of cards if it turns out that both those black sixes are in fact the six of spades, while neither of them is the six of clubs?

Again, try to concentrate on the question asked, and not on what you as a Director would do if the hand I have shown actually occurred at the table. Either the player with this hand has an incorrect number of cards or he does not, nicht wahr? Say which.

He has an incorrect number of cards, see Law 13F

[campboy]

Disagree, he has the correct number of cards until the duplication is noticed and one of them is removed. So much of law 13 does not apply (13A,C,D2 all cover the cases when the hand had an incorrect number initially), but laws 13F and (subsequently) 14 do apply.

[blackshoe]

Law 7B2 said:

Each player counts his cards face down to be sure he has exactly 13. After that, and before making a call, he must inspect the faces of his cards.

He counted his cards. He has 13. That's the correct number*. However, when he inspects the faces of his cards, he should (if he actually inspects them rather than just glancing at them) discover that two of them are identical, which is an irregularity (see Law 1), so he should call the director. The director will apply Law 13F, and then Law 14, as Campboy suggested. Law 13F instructs the director to remove one of the duplicate cards, so then he will have an incorrect number.

*I'm sure David will now tell everyone what trap of his I have fallen into.

[pran]

campboy, on Jul 30 2010, 12:33 PM, said:

Disagree, he has the correct number of cards until the duplication is noticed and one of them is removed. So much of law 13 does not apply (13A,C,D2 all cover the cases when the hand had an incorrect number initially), but laws 13F and (subsequently) 14 do apply.

I honestly trusted my readers to be sufficiently intelligent so they would understand that rather than going through all the details once more from counting the cards face down etc. (specified by me in earlier entries) I just pointed out the particular ruling required in this special case.

My apologies to those failing to posess such intelligence.