[dickiegera]

First round, duplicated boards. We are playing boards 25,26,27.

We play 25, no problems.

Board 26 is played in 4♥ by opponents and with 6 or so cards to be played North claims for down one.
Board 27 is bid and being played in 3NT also by North. After 4 cards are played it is noticed that one of north's cards is a different color.
It is now determined that he has 14 cards and the extra card belongs to board 26.
Director is called and gives us an Average + and NS average - on board 27.

Now the question comes up about board 26. Director says that because we accepted the claim it was too late to do anything.
The missing card was a diamond and when north failed to play a diamond on 2nd diamond south asked north if he had no diamonds.
North said no. North played a trump then claimed.

Should we not get an average + here also, or better yet should north be penalized for a revoke?

Thank you

[Vampyr]

Well, North failed to count his cards on both boards. L7B2 uses the word 'counts', which does not suggest a penalty be assessed. Therefore on Board 27, L 13 F (sorry too lazy to type out the Laws) applies. As long as the surplus card has not actually been played, the card is removed and the play continues as normal. If it has been played then an adjusted score is awarded. I fail to see why N/S should get A-, since it seems that the card was placed in the wrong board by the person who had duplicated the boards, or someone else; not the N/S at this table.

As far as 26 goes, yes N has revoked (14B) and yes your agreement to the claim can be withdrawn (69B) until the end of the Correction Period. This period must last at least 30 minutes (79C) after the scores have been made available for inspection.

These Laws were easy to find just flipping through the book; does your club not own a Lawbook?

[campboy]

Note that as far as the revoke on the first hand is concerned it is too late to get the automatic trick transfer (64B4) but you can still get an adjusted score if you were damaged by it (64C).

[Vampyr]

campboy, on 2014-February-06, 18:01, said:

Note that as far as the revoke on the first hand is concerned it is too late to get the automatic trick transfer (64B4) but you can still get an adjusted score if you were damaged by it (64C).

Yes, this is better than L69.

[gordontd]

Vampyr, on 2014-February-06, 17:42, said:

I fail to see why N/S should get A-,

Because they didn't count their cards?

[Vampyr]

gordontd, on 2014-February-07, 02:24, said:

Because they didn't count their cards?

I mentioned that, but 7B2 says a player 'counts' his cards, and the introduction tells us that this usage 'establishes correct procedure without suggesting that violation be penalised'.

Can we say that if they don't count and then end up with the wrong number of cards they can still be penalised? It seems to me no.

[campboy]

A failure to count cards which results in an adjusted score is one of the examples of offences subject to a PP given in law 90.

[gordontd]

Vampyr, on 2014-February-07, 06:34, said:

I mentioned that, but 7B2 says a player 'counts' his cards, and the introduction tells us that this usage 'establishes correct procedure without suggesting that violation be penalised'.

Can we say that if they don't count and then end up with the wrong number of cards they can still be penalised? It seems to me no.

Law 12C2 tells us how to assign an artificial score based on the pair's responsibility for the board not being able to be played. Clearly the pair who didn't count their cards are directly at fault, so they get A-.

[Vampyr]

campboy, on 2014-February-07, 06:45, said:

A failure to count cards which results in an adjusted score is one of the examples of offences subject to a PP given in law 90.

Yes, if this failure results in an adjusted score as in B26. In B27, no adjusted score is necessary so long as the card has not been played -- the offending card is simply removed (13F).

If the card had been played, then an adjusted score may be required. I got the impression from the OP that the card had not been played.

On B26, I think that the correct ruling is equity restored for both sides, and a PP to N/S. does that seem right?

[Vampyr]

gordontd, on 2014-February-07, 06:55, said:

Law 12C2 tells us how to assign an artificial score based on the pair's responsibility for the board not being able to be played. Clearly the pair who didn't count their cards are directly at fault, so they get A-.

The board can be played if the surplus card has not been contributed to a trick, though.

[blackshoe]

Board 26 - score adjustment under Law 64C. PP to NS for failure to count cards (Law 7B2, Law 90).
Board 27 - excess card removed, play continues (Law 13F). No score adjustment. PP(Warning) to NS about counting their cards (Law 7B2).

if the excess card from board 26 has been played on board 27, there may be a score adjustment after the play is completed, if the NOS were damaged. This would be an assigned adjusted score.