[pescetom]

pran, on 2020-March-07, 14:35, said:

But I strongly feel that a clarification of this law (which was introduced in its original form in 2007) is required.

My reputation was for this comment.
Another law that needs improvement.

[blackshoe]

Moved because Sanst is right, this isn't all that simple.

Someone upthread suggested that after West's extraneous ♠A is removed, North will have led out of turn. I'm not buying that, and I'm pretty sure North would have a fit if you tried to impose that on him — and rightly so. He didn't lead, he followed to West's lead. That West led a card that didn't belong to the current deal doesn't change that fact.

We have a trick in progress, to which two players have followed. I think the other two must now play, in turn, to the trick, particularly since "without further rectification" in law 13 means we can't require West to provide a different spade lead to the trick. Also, the fact that we can't adjust the score (also law 13) means that EW might gain from all this, and nothing can be done about it. I don't like that, but I don't really see a way around it.

How did this happen? I can envision West, having left the ♠A from the previous deal face down in front of him, counting the cards in his new hand, getting the correct "thirteen", putting the cards down on top of the ♠A, and picking up all fourteen cards. In such a case, we can't ding West for failure to count his cards — he did that. What he (in this hypothetical case) didn't do was "restore them to the pocket corresponding to his compass direction" (Law 7C). But that's a "does" law, so a PP is not suggested. We seem to be stuck.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2020-March-07, 17:14, said:

Moved because Sanst is right, this isn't all that simple.

Someone upthread suggested that after West's extraneous ♠A is removed, North will have led out of turn. I'm not buying that, and I'm pretty sure North would have a fit if you tried to impose that on him — and rightly so. He didn't lead, he followed to West's lead. That West led a card that didn't belong to the current deal doesn't change that fact.

We have a trick in progress, to which two players have followed. I think the other two must now play, in turn, to the trick, particularly since "without further rectification" in law 13 means we can't require West to provide a different spade lead to the trick. Also, the fact that we can't adjust the score (also law 13) means that EW might gain from all this, and nothing can be done about it. I don't like that, but I don't really see a way around it.

How did this happen? I can envision West, having left the ♠A from the previous deal face down in front of him, counting the cards in his new hand, getting the correct "thirteen", putting the cards down on top of the ♠A, and picking up all fourteen cards. In such a case, we can't ding West for failure to count his cards — he did that. What he (in this hypothetical case) didn't do was "restore them to the pocket corresponding to his compass direction" (Law 7C). But that's a "does" law, so a PP is not suggested. We seem to be stuck.

Did you read my post #20?

Commentary on the 2017 Laws of Duplicate Bridge said:

Law 13C
If more than 52 cards are dealt, the surplus card is removed and play continues. If a surplus card
is found amongst the played cards, the Director adjusts the score if the play of that additional card
affected the outcome.

It changes the condition for adjusting score that the surplus card is found amongst the played cards rather than in a quitted trick.

This is a significant change since the surplus ♠A was indeed found amongst the played cards to the trick in progress although before the trick was quitted.

So the TD is perfectly allowed to adjust the score.

[blackshoe]

That would be the commentary changing the law. I don't think even the WBFLC can change the law in a commentary. They can change the actual law, but that is a different mechanism.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2020-March-08, 05:11, said:

That would be the commentary changing the law. I don't think even the WBFLC can change the law in a commentary. They can change the actual law, but that is a different mechanism.

or clarify ambiguous or unfortunate formulations.

Commentary on the 2017 Laws of Duplicate Bridge said:

Preface
The WBF Laws Committee is happy to announce the release its Commentary on the 2017 Laws
of Duplicate Bridge.
Bridge is a complicated game that requires detailed instructions explaning how it is to be played.
The Laws however do not always describe in detail how the Tournament Director should proceed
in carrying out his duties. The goal of this Commentary is to help the TD correctly apply the
Laws of Bridge. The Laws sometimes describe a default approach, while also offering
Regulating Authorities the option to choose a different approach. In much the same way, the
interpretation of certain laws may differ between regions and so the Laws Committee have
selected the approach they believe to be best. Such choices are not set in stone, and it is possible
this may change over time. This Commentary will be a dynamic document, with regular updates.
The Committee encourages on-going comment and it welcomes suggestions for possible
improvement as well as requests for further interpretation.
It hopes that this Commentary will be helpful.
Ton Kooijman
(Chairman - WBFLC)
January 2019
.....

[barmar]

pran, on 2020-March-06, 15:24, said:

Be aware that the irregularity here is West's violation of
[the Law requiring them to count their cards]
Everything else that appear as irregularities here was subsequent to, and a consequence of this violation.

True, but the only thing that can be done about that is a Procedural Penalty, it doesn't say how to rectify the later mess.

[blackshoe]

The commentary on this starts "if more than 52 cards are dealt". We are told that the extra ace came from a previous deal, not a 53rd card dealt to this deal.

[pran]

barmar, on 2020-March-08, 14:24, said:

True, but the only thing that can be done about that is a Procedural Penalty, it doesn't say how to rectify the later mess.

It opens the door for Law 12A1:

The Director may award an adjusted score in favour of a non-offending contestant when he judges that these Laws do not prescribe a rectification for the particular type of violation committed.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2020-March-08, 16:15, said:

The commentary on this starts "if more than 52 cards are dealt". We are told that the extra ace came from a previous deal, not a 53rd card dealt to this deal.

It has still become part of "this deal" and as such "is the 53rd card dealt".

[blackshoe]

No.

[BudH]

I had my own version of this while directing a club game back on January 22 regarding Boards 7 and 10 of the afternoon Common Game with the king of spades as the extra card.

Board 7: https://bridgewinner...-01-22-board-7/
Board 10: https://bridgewinner...01-22-board-10/

An extra spade king was in the East hand. P-P-P-1D-P-1H-P-3H(?)-all pass. Spade king led, Director called when spade king then appeared in dummy.

---

Less than 10 minutes into an 8x3 bye-stand relay (share) game, Table 3 calls me during their first board (Board 7). ♠K led by North against a 3♥ contract and I was called when the ♠K also appeared in dummy! Some severe underbidding by East caused them to stop in the partscore with an auction where East opened with a "balanced 19 points" and only raised the 1♥ response to 3♥. I removed the ♠K from dummy and declarer scored 11 tricks for 200. I did not adjust the score nor did I give a procedural penalty due to East not counting her cards.

I then warned all the players to be very careful to count their cards and to especially watch for a hand with only 12 cards with green backs. But my warning was too late:

---

At Table 4 on their first board (Board 10), North raised her partner's 1♥ opening bid to only 2♥ holding ♠932 ♥A986 ♦KJ10 ♣53 because she didn't realize she held only 12 cards and she should have been holding the ♠K that the East hand of Board 7 possessed (until I took it away at about the same time that Board 10 was being completed at Table 4).

Of course, I can't count that result since there was never a time when all players held at least 13 cards. I gave A+ to the opponents and A- to the offenders, plus a tiny one matchpoint PP. (That was still better than the zero they thought they would receive!)

We never did figure out how boards were made with our dealing machine ending with a card in the wrong directional pocket and in a board not even adjacent in number.