[BudH]

Law 13C - Surplus Card - "Any surplus card not part of the deal is removed if found. The auction and play continue without further rectification. No adjusted score may be awarded unless such a card is found to have been played to a quitted trick."

The auction ends and when dummy is displayed, one of the defenders calls the Director because there are 14 cards in dummy. All other players have 13 cards. After the Director investigates, dummy's spade ace is removed (it was from the previous board).

Declarer and the other defender know there is an excellent chance that defender who called the Director holds the spade ace. That being the case, does it make any sense that "no adjusted score may be awarded"?

[blackshoe]

Yes.

[jillybean]

BudH, on 2023-June-08, 18:54, said:

Declarer and the other defender know there is an excellent chance that defender who called the Director holds the spade ace. That being the case, does it make any sense that "no adjusted score may be awarded"?

Or more simply, the defender can count to 13?

[mycroft]

The ace is interesting. I think the queen would be more interesting.

I think there's a case for 16D2c for that specific information. However, Law 13C is quite specific; it's only if you can separate the extraneous information (why would this defender notice the spade Ace?) from the presence itself of the surplus card (yes, people might count to 14, but it is quite likely they only did that because they were chanelling Motörhead).

I do think this is a question we should be asking the 2027 laws people to clarify, because it is a bit disturbing.

[pescetom]

BudH, on 2023-June-08, 18:54, said:

Declarer and the other defender know there is an excellent chance that defender who called the Director holds the spade ace.

Or one of them holds the spade ace and knows the other thinks we both know there is an excellent chance that defender who called the Director holds the spade ace

I agree that it's worth clarifying.

[BudH]

Let's pretend this was part of a written exam on the laws and that it said "when dummy (North) puts his cards on the table, West calls the director because he can see two ♠A. It becomes clear that dummy's ♠A was from the previous board. The extra ♠A is put back where it belongs. Besides that, what should be the director's decision?

[barmar]

I think you need to play the hand out. If the partner of the defender who called the TD takes an unusual action that suggests they knew their partner had the Ace, I might consider adjusting.

[blackshoe]

Quote

Law 16A. Players’ Use of Information
1.A player may use information in the auction or play if:
(a)it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board (including illegal calls and plays that are accepted) and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source; or
(b) it is authorized information from a withdrawn action (see C); or
{c} it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations (but see B1 following); or
(d) it is information that the player possessed before he took his hand from the board (Law 7B) and the Laws do not preclude his use of this information.
2. Players may also take account of their estimate of their own score, of the traits of their opponents, and any requirement of the tournament regulations.

Doesn't A1{c} make the inference that his partner may* have the ♠A authorized to East? If not, why not?

* The test question stipulates that West has the ♠A and that's why he called the director. But absent West giving away that fact, at the table it is possible that he counted dummy's cards and came up with 14. This might well make the inference that he has the ♠A invalid. Should that matter? Does it matter? If not, why not?

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2023-June-09, 19:10, said:

Doesn't A1{c} make the inference that his partner may* have the ♠A authorized to East? If not, why not?

Law 16 is one of the best written laws, but it's not the first time we have problems with 16A1c which is another 2027 candidate.
I guess one could argue that laying down a dummy with 14 cards including a Surplus Card is not "legal procedure" (rather than that applying 13C to this situation is "legal procedure").

There is also the question of what to do if defender could hardly have failed to notice the duplicate Ace in dummy but kept silent until it was played

[axman]

BudH, on 2023-June-09, 18:04, said:

Let's pretend this was part of a written exam on the laws and that it said "when dummy (North) puts his cards on the table, West calls the director because he can see two ♠A. It becomes clear that dummy's ♠A was from the previous board. The extra ♠A is put back where it belongs. Besides that, what should be the director's decision?

The creation of competent exams is not easy. The above 'question' is an example of an incompetent Q because it implies mind reading: <because he can see two ♠A.>

To introduce the information of what is in W's mind as fact it is necessary to say, 'West stated I called because I can see two SA's.' if that is what happened. If the Q is about what the TD is to do- as in ascertain how he finds out (eg if he investigates why he was called and was smart enough to find out what was in W's mind away from the table.)

[blackshoe]

pescetom, on 2023-June-10, 06:33, said:

Law 16 is one of the best written laws, but it's not the first time we have problems with 16A1c which is another 2027 candidate.
I guess one could argue that laying down a dummy with 14 cards including a Surplus Card is not "legal procedure" (rather than that applying 13C to this situation is "legal procedure").

We can't wait until 2027 to rule on what happened at the table yesterday.

The argument that 16A1{c} doesn't apply because "laying down a dummy with 14 cards is not 'legal procedure'" seems specious to me.

pescetom, on 2023-June-10, 06:33, said:

There is also the question of what to do if defender could hardly have failed to notice the duplicate Ace in dummy but kept silent until it was played

Nothing illegal about keeping quiet (Law 9A).

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2023-June-10, 15:40, said:

We can't wait until 2027 to rule on what happened at the table yesterday.

The argument that 16A1{c} doesn't apply because "laying down a dummy with 14 cards is not 'legal procedure'" seems specious to me.

Whilst waiting for a better written law in 2027 ("arising from procedures inherent in the due enforcement of these laws") I agree that your interpretation is both legitimate and probably in line with intent.

blackshoe, on 2023-June-10, 15:40, said:

Nothing illegal about keeping quiet (Law 9A).

Nothing illegal but you have a strong stomach (and I imagine would have no qualms with those who note a revoke but keep quiet until it is established).

[blackshoe]

You want to make this personal? I'd advise against it.

[BudH]

BudH, on 2023-June-09, 18:04, said:

Let's pretend this was part of a written exam on the laws and that it said "when dummy (North) puts his cards on the table, West calls the director because he can see two ♠A. It becomes clear that dummy's ♠A was from the previous board. The extra ♠A is put back where it belongs. Besides that, what should be the director's decision?

The only two answers that you could choose that had any chance of being correct were:

1. Play continues, no rectifications, OR
2. Play continues, but Director may adjust score if North-South gain from the infraction

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2023-June-10, 18:18, said:

You want to make this personal? I'd advise against it.

Only insofar as I would expect each of us to have a position on whether or not it is a good idea that there is no obligation for a player to draw attention to an infraction of law that is bound to influence play, let alone when he may well know that not drawing attention may work to his advantage.

I think it's a bad idea but have no problem if you think differently.

[blackshoe]

My general philosophy is that if a player notices an irregularity he should probably call attention to it (no matter who perpetrated it) and once that's done the TD should be called. The fact remains that the laws do not require calling attention to an irregularity. There are of course some exceptions.

[mycroft]

barmar, on 2023-June-09, 18:32, said:

I think you need to play the hand out. If the partner of the defender who called the TD takes an unusual action that suggests they knew their partner had the Ace, I might consider adjusting.

And what if declarer played for a "lucky endplay" that would have been very poor if the other hand held the ♠A?

[sanst]

blackshoe, on 2023-June-11, 16:11, said:

My general philosophy is that if a player notices an irregularity he should probably call attention to it (no matter who perpetrated it) and once that's done the TD should be called. The fact remains that the laws do not require calling attention to an irregularity. There are of course some exceptions.

How would you prove that a player noticed the irregularity? “Sorry, never saw that I had the same card as one on the table.” In case of an ace that’s unlikely, but even then, you can’t prove it. That’s certainly the case if it’s a small card. I don’t think it’s realistic to change the law, just hope that most players will act in accordance with your philosophy. Most of us aren’t ChCh’s. Besides, usually somebody draws attention to an irregularity - and all forget to call the TD .

[jillybean]

sanst, on 2023-June-12, 01:51, said:

How would you prove that a player noticed the irregularity? “Sorry, never saw that I had the same card as one on the table.” In case of an ace that’s unlikely, but even then, you can’t prove it. That’s certainly the case if it’s a small card. I don’t think it’s realistic to change the law, just hope that most players will act in accordance with your philosophy. Most of us aren’t ChCh’s. Besides, usually somebody draws attention to an irregularity - and all forget to call the TD .

Yeah, I think we have bigger fish to fry.

[CMOTDib]

Going back to the OP I just wonder whether Law 7B2 has been overlooked. That is really the first irregularity, North couldn't have properly counted their cards "to ensure they have exactly 13 cards".
I suspect most players would point out at some stage that dummy has more than the required cards showing (well I live in hope!). The director takes away the extra card and now Declarer and one opponent has to be fairly smart to notice which card is missing (yes players can be astute but even so most have too much to worry about to notice that [will I catch my bus?; is it coffee after this board?; did I turn the outside light on so that I can see the key hole?]. Declarer is the important one and they are unlikely to know which opponent has the duplicate card. Obviously if someone says "dummy and I have the Ace of Spades" then everyone knows where it is. Law 13 C seems to be saying "well you got yourselves into this mess, now get yourselves out of it", which seems to me to be reasonable.
I would also like to see the Hands (with North with the extra Ace of Spades) where E/W will have been damaged. Don't forget North has managed to probably "overbid" their hand (yes many are rabid under bidders and may be ok) and poor old South is probably playing a contract that they will never make. At the other extreme if the duplicate card is 2 clubs in a major suit contract then it is unlikely to change the result of more than 99% of the plays.