[Chris3875]

Our local peer support directors' group have recently been discussing Law 24 - card exposed or led prior to the play period and I think we understand this Law pretty well now. However, as one person mentioned, occasionally you will take your hand from the board, start to count the cards face down on the table and - OOOOPS - there is a card facing the wrong way that suddenly appears face up on your pile of cards. I think most people try to pretend they didn't see it as offender quickly covers it up or snatches it back into hand. In this case it's tough to penalise the player concerned I think - I suppose you could suggest that people count their cards face down UNDER the table to prevent this sort of incident.

What would you do if a narky opponent called you to the table saying he had seen a card belonging to LHO? I am guessing you have no other recourse but to apply the Law.

[savphantom]

Chris
Which law would you apply?
LHO has not seen a partner's card. Depends on facts of situation.

[blackshoe]

I think the implication is that if RHO saw your card, so did your partner. Not necessarily true, of course.

My answer to the narky one is "you now have more information about your opponent's hand than you would normally get. Be thankful."

[bluejak]

If I understood the question, the card was face up. If so, then it is not this player's fault. Law 16C1 ought to apply, though I seem to remember a problem with that. If the board becomes unplayable then I would fine the player at the previous table, even in a club.

Law 24 is not relevant if it is not because of a player's own error, which it is not if the card was face up in the board.

[pran]

bluejak, on Apr 22 2010, 02:26 AM, said:

If I understood the question, the card was face up.  If so, then it is not this player's fault.  Law 16C1 ought to apply, though I seem to remember a problem with that.  If the board becomes unplayable then I would fine the player at the previous table, even in a club.

Law 24 is not relevant if it is not because of a player's own error, which it is not if the card was face up in the board.

Law 24 certainly applies as (Law 17A): The auction period on a deal begins for a side when either partner withdraws his cards from the board. Each player is responsible for his own cards from the moment he withdraws them until he restores them again after end of play.

The important question is whether (from Law 24): because of a player’s own error one or more cards of that player’s hand were in position for the face to be seen by his partner

Obviously this is a matter of judgment, and apparently David and I have different opinions here because I always rule that the player in case has been careless in handling his cards. (Only when the face of a card was visible already before being withdrawn from the board do I accept no error on the player).

As for penalizing the last previous player that should have handled these cards I refuse this unless the Director can prove that no other person has handled the cards in the meantime. I so often notice players (or even spectators) removing cards from a board not currently in use or a player removing one of the other player's hand from a board just finished that I consider it injustice to penalize the rightful owner of that hand in case of a subsequent irregularity.

[blackshoe]

Oh, Sven.

David said that Law 24 doesn't apply if it wasn't the player's error. He's absolutely right. That you disagree with the judgment whether it was the player's error doesn't change that.

The first sentence after your reference to Law 17A (in blue) is a full quote of that law. The next sentence has nothing to do with Law 17A — it seems to be your opinion, based I would guess on Law 7B and C. FWIW I agree with that opinion. OTOH, I agree with David on the question of whose fault it was that a card was "in a position to be viewed by [his] partner". When someone (player at the previous table, kibitzer, director , whoever) boxes a card in the board, that person is primarily at fault for any problem caused. The only way the player who next takes the hand out of the board intending to play it can be at fault is if you interpret Law 7B2 as requiring him to count his cards outside the view of his partner, which in effect means below the level of the table. The law doesn't say that.

The Director doesn't have to prove anything. He only has to satisfy himself that the preponderance of the evidence indicates it.

[bluejak]

To penalise the wrong player because you cannot prove the player who was at fault was at fault is shockingly bad directing.

If a player was not at fault then he allowed someone else to touch his cards. Not only should he have called the TD, but anyway, when I tell him it was boxed he will tell me this. I did not suggest penalising him without investigating.

We rule based on preponderance of evidence, not proof.

[jdonn]

pran, on Apr 22 2010, 03:03 AM, said:

Obviously this is a matter of judgment, and apparently David and I have different opinions here because I always rule that the player in case has been careless in handling his cards.

WOW...... bridge nazi much?

[axman]

blackshoe, on Apr 22 2010, 03:32 AM, said:

Oh, Sven.

David said that Law 24 doesn't apply if it wasn't the player's error. He's absolutely right. That you disagree with the judgment whether it was the player's error doesn't change that.

The first sentence after your reference to Law 17A (in blue) is a full quote of that law. The next sentence has nothing to do with Law 17A — it seems to be your opinion, based I would guess on Law 7B and C. FWIW I agree with that opinion. OTOH, I agree with David on the question of whose fault it was that a card was "in a position to be viewed by [his] partner". When someone (player at the previous table, kibitzer, director , whoever) boxes a card in the board, that person is primarily at fault for any problem caused. The only way the player who next takes the hand out of the board intending to play it can be at fault is if you interpret Law 7B2 as requiring him to count his cards outside the view of his partner, which in effect means below the level of the table. The law doesn't say that.

The Director doesn't have to prove anything. He only has to satisfy himself that the preponderance of the evidence indicates it.

I think that some care is in order:

L24 does not provide: When the Director determines that during the Auction Period solely because of a player’s own error one or more cards of that player’s hand were in position for the face to be seen by his partner,...

Consider this case. Were any cards visible when the board arrived? No.

Subsequently were card faces visible [during the auction period]? Yes.

How? A player was counting his cards and a card was face up instead of the expected face down. And it was done above the table rather than out of sight.

Did the player's error cause the card to be exposed? Yes.

L24 provides- When the Director determines that during the Auction Period because of a player’s own error one or more cards of that player’s hand were in position for the face to be seen by his partner,...

Is the player culpable in the eyes of L24? If he was able to do his counting out of sight, or able at least to verify out of sight the cards were face down before counting- Yes. iow, a disability can be a reason that exposure is unavoidable and thus no culpability would attach.

Is he alone culpable? No.

Coming from someone whom last week removed from a board a hand where the top card was face down and a half dozen underneath were face up.

[blackshoe]

So you are interpreting Law 7B2 to require counting one's cards, or at least verifying that they are not boxed, out of partner's sight. I repeat: the law does not say that.

[axman]

axman, on Apr 22 2010, 11:11 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Apr 22 2010, 03:32 AM, said:

Oh, Sven.  

David said that Law 24 doesn't apply if it wasn't the player's error. He's absolutely right. That you disagree with the judgment whether it was the player's error doesn't change that.

The first sentence after your reference to Law 17A (in blue) is a full quote of that law. The next sentence has nothing to do with Law 17A — it seems to be your opinion, based I would guess on Law 7B and C. FWIW I agree with that opinion. OTOH, I agree with David on the question of whose fault it was that a card was "in a position to be viewed by [his] partner". When someone (player at the previous table, kibitzer, director  , whoever) boxes a card in the board, that person is primarily at fault for any problem caused. The only way the player who next takes the hand out of the board intending to play it can be at fault is if you interpret Law 7B2 as requiring him to count his cards outside the view of his partner, which in effect means below the level of the table. The law doesn't say that.

The Director doesn't have to prove anything. He only has to satisfy himself that the preponderance of the evidence indicates it.

I think that some care is in order:

L24 does not provide: When the Director determines that during the Auction Period solely because of a player’s own error one or more cards of that player’s hand were in position for the face to be seen by his partner,...

Consider this case. Were any cards visible when the board arrived? No.

Subsequently were card faces visible [during the auction period]? Yes.

How? A player was counting his cards and a card was face up instead of the expected face down. And it was done above the table rather than out of sight.

Did the player's error cause the card to be exposed? Yes.

L24 provides- When the Director determines that during the Auction Period because of a player’s own error one or more cards of that player’s hand were in position for the face to be seen by his partner,...

Is the player culpable in the eyes of L24? If he was able to do his counting out of sight, or able at least to verify out of sight the cards were face down before counting- Yes. iow, a disability can be a reason that exposure is unavoidable and thus no culpability would attach.

Is he alone culpable? No.

Coming from someone whom last week removed from a board a hand where the top card was face down and a half dozen underneath were face up.

Upon reflection several technicalities occurred to me concerning the auction period.

The first question is whether the auction period has begun.

There are several references in laws to auction period and auction period for a side, where only auction period for a side was specifically defined. It follows once an auction period for a side has begun that the auction period has begun.

The next question concerns the fact that if a card in a board is face up and during counting is exposed, is that alone sufficient to start the auction period. I should think not because otherwise it would follow that when the top card arrives exposed the auction period has begun- prior to removing the cards. I think that such is sufficient to assert that it has not.

And what of the situation that the auction period has otherwise begun? And in particular noting when the face up card having been exposed prior to the auction period by the owner, what is the status [a] if it is covered up before the auction period begins [and thus is not exposed during the auction period] and [b] after the auction period begins [being exposed prior not excluding that it also is exposed during].

The issue being driven toward is for [a] the conditions of L24 not being met and for [b] they are met.

[bluejak]

There is no requirement to count your cards underneath the table. They come to you face down, and it is a clear infraction at the previous table if they do not.

It is all very well to make up your own rules so as to penalise people for doing nothing wrong, but bridge does not work that way. Until there is a Law or Regulation requiring you to count them out of sight it is not required.

[dburn]

bluejak, on Apr 22 2010, 07:27 PM, said:

There is no requirement to count your cards underneath the table.  They come to you face down, and it is a clear infraction at the previous table if they do not.

Just so that I can be sure in my own mind - of which Law is it a "clear infraction"? You see, Law 7 says only:

Laws of Duplicate Bridge said:

After play has finished, each player should shuffle his original thirteen cards, after which he restores them to the pocket corresponding to his compass position.

I once saw a player count his cards onto the table. He accidentally turned one of them face upwards while doing this, and when the Director was summoned, claimed that the card "must have been" face upwards when he took them out of the board. I would hate to think that the Director should automatically penalise a player at the next table for clumsiness by the fellow at this one.

The Law does not say that your cards must, or even should, come to you face down, and I am inclined to agree with Sven when he says that the proper handling of your cards (including your duty not to expose any of them during the auction period) is your responsibility and yours alone from the moment you remove them from the board.

[barmar]

dburn, on Apr 22 2010, 10:12 PM, said:

I once saw a player count his cards onto the table. He accidentally turned one of them face upwards while doing this, and when the Director was summoned, claimed that the card "must have been" face upwards when he took them out of the board. I would hate to think that the Director should automatically penalise a player at the next table for clumsiness by the fellow at this one.

It's the Director's duty to determine the veracity of claims like this. If someone gets away with a lie, justice is obviously not going to be done. But does that mean we should reinterpret laws to prevent someone from possibly being falsely accused of an error?

[dburn]

barmar, on Apr 22 2010, 11:07 PM, said:

dburn, on Apr 22 2010, 10:12 PM, said:

I once saw a player count his cards onto the table. He accidentally turned one of them face upwards while doing this, and when the Director was summoned, claimed that the card "must have been" face upwards when he took them out of the board. I would hate to think that the Director should automatically penalise a player at the next table for clumsiness by the fellow at this one.

It's the Director's duty to determine the veracity of claims like this. If someone gets away with a lie, justice is obviously not going to be done. But does that mean we should reinterpret laws to prevent someone from possibly being falsely accused of an error?

No, it is not the Director's duty to have to arbitrate when "claims like this" arise. I know what I saw: my opponent accidentally turned one of his cards. He lied in his teeth when he said that he didn't.

Of course, he might give you a completely different version of events, and of course - for you as a Director have absolutely no way of knowing what really happened - he may be right.

In all seriousness, what would you have a Director do in order to "determine the veracity" of our conflicting statements? How many rounds of "Oh yes you did" "Oh no I didn't" would you be prepared to tolerate?

Or would you go to the next table and, bending low and in a bondsman's key with bated breath and whispering humbleness, say this: "Fair sir, you spit on me on Wednesday last, but on this day, perchance you boxed a card?"

Would you not far rather, as a Director, have recourse to the Pran Principle that a player's cards are his responsibility and his alone, once he has taken them from the board with the topmost card face down?

There is no question of "reinterpreting" Laws just because bluejak thinks it is a "clear" infraction to box a card. It isn't, and there is no Law that says it is. However, it is an infraction to expose a card during the auction period, and it is entirely consistent to say that a player who does so while solely responsible for his own cards must bear the consequences.

Bluejak, as usual, seems to think that just because people do not do something (count their cards under the table), they are under no obligation to do it and can avoid any consequences from failing to do it. He is, as usual, wrong (and he might even see this for himself, if he reflects on his belief that people should always pull the Stop card before raising 2NT to 4NT, in case failure to do so creates unimaginable problems for the next player to call).

[Echognome]

dburn, on Apr 22 2010, 10:56 PM, said:

<snip>
No, it is not the Director's duty to have to arbitrate when "claims like this" arise. I know what I saw: my opponent accidentally turned one of his cards. He lied in his teeth when he said that he didn't.

Of course, he might give you a completely different version of events, and of course - for you as a Director have absolutely no way of knowing what really happened - he may be right.

In all seriousness, what would you have a Director do in order to "determine the veracity" of our conflicting statements? How many rounds of "Oh yes you did" "Oh no I didn't" would you be prepared to tolerate?
<snip>

I don't understand your point here. Suppose you get to the table and none of the cards are turned face up. One person is saying he saw an exposed card and the other says his accuser is having delusions from using LSD one time too many. Should we solve that by having a default that the player closest the north pole is always right? That way we don't have to make a judgment ruling at all!

[jdonn]

Yes of course the director has to make a judgment call, there is no way around it. What if your story was the following opposite situation:

"No, it is not the Director's duty to have to arbitrate when "claims like this" arise. I know what I did: I did not turn up one of my cards, it was already face up. My opponent lied in his teeth when he said that I did."

Are you saying you should just automatically be ruled against in that case?

[pran]

Just a few facts about counting your cards without exposing them to opponents in case one or more is boxed:

There is no need to count them below the table. It is fully possible to count the edges of the cards in such a way that you notice if any card is boxed without exposing that card (even to yourself).

(And the auction period begins for a side when a player on that side removes his cards from the board, not when the board arrives at the table with a topmost card boxed)

[gordontd]

blackshoe, on Apr 22 2010, 06:26 PM, said:

So you are interpreting Law 7B2 to require counting one's cards, or at least verifying that they are not boxed, out of partner's sight. I repeat: the law does not say that.

L7B2 requires counting one's cards face down. If you haven't checked that they aren't boxed, you can't comply with this without risking exposing a card during the auction period.

We expect players to take responsibility for boards that become unplayable when they look at fourteen-card hands that were caused by players at other tables. I find it surprising that the argument is now presented that they are not responsible when they expose their own card(s) needlessly while counting.

[pran]

gordontd, on Apr 23 2010, 09:36 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Apr 22 2010, 06:26 PM, said:

So you are interpreting Law 7B2 to require counting one's cards, or at least verifying that they are not boxed, out of partner's sight. I repeat: the law does not say that.

L7B2 requires counting one's cards face down. If you haven't checked that they aren't boxed, you can't comply with this without risking exposing a card during the auction period.

We expect players to take responsibility for boards that become unplayable when they look at fourteen-card hands that were caused by players at other tables. I find it surprising that the argument is now presented that they are not responsible when they expose their own card(s) needlessly while counting.

(Admittedly) many years ago Tommy Sandsmark reported from an international championship an appeal where a player had failed to count his cards properly.

The AC acquitted him and penalized the player who previously (apparently) had restored an incorrect number of cards to the board!

Tommy was astonished (not to say shocked) and so were all of us reading that report.