[keithhus]

Just for my edification, could you tell me please what the correct procedure is when a card is discovered in the wrong hand - I.e. 12 in one and 14 in another. At my club, if it cannot easily be, corrected the board is averaged and hence forward. Re-dealing would complicate the scoring but that is the only other alternative I can see. Further, I was taught to count the cards prior to bidding but I think it might be better to count the cards after the hand is played and before returning to the board as this would identify the problem. Finally, is there any sanction on the pair(s) where the error ocurred? Please note I am a beginner and this question is only for my information. Thank you

[pran]

keithhus, on 2016-February-14, 15:07, said:

Just for my edification, could you tell me please what the correct procedure is when a card is discovered in the wrong hand - I.e. 12 in one and 14 in another. At my club, if it cannot easily be, corrected the board is averaged and hence forward. Re-dealing would complicate the scoring but that is the only other alternative I can see. Further, I was taught to count the cards prior to bidding but I think it might be better to count the cards after the hand is played and before returning to the board as this would identify the problem. Finally, is there any sanction on the pair(s) where the error ocurred? Please note I am a beginner and this question is only for my information. Thank you

Law 7B2 said:

Each player counts his cards face down to be sure he has exactly thirteen [...].

Law 7C 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 [...].

Until 1987 Law 7C included an explicit requirement that each player counted his cards also immediately before returning them to the board. One may deduce that this requirement was considered superfluous as each player is still responsible for returning all his 13 (and no extra) cards to the board.

Law 13 is a general law applicable to most situations where one or more players do not have exactly thirteen cards. As for the question of who is at fault when artificial adjusted scores must be awarded a player who failed to ascertain that he had exactly thirteen cards before looking at them is automatically "at fault".

[sanst]

It's clear you don't duplicate boards, which would give you a print of the hands. It makes live much easier, but it is a rather costly machine. So you have to reconstruct both hands. The best way to do this is to get both players who had these hands in the previous round and let them establish which card, or even cards, should be exchanged. It's time consuming and not always possible, but it's worth the effort.

[blackshoe]

The TD should investigate how a card got from one hand to another. If one or more culprits can be identified at the previous table, the TD can issue a procedural penalty (PP. See Law 90B). The player(s) who failed to count their cards when taking them out of the board can also be issued a PP. This may take the form of a warning for a first offense, and possibly for a second offense. After that, the PP should be in match points or IMPs.

[keithhus]

Thank you all very much for responding; most helpful.

[PeterAlan]

sanst, on 2016-February-14, 16:21, said:

It's clear you don't duplicate boards, which would give you a print of the hands. It makes live much easier, but it is a rather costly machine. So you have to reconstruct both hands. The best way to do this is to get both players who had these hands in the previous round and let them establish which card, or even cards, should be exchanged. It's time consuming and not always possible, but it's worth the effort.

The software that comes with the common Duplimate machine allows you to set the dealing parameters so that the cards in each hand are not shown on the screen when dealing - that's the norm when dealing at my club. This means - as I did when directing tonight - that it can be simplest just to collect up the board, drop the cards in the dealing machine's hopper, open up the relevant deal file and re-deal the board in question on the machine. It took about 90 seconds in all. Of course, you need an appropriate computer and dealing machine set up, with easy access to it, but this proved to be a very effective solution to the problem.

[keithhus]

PeterAlan, on 2016-February-15, 20:33, said:

The software that comes with the common Duplimate machine allows you to set the dealing parameters so that the cards in each hand are not shown on the screen when dealing - that's the norm when dealing at my club. This means - as I did when directing tonight - that it can be simplest just to collect up the board, drop the cards in the dealing machine's hopper, open up the relevant deal file and re-deal the board in question on the machine. It took about 90 seconds in all. Of course, you need an appropriate computer and dealing machine set up, with easy access to it, but this proved to be a very effective solution to the problem.

Thank you for the reply Peter. My timing is somewhat off as yesterday the committee told us there is a review taking place to reduce costs - e.g. Printing etc. I feel any suggestion to purchase additional hardware/software would go down like a lead balloon. One for the future hopefully.

[Zelandakh]

The alternative to reducing costs is often to increase table fees and provide a better service, which typically involves buying a dealing machine and offering hand records. Even if such a proposal gets rejected, it is not a bad idea for a steering committee to understand what their options are.

[Vampyr]

keithhus, on 2016-February-17, 04:53, said:

Thank you for the reply Peter. My timing is somewhat off as yesterday the committee told us there is a review taking place to reduce costs - e.g. Printing etc. I feel any suggestion to purchase additional hardware/software would go down like a lead balloon. One for the future hopefully.

Of course you can just ask the people who played the board last. If it happens a lot, you could use curtain cards.

Zelandakh, on 2016-February-17, 07:04, said:

The alternative to reducing costs is often to increase table fees and provide a better service, which typically involves buying a dealing machine and offering hand records. Even if such a proposal gets rejected, it is not a bad idea for a steering committee to understand what their options are.

Yes, definitely something to discuss at the AGM. Our local club borrowed money from the players to buy both the duplicate and the Bridgemates. People put up £200 ostensibly for a year; but in both cases the loans were paid back early. Of course, table fees comes into this as well; you need to be running at a surplus for this sort of scheme to work.

Does your club use paid directors? If so, using volunteer playing directors would cut costs without really affecting the players. We split the role -- there is a movement director and a tournament director, which reduces the burden. Of course, this may not be a viable option if there are not enough qualified directors at your club (although most rulings can be read out of the book; in the rare occasions where this is impossible, the TD for the night can consult a qualified or more experienced director).

[keithhus]

Z/V
You both make valid points which I agree should be borne in mind when considering overall costs/processes but I am only a junior member. I understand upgraded computerisation has been discussed before and rejected! Possibly something to do with the demographics! However, that does not mean it should not remain on the agenda. The current thinking though, which I support, is to use funds to engage teachers to run sessions to improve the overall standard. One session has already been run, which was very successful (oversubscribed). Incidentally, all officers are volunteers.
Thank you very much for your comments, much appreciated.

[jnichols]

Ask your players if they would be willing to pay an extra 10% or 20% in card fees to get dealing machine and electronic scoring. They may look at you like you are crazy.

If I asked my players if they would be willing to get rid of ours and reduce card fees and they would throw me out of the club.

I guess it depends on your point of view.

[pgoddard]

keithhus, on 2016-February-17, 18:04, said:

current thinking though, which I support, is to use funds to engage teachers to run sessions to improve the overall standard. One session has already been run, which was very successful (oversubscribed).

At our club, the introduction of hand records (using a Dealer4 machine) probably did more to improve quality of play than any other initiative, including intermediate/advance lessons. Some players took them, discussed them with their partners and actually thought about what they'd done after the session!

[Vampyr]

keithhus, on 2016-February-17, 18:04, said:

Incidentally, all officers are volunteers.

Yes, of course. They have, nevertheless, a responsibility to their members.

Even a junior member can get an item onto the AGM agenda. Maybe the decision will be the same, but it is best if the members are consulted.

[weejonnie]

Last week I was dummy when a director call was made. As the TD was playing I volunteered to go over (it was an insufficient bid, for what it was worth). Came back to find the cards back in the dockets and was told the score - only on the next round to have the director call the table as my hand had magically grown to 15 cards in my absence.

Fortunately we had prepared hands with records and as I am well known for my absolute honesty, the TD asked me to look at the record and correct it. (We were playing blocks of three so the hands were all in a row on the record.