[lamford]

At a club of quite varying standard, the TD reported to me that he had given an adjusted score of 60-40. He asked me if he was right. There was board-sharing, and a table played two consecutive boards with the cards having blue backs. At some point in the play, a defender won a trick with the ace of hearts and his partner then exclaimed "I have that card as well". The TD was called and established that the ace of hearts which the defender won the trick with was the offending card and came from the previous board which was now deficient although it had been played at both tables. It also seemed that he did not have that card at the start of the auction (or he would have had 14 cards and also an opening bid and he stated he did count them). At the time of playing it, he had one more card than the other players, including any cards played to the current trick.

Law 13 appears to be the relevant law, in particular 13F. Law 14 seems irrelevant as there was no missing card. The rogue ace of hearts was not played to any quitted trick. A few questions arise:

a) I presume that the rogue ace of hearts is removed, and play continues normally. However, the announcement from his partner that he has the ace of hearts is UI, and a breach of 73A1. Does the real ace of hearts become an MPC now? If it does, then the opponents would, amusingly, not make a single trick with either ace of hearts!

b) If the player had not made the announcement, the rogue ace of hearts would have become part of a quitted trick, and there would have been an adjusted score under 13F. Does Law 23 apply in that the owner of the real ace of hearts could have been aware that it was in his interest to point out the duplicate? Or is he allowed to prevent an infraction?

c) Should the TD have awarded 60% to declarer and 40% to the defenders, or was this an illegal ruling?

[mamos]

My second Law of Tournament Directing is that when two players hold the same card something has gone wrong!

(My first Law? "Tables with three legs do not work well"

Both these Laws are based on considerable experience

Mike

PS I think suggesting that there has been a breach of Law 73A1 is a little harsh. What should the player with the real ♥A do? Put it in a pocket and dispose of it later? I'd follow Law13F. I'd put ♥A in my pocket - somebody will probably want it in a minute and let play continue, breathing a deep sigh of relief that they hadn't gone on without drawing attention when I would probably have had to deal with the real horrors of a defective trick and Law 67. I don't think the TD should have awarded 60/40. The non-offenders might have been in a good spot and deserving of more than 60%. Although Law 13F does not tell the TD to check for damage, I would do so and if the non-offenders had been damaged in some way, I would adjust - using my Law 12A powers if needed.

[pran]

lamford, on 2016-August-10, 05:32, said:

At a club of quite varying standard, the TD reported to me that he had given an adjusted score of 60-40. He asked me if he was right. There was board-sharing, and a table played two consecutive boards with the cards having blue backs. At some point in the play, a defender won a trick with the ace of hearts and his partner then exclaimed "I have that card as well". The TD was called and established that the ace of hearts which the defender won the trick with was the offending card and came from the previous board which was now deficient although it had been played at both tables. It also seemed that he did not have that card at the start of the auction (or he would have had 14 cards and also an opening bid and he stated he did count them). At the time of playing it, he had one more card than the other players, including any cards played to the current trick.

Law 13 appears to be the relevant law, in particular 13F. Law 14 seems irrelevant as there was no missing card. The rogue ace of hearts was not played to any quitted trick. A few questions arise:

a) I presume that the rogue ace of hearts is removed, and play continues normally. However, the announcement from his partner that he has the ace of hearts is UI, and a breach of 73A1. Does the real ace of hearts become an MPC now? If it does, then the opponents would, amusingly, not make a single trick with either ace of hearts!

b) If the player had not made the announcement, the rogue ace of hearts would have become part of a quitted trick, and there would have been an adjusted score under 13F. Does Law 23 apply in that the owner of the real ace of hearts could have been aware that it was in his interest to point out the duplicate? Or is he allowed to prevent an infraction?

c) Should the TD have awarded 60% to declarer and 40% to the defenders, or was this an illegal ruling?

I understand the following to be a fact:
One of the players began his auction holding 14 cards, the other three players all held 13 cards.

The offender is the player holding 14 cards and the offence is violation of Law 7B2. The irregularity is discovered during play, and Law 13F applies. The "extra" ♥A is simply removed and play continues with no change to the auction or the already quitted tricks. (And yes, the remark from the other defender results in his ♥A becoming a major penalty card.)

If the Director (after end of play) finds that the irregularity has (or may have) damaged the innocent (i.e. declaring) side he may (and should) award an adjusted score. If so he must award an artificial adjusted score 60%-40% if he finds himself unable to award an assigned adjusted score.

Specifically to your question b: Law 9A4 says: There is no obligation to draw attention to an infraction of law committed by one’s own side (but see Law 20F5 for correction of partner’s apparently mistaken explanation). so the other defender may certainly remain quiet until end of play. He may however not accept any favourable result caused by the irregularity. The consequence of Law 13F is that the Director most likely must award an adjusted score in this situation.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2016-August-10, 05:32, said:

It also seemed that he did not have that card at the start of the auction (or he would have had 14 cards and also an opening bid and he stated he did count them). At the time of playing it, he had one more card than the other players, including any cards played to the current trick.

How does a card jump from the previous board to a hand in the current board between the start of the auction and the middle of the play period? This is a bridge game, not an episode of "Penn & Teller: Fool Us".

[pran]

lamford, on 2016-August-10, 05:32, said:

It also seemed that he did not have that card at the start of the auction (or he would have had 14 cards and also an opening bid and he stated he did count them). At the time of playing it, he had one more card than the other players, including any cards played to the current trick.

barmar, on 2016-August-10, 09:02, said:

How does a card jump from the previous board to a hand in the current board between the start of the auction and the middle of the play period? This is a bridge game, not an episode of "Penn & Teller: Fool Us".

Easy, provided he did hold that card in his previous hand.

Somehow he restores only 12 cards to the board after the first hand, leaving the ♥A face down somewhere on the table in front of him. He takes the 13 cards from the current board, and then at some time during the auction or play discovers that he apparently has dropped one of his cards on the table (or so he believes, where else did that card come from?).

Now it only remains to restore that card to his hand where he believes it belongs.

Under this theory he may claim that he did not violate Law 7B2, but in that case he has instead violated Law 7C with the previous board since he only returned 12 of his cards from his (previous) hand to that board.

[blackshoe]

Rather than speculate, the TD ought to investigate.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2016-August-10, 12:55, said:

Rather than speculate, the TD ought to investigate.

Quite right.
But the fact that a player has had 14 cards at his disposal for a significant part of the auction/play periods is itself sufficient to make a ruling when the other three players all have had 13.

The only matter for the Director to consider is whether he can allow an obtained result to stand, award an assigned adjusted score or impose an artificial adjusted score.

The question on how this situation came to be is rather insignificant.

[Zelandakh]

pran, on 2016-August-10, 13:52, said:

The question on how this situation came to be is rather insignificant.

Is it still insignificant if it turns out that the extra card came from an opponent's hand on the previous board?

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2016-August-10, 12:55, said:

Rather than speculate, the TD ought to investigate.

It was easy to show that the ace of hearts belonged to the same player's hand on the previous board, as that hand had 12 cards prior to its restoration. It was also very likely that he did not have it in his hand during the auction, or he would have had a 14-count and opened the bidding. It was also established to have been the first card played by that hand on the previous board, so would have been the rightmost card of the played cards and could well have slipped under the scoresheet or table number or such and perhaps been picked up at some point in the play.

I don't think the partner of the player with the other ace of hearts has any right to point it out. Just as someone is not allowed to say that they revoked two tricks earlier (although many do). On reflection, the true ace of hearts just becomes an MPC, under Law 49:

<snip>when a defender names a card as being in his hand<snip>

There is a certain je ne sais quoi about the opponents making no heart tricks (as I understand the person with the real ace of hearts would have been forced to discard it on a good club, and the person with the rogue ace of hearts would have been forced to return it to the correct board). Declarer's hearts were KJT opposite xxx. If it had been SB, he would have gloated about how he played the suit for no loser whoever had the ace of hearts.

[lamford]

mamos, on 2016-August-10, 06:36, said:

(My first Law? "Tables with three legs do not work well"

The problem is with the positioning of the legs, not with the table. A table with three legs will be completely stable if the legs are placed at 120° intervals. Indeed it can always be rotated so that it does not wobble. The problem occurs when two of the legs are 180° or more apart (as happens most frequently when a leg is missing or broken).

[barmar]

lamford, on 2016-August-11, 06:07, said:

The problem is with the positioning of the legs, not with the table. A table with three legs will be completely stable if the legs are placed at 120° intervals. Indeed it can always be rotated so that it does not wobble. The problem occurs when two of the legs are 180° or more apart (as happens most frequently when a leg is missing or broken).

Since it's a bridge law, it's presumably talking about a card table, with legs at the corners, not an arbitrary table design. Remove one of them, and it's not a good card table any more.

[Lanor Fow]

Even with legs at 120 degrees, wouldn't this still lead to problems as a bridge table. For a start there would legs interfering with legroom and seat placement. Moreover I can foresee issues if someone were to lean on the table, or play their (penalty) double card too hard.

[Zelandakh]

Lanor Fow, on 2016-August-12, 02:23, said:

Moreover I can foresee issues if someone were to lean on the table, or play their (penalty) double card too hard.

Or lead their singleton. One of my opponents here through their singleton lead down so hard it bounced off the table. Apparently that is accepted round here because that is what players do when playing the other locally popular trick-taking card game.

[lamford]

Lanor Fow, on 2016-August-12, 02:23, said:

Even with legs at 120 degrees, wouldn't this still lead to problems as a bridge table. For a start there would legs interfering with legroom and seat placement. Moreover I can foresee issues if someone were to lean on the table, or play their (penalty) double card too hard.

This very subject was discussed "ad nauseam" at www.sawmillcreek.org, a site of which I am a member, and one (interesting?) thread was devoted to the three-legs-versus-four legs discussion. Both your objections are invalid. Some opinions:

"Brian Backner:
A three-legged base is always more stable than one with 4 or more legs.

Going back to Geometry 101, remember that any three points not on a line define a plane. Any four points not in the same plane define space. The point being that three legs will always be rock stable no matter their length or how uneven the floor on which they rest. To get a 4-legged table to sit solidly requires that they be the same length and be sitting on a very even floor. Think about how many times you've seen a 4-legged table with one leg shimmed to keep the table from rocking - have you ever seen a 3-legged stool or table treated similarly?"

"Jim Becker
Three feet will always be more stable than four, especially when the floor is uneven. But you also have to design it so that there is a wide enough base to insure it will not tip."

"Tom Veatch
If possible without compromising the "tippiness" of the table, leave enough table top overhang so the table legs don't interfere with the legs of the people seated at your (bridge) dinner party celebrating the new table. Unless of course you don't like guests and want them to go home early."

I am beginning to fear that blackshoe may decide this thread has drifted off-topic.

[Zelandakh]

lamford, on 2016-August-12, 03:35, said:

I am beginning to fear that blackshoe may decide this thread has drifted off-topic.

At the fear of taking it further, the optimal solution is arguably a central supporting column with three legs set under a false table floor, thus providing both the stability on uneven floors of a tripod with maximal leg room, while also keeping the base as wide as possible. Sadly this design is fairly rare.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2016-August-12, 03:35, said:

I am beginning to fear that blackshoe may decide this thread has drifted off-topic.

Oh, it definitely has.

[FrancesHinden]

pran, on 2016-August-10, 08:03, said:

Specifically to your question b: Law 9A4 says: There is no obligation to draw attention to an infraction of law committed by one’s own side (but see Law 20F5 for correction of partner’s apparently mistaken explanation). so the other defender may certainly remain quiet until end of play. He may however not accept any favourable result caused by the irregularity. The consequence of Law 13F is that the Director most likely must award an adjusted score in this situation.

"He may however not accept any favourable result caused by the irregularity"

Why not? Please specify the relevant law.

[lamford]

FrancesHinden, on 2016-August-14, 04:59, said:

"He may however not accept any favourable result caused by the irregularity"

Why not? Please specify the relevant law.

I agree with Frances. In particular 10C4 states:
Subject to Law 16D2, after rectification of an infraction it is appropriate for the offenders to make any call or play advantageous to their side, even though they thereby appear to profit through their own infraction (but see Laws 27 and 50).

Also, as pran points out, 9A4 states:
4. There is no obligation to draw attention to an infraction of law committed by one’s own side <irrelevant snip>

Therefore, when the owner of the true ace of hearts sees the rogue ace of hearts, he can (and indeed should) keep quiet, and delay playing his ace of hearts as long as possible as long as he does not deliberately revoke. The declarer may claim or concede in a two-card ending, and the infraction may never come to light. Of course his idiot partner might say that he has three cards in a two-card ending, and the beans will be spilled. (And I am not sure, even after researching the subject, why it is always beans that are spilled - another atttempt to move the thread off-topic).

[Zelandakh]

lamford, on 2016-August-14, 05:27, said:

4. There is no obligation to draw attention to an infraction of law committed by one’s own side <irrelevant snip>

Therefore, when the owner of the true ace of hearts sees the rogue ace of hearts, he can (and indeed should) keep quiet,

No obligation to do something is not the same as an obligation not to do something. 9A4 does not remove a player's 9A2 rights.

[lamford]

Zelandakh, on 2016-August-14, 05:43, said:

No obligation to do something is not the same as an obligation not to do something. 9A4 does not remove a player's 9A2 rights.

Indeed, the "should" was from a "bridge gain" point of view, not from a "legal obligation" point of view. He can point out the rogue ace of hearts (but not by stating that he has the same card!), but it can never gain to do so. If he gets a bad result, he can say at the end of the hand. "I must be seeing things. I could have sworn that you played the ace of hearts earlier in the play, a card that was in my hand." He will then get the result with any penalty imposed on his partner for not counting cards, unless the board was, for example, fouled by the previous table and then he will get average plus.

He should judge whether he is likely to gain by pointing out the rogue ace of hearts, much as he judges whether he is likely to gain or lose by leading an ace against a slam ...