[Gerben42]

A messy ruling from today:

North is declarer in 2NT. After the opening lead, South puts his cards down in dummy. West now notices that one or more of his cards are also in dummy and calls the director. Turns out that West has cards with a blue back and all others have cards with a red back. The TD finds out that West's cards are from the previous board, while his cards from the current board are still untouched in the board...

Are you going to let them play it? If not, on what basis do you adjust? Do you still assume the final contract is 2NT or can the auction also change? Or do you simply give Av+/Av-?

[pran]

Gerben42, on 2011-January-23, 13:35, said:

A messy ruling from today:

North is declarer in 2NT. After the opening lead, South puts his cards down in dummy. West now notices that one or more of his cards are also in dummy and calls the director. Turns out that West has cards with a blue back and all others have cards with a red back. The TD finds out that West's cards are from the previous board, while his cards from the current board are still untouched in the board...

Are you going to let them play it? If not, on what basis do you adjust? Do you still assume the final contract is 2NT or can the auction also change? Or do you simply give Av+/Av-?

The appliccable law is 17D Cards from Wrong Board:

1. A call is cancelled if it is made by a player on cards that he has picked up from a wrong board.

2. After looking at the correct hand the offender calls again and the auction continues normally from that point. If offender’s LHO has called over the cancelled call the Director shall award artificial adjusted scores when offender’s substituted call differs* from his cancelled call (offender’s LHO must repeat the previous call) or if the offender’s partner has subsequently called over the cancelled call.

3. If the offender subsequently repeats his call on the board from which he mistakenly drew his cards the Director may allow that board to be played normally, but the Director shall award artificial adjusted scores when offender’s call differs* from his original cancelled call.

4. A procedural penalty (Law 90) may be assessed in addition to rectifications under 2 and 3 above.

The enhancements are mine, and the enhanced text makes it quite clear that the Director shall cancel the board and award artificial adjusted scores (Av+/Av-). In addition he may impose a procedural penalty on the offender.

[bluejak]

This one is a good example of a point that I find myself often making when I answer questions for a magazine: all the TD has to do is to open the Law book and read from it. This particular case is clear.

[Gerben42]

Quote

3. If the offender subsequently repeats his call on the board from which he mistakenly drew his cards the Director may allow that board to be played normally, but the Director shall award artificial adjusted scores when offender’s call differs* from his original cancelled call.

So far so good, but this doesn't really solve the problem of what to adjust to. What do we do with the NOS, who might have reached a contract that is favourable to them? Or are they going to have to accept their Av+?

[pran]

Gerben42, on 2011-January-25, 12:18, said:

So far so good, but this doesn't really solve the problem of what to adjust to. What do we do with the NOS, who might have reached a contract that is favourable to them? Or are they going to have to accept their Av+?

Yes, artificial adjusted score is just that: A- to a contestant directly at fault, A to a contestant only partly at fault, and A+ to a contestant in no way at fault.

[McBruce]

bluejak, on 2011-January-25, 09:06, said:

This one is a good example of a point that I find myself often making when I answer questions for a magazine: all the TD has to do is to open the Law book and read from it. This particular case is clear.

Not quite. All the TD has to do is to open the Law book to the right page and read from it. In this case, the Law in question is usually needed during the play, a card is led or exposed in dummy, and somebody notices a duplicate card in their own hand. Law 17, however, is the first Law in the section of the Law book titled "The Auction." Not only that, the subheading is "Part I -- Correct Procedure"! It might be better to append 17D to Law 7, or at least put something pointing to Law 17D in Law 7.

[bluejak]

Gerben42, on 2011-January-25, 12:18, said:

So far so good, but this doesn't really solve the problem of what to adjust to. What do we do with the NOS, who might have reached a contract that is favourable to them? Or are they going to have to accept their Av+?

If they do not accept the score that the Law book requires then they will be thrown out of the event PDQ.

McBruce, on 2011-January-25, 19:49, said:

Not quite. All the TD has to do is to open the Law book to the right page and read from it. In this case, the Law in question is usually needed during the play, a card is led or exposed in dummy, and somebody notices a duplicate card in their own hand. Law 17, however, is the first Law in the section of the Law book titled "The Auction." Not only that, the subheading is "Part I -- Correct Procedure"! It might be better to append 17D to Law 7, or at least put something pointing to Law 17D in Law 7.

Sure: it is a well known stupidity in the Laws that it is in the wrong place. Not the WBFLC's finest hour.

[Gerben42]

Okay, I got this one wrong, mostly because of the reasons pointed out by Bruce. The "well known stupidity" is now even more well known by 1 person.

[barmar]

Gerben42, on 2011-January-25, 12:18, said:

So far so good, but this doesn't really solve the problem of what to adjust to. What do we do with the NOS, who might have reached a contract that is favourable to them? Or are they going to have to accept their Av+?

Unfortunately, sometimes practicality precludes optimal results. Sure, they might have gotten a score better than Av+, but when things are this messed up it's nearly impossible to tell. First you have to figure out what contract they would have gotten to if everyone had the correct cards during the auction. Then you have to guess how the play would have gone and the final result, with no information other than the identity of the players involved. This is somewhat eased by the law stating that the NOS gets the "most favorable result that was likely", but judging what's "likely" is still pretty difficult. We're not supposed to look at what happened at other tables; but if we did, the "result that was likely" would presumably be the common result, which is not generally going to score any more than av+. Maybe THIS pair would have found the line to get them a top, but is there any realistic way for the TD to determine this?

[ggwhiz]

I'm curious and don't know but when do you award Avg+ OR your Avg score from the rest of the boards, whichever is highest? as per the Laws.

I only encountered this once, in a team game where mine returned late from the bar. The opponents were awarded the greater of 12 of 20 VP's OR their average VP's in the other matches. As deserved, we got zip.

[dburn]

bluejak, on 2011-January-25, 09:06, said:

This one is a good example of a point that I find myself often making when I answer questions for a magazine: all the TD has to do is to open the Law book and read from it. This particular case is clear.

Is it? Suppose North opens 2NT and everybody passes. Then, per Law 17, West's final pass is cancelled. Presumably East's opening lead is also cancelled, and so is South's display of the dummy, but these are questions to be dealt with later; for the moment, we appear (absurdly) to be trying to apply Law 17. So, West looks at his actual hand, and passes again.

Now, none of the conditions in Law 17 for awarding artificial adjusted scores obtains. Offender's LHO has not called over the cancelled call (he can't, because the auction is over). East has likewise not called over the cancelled call (he really can't, because not only is the auction over, even if it were not it would not be his turn).

Still (absurdly) trying to apply Law 17, we find that:

Laws of Duplicate Bridge said:

If the offender subsequently repeats his call on the board from which he mistakenly drew his cards the Director may allow that board to be played normally, but the Director shall award artificial adjusted scores when offender’s call differs from his original cancelled call.

It didn't. So, North gets to declare 2NT. And East has a lot of UI about West's hand, or West has a lot of major penalty cards, or both - but there is no question of applying artificial adjusted scores when the conditions for so doing are not present.

[blackshoe]

Quote

Law 12C2{c}: The foregoing [that "avg+" is 60%, etc.] is modified for a non-offending contestant who obtains a session score exceeding 60% of the available matchpoints or for an offending contestant who obtains a session score that is less than 40% of the available matchpoints (or the equivalent in IMPs). Such contestants are awarded the percentage obtained (or the equivalent in imPs) on the other boards of that session.*

That, with the exception of the asterisk, is the WBF version of the laws. The asterisk is in the ACBL version, and refers to this footnote:

Quote

In ACBL sanctioned events, when there is a non-offending and an offending contestant, the non-offending contestant receives the score specified by 12C2{c} above. Their opponents shall receive the difference between that score and 100%, regardless of their score on the other boards of that session. For example, if the non-offending contestant receives 64% on the adjusted deal, the offending contestant receives 36%.

As you can see, the impact on the offenders is potentially considerably more drastic here in North America than it is in the rest of the world, but the answer to your question is "always", since the ACBL footnote only affects the offending side, who won't be getting average plus.

[bluejak]

dburn, on 2011-January-26, 17:43, said:

Is it? Suppose North opens 2NT and everybody passes. Then, per Law 17, West's final pass is cancelled. Presumably East's opening lead is also cancelled, and so is South's display of the dummy, but these are questions to be dealt with later; for the moment, we appear (absurdly) to be trying to apply Law 17. So, West looks at his actual hand, and passes again.

Now, ....

What has this got to do with anything? I said "this particular case is clear". Saying that a completely different case with different facts, a different auction, and so on, is unclear, while interesting has no relevance to what I said whatever. If I think the Boston Red Sox are a good baseball team, telling me that Arsenal are not a good cricket team may be true, but it is hardly relevant.

Sure, Law 17D is not only a poorly placed law it is also a poorly thought out Law. But that does not affect what I said one iota: when a TD comes across a breach of Law, except perhaps the most common, he should open his Law book and read from it. In some cases, hopefully and possibly in most cases, this will solve his problem: in this cases his problem is solved. Certainly there will be cases where this does not answer his problem: then he should research further, perhaps by asking colleagues, asking this or another forum, writing to a magazine, asking the senior TDs in his jurisdiction or whatever. But first he should read the Law book.

Ok, how do I do multi-quote?

[bluejak]

blackshoe, on 2011-January-26, 17:58, said:

As you can see, the impact on the offenders is potentially considerably more drastic here in North America than it is in the rest of the world, but the answer to your question is "always", since the ACBL footnote only affects the offending side, who won't be getting average plus.

And potentially less drastic, of course. If you get Ave- in Europe during a 36% session, you get 36%: in the ACBL you will get 40% if your opponents are having a less than 60% session.

[dburn]

bluejak, on 2011-January-26, 20:05, said:

What has this got to do with anything? I said "this particular case is clear". Saying that a completely different case with different facts, a different auction, and so on, is unclear, while interesting has no relevance to what I said whatever. If I think the Boston Red Sox are a good baseball team, telling me that Arsenal are not a good cricket team may be true, but it is hardly relevant.

The original post said only "North is declarer in 2NT". It said nothing about the auction, which for all I (and you) know may very well have been 2NT - all pass. Do you (and Sven) contend that Law 17 "clearly" applies to this auction and permits the award of an artificial adjusted score?

[pran]

dburn, on 2011-January-27, 01:53, said:

The original post said only "North is declarer in 2NT". It said nothing about the auction, which for all I (and you) know may very well have been 2NT - all pass. Do you (and Sven) contend that Law 17 "clearly" applies to this auction and permits the award of an artificial adjusted score?

Of course Law 17D applies to any auction where a player has called while holding cards from a wrong board.

I fail to see any problem with Law 17 (other than that Law 17D might have been better positioned within another law, maybe in Law 15 or in a separate law. However, I know that the structure of the laws was discussed with the 2007 revision and the decision became to keep law-numbers unchanged as far as possible from the 1997 laws. Wise or wrong, this certainly made the transition to the 2007 laws simpler for most users.)

[dburn]

pran, on 2011-January-27, 03:12, said:

Of course Law 17D applies to any auction where a player has called while holding cards from a wrong board.

And which part of Law 17 permits the award of an artificial adjusted score? Has the offender made a different call from his cancelled call? No. Has the offender's partner made a call after the offender's cancelled call? No. Is there any other provision in Law 17 for the award of an artificial adjusted score? No. All that has happened is that East has led and South has put down the dummy. So what?

In truth, there really isn't a problem. If the auction has been 2NT - all pass, and it would have been 2NT - all pass even if West had been looking at his real hand, then North ought to be allowed to play in 2NT and the the Laws permit him to do so. (What I wrote earlier about UI to East was probably nonsense, if as the OP said West has revealed nothing about his real hand.)

If instead the auction had been 1NT-pass-2C-pass-2D-pass-2NT-all pass, then Law 17 requires that there should be an artificial adjusted score even when the auction would have been identical had West been looking at his real hand (because West's first pass is cancelled and East has made a call subsequent to it). This is ridiculous, of course, but being ridiculous does not preclude something from being in the Laws of Duplicate Bridge.

[pran]

dburn, on 2011-January-27, 04:29, said:

And which part of Law 17 permits the award of an artificial adjusted score? Has the offender made a different call from his cancelled call? No. Has the offender's partner made a call after the offender's cancelled call? No. Is there any other provision in Law 17 for the award of an artificial adjusted score? No. All that has happened is that East has led and South has put down the dummy. So what?

In truth, there really isn't a problem. If the auction has been 2NT - all pass, and it would have been 2NT - all pass even if West had been looking at his real hand, then North ought to be allowed to play in 2NT and the the Laws permit him to do so. (What I wrote earlier about UI to East was probably nonsense, if as the OP said West has revealed nothing about his real hand.)

If instead the auction had been 1NT-pass-2C-pass-2D-pass-2NT-all pass, then Law 17 requires that there should be an artificial adjusted score even when the auction would have been identical had West been looking at his real hand (because West's first pass is cancelled and East has made a call subsequent to it). This is ridiculous, of course, but being ridiculous does not preclude something from being in the Laws of Duplicate Bridge.

"Give me strength"!

Law 17 of course applies regardless of what then happens.

But when the conditions that requires the TD to cancel the board and award artificial adjusted scores are not present then (again "of course") the board shall be played "normally".

In the original case (unless I remember wrong) the offender's partner must have called after the (first) call made by the offender and then the director has no choice but to cancel the board and award artificial adjusted scores.

[dburn]

pran, on 2011-January-27, 05:20, said:

"Give me strength"!

What for? So that you can use it to say:

pran, on 2011-January-27, 05:20, said:

Law 17 of course applies regardless of what then happens.

But when the conditions that requires the TD to cancel the board and award artificial adjusted scores are not present then (again "of course") the board shall be played "normally".

instead of what you previously said, which was:

pran, on 2011-January-23, 15:09, said:

the Director shall cancel the board and award artificial adjusted scores (Av+/Av-).

Or perhaps you would like the strength to read, so that you will understand that the original post made no mention whatsoever of the auction, and this conclusion:

pran, on 2011-January-27, 05:20, said:

the offender's partner must have called after the (first) call made by the offender and then the director has no choice but to cancel the board and award artificial adjusted scores.

is not supported by any factual evidence whatsoever. Nor, of course, is it refuted by any factual evidence whatsoever, but the correct answer to the original question was not "artificial adjusted scores are awarded" nor "play continues normally", but "it depends on what the auction was". Since we don't know what the auction was, we don't know what Gerben should have done.

Keen observers will have noticed that I have in the foregoing assumed that it is rational to apply Law 17 to this position at all, despite previously having referred to this as "absurd". It is absurd, and it is my opinion (and that of the Chief Tournament Director of the WBF) that Law 17 does not apply in this position. But if it did, it would be important to apply it correctly.

[iviehoff]

dburn, on 2011-January-27, 06:17, said:

Keen observers will have noticed that I have in the foregoing assumed that it is rational to apply Law 17 to this position at all, despite previously having referred to this as "absurd". It is absurd, and it is my opinion (and that of the Chief Tournament Director of the WBF) that Law 17 does not apply in this position. But if it did, it would be important to apply it correctly.

Since by far the most common moment for a player to discover he is playing from the wrong hand is after dummy goes down, it is rather bizarre that we have a law that appears to tell us what to do with this problem only when the problem is discovered during the auction period.

But to say that Law 17 is completely inapplicable when a wrong hand is discovered after dummy is tabled I think overstates the case. If Law 17D wasn't there at all, we might have just put the cards into the players hand and tell him to play with those and live with the calls he has made in the now unreopenable auction. Law 17D1 tells us that the auction is defective, and the fact of the ending of the auction period means that it can't be rectified. The ruling is av+/av-, but as a result of law 12C2 not 17D2. Maybe there are auctions and hands where you could reasonably just put the right cards into the player's hand and say "play with those", and you identify precisely such a rare case. But the law has to apply generally and to distinguish such cases is far too complicated.