[woengel]

The first table to play a board fouled it, giving East 14 cards and West 12. I was a playing director, and they called at about trick 12, when they discovered the problem. N/S had not bid to their making game, but I gave N/S Ave+ and E/W Ave-, the easiest ruling possible, since East and West were both at fault for not counting their cards. In later discussion, we believe the transferred card was a heart (E/W were bidding spades, N/S bidding hearts), but the first round of the auction was identical at all three tables. The first mistake I made was I redealt the board via machine with that deck of cards, so I'm not even sure of what card got transferred. Second, should I penalize the E/W pair at the first table? Lastly, should I give the non-offending side Ave+ despite not bidding optimally?

Will Engel
Rockford, IL

[blackshoe]

Did you not have hand records?

Was the problem discovered at trick 12 at the first table where this board was played?

Quote

Law 7B2: Each player counts his cards face down to be sure he has exactly thirteen; after that, and before making a call, he must inspect the faces of his cards.

Introduction to the Laws: Established usage has been retained regarding … “does” (establishes procedure without suggesting that violation be penalized)…

Law 7B2 does not suggest that failing to count one's cards should result in a PP.

Law 13B: When the Director determines that a player’s hand originally contained more than 13 cards with another player holding fewer, and a player with an incorrect hand has made a call:
1. If the Director judges that the deal can be corrected and played, then the deal may be so played with no change of call. At the end of play the Director may award an adjusted score.
2. Otherwise when a call has been made with an incorrect number of cards, the Director shall award an adjusted score [see Law 12C1(b)] and may penalize an offender.

How was the card transferred? Are you sure EW did it? Perhaps the problem occurred when the board was dealt.

Did you let them finish playing the hand? If a result was obtained, then Law 12C1 (assigned adjusted score), not 12C2 (artificial adjusted score) applies. So you should have determined what the result would have been had all four hand had the correct cards. BTW, what happened at other tables has nothing to do with it — you need to determine what was likely to happen at this table.

I would have directed them to finish the board as it stood, put all four hands back in their respective slots as played (don't disturb the order in which the cards were played). Then I would have taken the board, checked it against the hand record, examined the bidding and play, determined whether there was damage to the NOS (if not, no score adjustment — and also no penalty). After that, I would use the hand record to determine which of the 14 cards belonged in the other hand and corrected that before putting the board back in play. If there was damage, then a score adjustment is indicated, but without more information I can't say what that should be. IAC, if you do adjust the score, you might issue a PP, but it would be rare, I think, to give more than a warning, particularly in a club game, for a first offense.

[Vampyr]

You would penalise whom? The players who fouled the board?

[pran]

 Vampyr, on 2018-August-20, 20:30, said:

You would penalise whom? The players who fouled the board?

Law 7B2 said:

Each player counts his cards face down to be sure he has exactly thirteen; after that, and before making a call, he must inspect the faces of his cards.

Law 90A said:

The Director, in addition to implementing the rectifications in these Laws, may also assess procedural penalties for any offence that unduly delays or obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants, violates correct procedure, or requires the award of an adjusted score.

So the Director should impose procedural penalties to any player who has actually fouled a board and to any player who has failed to count his cards, when such irregularities result in awarding adjusted score(s).

[gordontd]

 pran, on 2018-August-20, 22:16, said:

So the Director should impose procedural penalties to any player who has actually fouled a board and to any player who has failed to count his cards, when such irregularities result in awarding adjusted score(s).

"May" & "should" are not the same thing.

[pran]

 gordontd, on 2018-August-21, 00:30, said:

"May" & "should" are not the same thing.

Certainly not, but in my honest opinion he should in this situation serve procedural penalties.
If the Director so judges he may serve a procedure penalty in the form of a warning, which in fact is the most lenient version of a procedural penalty.

[blackshoe]

I would have sworn that I said something about this very subject upthread somewhere. I must be mistaken, though.