14 cards in one hand
At the end of play ie on the 13th trick, it was first noticed that one side had 14 cards in one hand and 12 in the other. If they had had the correct cards then there would have been a revoke but the player with 12 cards followed suit until they trumped in, with no more of that suit in their hand. How should I adjust the score? NS went down 1 due to the revoke when it was a makeable contract.
EW should be penalised for not counting their cards as should the previous EW for mis-carding but what should NS get, the makeable contract or 2 trick penalty for EW for the revoke?
Comments
Law 13 B. Discovered during the Auction or Play
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.
Who had 12 cards and who had 14?
Has happened to me a couple of times recently. The first (at a congress) resulted in AV+, AV- (partners had 14 and 12), the second (supervised novice) resulted in AV, AV (but I explained what would have happened - good education opportunity, even though it was a breach of law 12).
If the 14/12 had been split between the pairs then I think AV-, AV- is appropriate: both sides are completely at fault for failing to check that their hands had 13 cards, even though there is blame on both sides for needing to award an artificial score.
Gordon NS had 14/12 and EW both had 13, EW were in the contract going one off which was technically makeable
I think Av-/Av+ sounds right.
I agree that Av-/Av+ sounds right but it could be rather unfair to the non-offenders if they'd bid to a good contract that few others found. Through no fault of their own, they might be finding themselves with an Av+ when a top was otherwise theirs for the taking.
As an extension to this, an unscrupulous NS, in this case, might notice that they have the wrong number of cards before play begins but also realise that the opponents have bid to a great contract. They might then choose to keep silent to secure themselves a 40% score on the hand.
Would it be reasonable to give the pairs the better/worse of Av+/Av- or contract making? I can also see the argument in favour of deeming the situation similar to having a missing card and an ensuing revoke.
It depends on how clear it is what the outcome would have been without the misboard. I think the situation in your middle paragraph is a little unlikely!
Law 13B does not require an artificial adjusted score: indeed paragraph 2 cross-refers to the part of Law 12C which talks about recovering the probable outcome of the board had the infraction not occurred (which suggests an assigned, rather than an artificial, adjustment). However, the implication of an adjustment under Law 13B2 is that the TD is treating the board as unplayable (which suggests an artificial adjustment). That seems slightly contradictory (when ruling under 13B2, at any rate).
Be that as it may, I would have thought that if the offending side took no part in the auction (and would likely have taken no part with the correct cards), then I would adjust under Law 13B1, leaving the contract unchanged, but adjusting the number of tricks to what would likely have happened had the defenders not had 14/12, with the benefit of the doubt to the NOS. One could weight the number of tricks if necessary.
If the offending side took part in the auction, then it is more likely that the 14/12 situation affected the contract reached, so the possibility of an artificial score would be more likely to come into play.
The decision between an assigned and an artificial adjustment is a matter of judgment for the TD, but if he plumps for an artificial score, then Av-/Av+ is surely correct.
I think you should also bear in mind that if the declarer is competent he will be trying to count the defenders' hands. I know that playing someone to have (on close analysis) 14 cards is not a 'serious error' and I think that playing someone to hold 13 cards when in fact they hold 14 likewise should not be held against them.
(If declarer works out correctly that the cards are split 14-12, should he call the director to protect himself TIC).
So just because the side with the wrong number of cards do not bid, does not necessarily mean you should aim to let the contract played by the NOS be scored.
Yes, it may have been simplistic to focus on whether there was an uncontested auction or not, but I still think that it is a valid point that the TD should consider an assigned adjusted score, if (for example) he judges that it is plausible that the same good contract might have been reached without the infraction, rather than automatically cancelling the board.