[ArtK78]

12 board match. IMPs converted to VPs.

---

This was a very interesting hand, in that something happened on this hand that I have never seen before.

This was Board 6 in a 12 board match in our local round robin team event played earlier tonight. My partner and I were definitely having the better of this match, and I estimated that we were up by about 30 IMPs over the first 5 boards. This board started a reversal of fortune in the most bizarre way.

I was North. I led the ♥J against 4♠x. My partner won the Ace and returned the ♦7 to the 6, J and A. Declarer led the ♠K off dummy won by my partner's A. Partner led the ♦5, declarer following with the 9 and my Q winning. Not seeing anything unusual, I cashed the ♦K, partner pitching a club AND DECLARER RUFFING! It was at this point that dummy noticed the ♦8 stuck under the ♦10. Declarer played a spade to dummy's Q, both of us following, and then the ♦10 off dummy. My partner ruffed with his last trump. Declarer overruffed and then ran his KQ10 and 9 of hearts, pitching all 4 clubs off dummy (his diamond on dummy was also good, so he could have pitched his only club). MAKING 10 TRICKS!

Sure, I could have noticed that dummy only had 12 cards. But I didn't. Neither did declarer, my partner, or the dummy. NO ONE NOTICED.

Is there any exception to the rule that all of the players are responsible for the dummy? This result feels wrong to me. Obviously if I had seen the 5th diamond in dummy I would have cashed my ♣A for down one. So instead of a 3 IMP win against 4♠ undoubled down one at the other table, we lost 13 IMPs. This cost a number of VPs, as we only won the match by 10 IMPs.

(Yes, it is bizarre that East didn't double 4♣, but that is not the point of this post)

EDIT: Auction and play fixed. Sorry for the inaccuracies.

[Vampyr]

What kind of exception are you looking for? "Except when it costs a trick"?

[neilkaz]

Where was the missing card? I guess it wasn't in someones' hand or they'd have had 14. So was it on the floor somewhere? Isn't a player at IMPs also responsible to count that he has 13 cards? I know that at MP, I've seen penalties assessed when a player fails to count to 13 and opens up a hand already played that has 12 or 14 cards. At IMPs when the hand wasn't played yet, and was misdealt, we simply re-dealt as instructed by the director.

Ahh...now I see that dummy noticed the 8 hidden. What's the rule here? I've been there also, but it didn't matter as it didn't change the outcome as here.

[Vampyr]

neilkaz, on 2014-June-26, 22:19, said:

I know that at MP, I've seen penalties assessed when a player fails to count to 13 and opens up a hand already played that has 12 or 14 cards. At IMPs when the hand wasn't played yet, and was misdealt, we simply re-dealt as instructed by the director.

I don't see the connection between the form of scoring and whether a penalty is assessed/board redealt.

[Cyberyeti]

Dummy has broken the rules for how you display the dummy, thus you are entitled to redress IIRC

[gordontd]

ArtK78, on 2014-June-26, 21:22, said:

(Yes, it is bizarre that East didn't double 4♣, but that is not the point of this post)

I can make no sense of this comment, probably because I can make no sense of the auction.

[gordontd]

ArtK78, on 2014-June-26, 21:22, said:

Is there any exception to the rule that all of the players are responsible for the dummy?

A quick Google search found this from the ACBL's Duplicate Decisions:

Quote

“When a player, usually the dummy, says, ‘Everyone is responsible for the dummy,’ he is quoting a 1948 Law. This has no basis in current law. The player who is the dummy is responsible for the proper display of his hand.

[helene_t]

gordontd, on 2014-June-27, 01:27, said:

I can make no sense of this comment, probably because I can make no sense of the auction.

I think the auction is rotated 90 degrees, it was East who opened 1♦

[gordontd]

helene_t, on 2014-June-27, 01:56, said:

I think the auction is rotated 90 degrees, it was East who opened 1♦

Ah, right. A 1♦ opener from North was plausible, though it wouldn't have been my choice.

[helene_t]

gordontd, on 2014-June-27, 01:59, said:

Ah, right. A 1♦ opener from North was plausible, though it wouldn't have been my choice.

With only 12 cards, a 1♦ opening is mandatory in the Xango system.

[rhm]

ArtK78, on 2014-June-26, 21:22, said:

12 board match. IMPs converted to VPs.

---

This was a very interesting hand, in that something happened on this hand that I have never seen before.

This was Board 6 in a 12 board match in our local round robin team event played earlier tonight. My partner and I were definitely having the better of this match, and I estimated that we were up by about 30 IMPs over the first 5 boards. This board started a reversal of fortune in the most bizarre way.

I was North. I led the ♥J against 4♠x. My partner won the Ace and returned the ♦7 to the 6, J and A. Declarer led the ♠K off dummy won by my partner's A. Partner led the ♦5, declarer following with the 9 and my J winning. Not seeing anything unusual, I cashed the ♦K, partner pitching a club AND DECLARER RUFFING! It was at this point that dummy noticed the ♦8 stuck under the ♦10. Declarer played a spade to dummy's Q, both of us following, and then the ♦10 off dummy. My partner ruffed with his last trump. Declarer overruffed and then ran his KQ10 and 9 of hearts, pitching all 4 clubs off dummy (his diamond on dummy was also good, so he could have pitched his only club). MAKING 10 TRICKS!

Sure, I could have noticed that dummy only had 12 cards. But I didn't. Neither did declarer, my partner, or the dummy. NO ONE NOTICED.

Is there any exception to the rule that all of the players are responsible for the dummy? This result feels wrong to me. Obviously if I had seen the 5th diamond in dummy I would have cashed my ♣A for down one. So instead of a 3 IMP win against 4♠ undoubled down one at the other table, we lost 13 IMPs. This cost a number of VPs, as we only won the match by 10 IMPs.

(Yes, it is bizarre that East didn't double 4♣, but that is not the point of this post)

It is hard to follow your example when the auction is misplaced and the ♦J is played on 2 tricks.

I have difficulty to have much sympathy here.
You play with a dummy of 12 cards and do not notice it in time.
As a result you do not defend optimally.
Why should the result be corrected?

I sometimes mistake the ace of diamonds for the ace of hearts in my hand due to eye problems.
Do I have redress when this occurs?
Of course not

I have a lot of hard luck stories.
For example when playing team on the Bundesliga boards were duplicated and I for once did not count my cards before taking them up.
I then realized I was looking at 14 cards and my LHO at 12. He had not counted his cards either before looking at them.
Board was unplayable at our table and our opponents won 11 IMPs on the board.

This is only a game with rules not the salvation army.

Rainer Herrmann

[ArtK78]

gordontd, on 2014-June-27, 01:34, said:

A quick Google search found this from the ACBL's Duplicate Decisions:

Gordon:

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. I found this on the ACBL website:

Rev. 9/14/13

A Missing Card in Dummy

Sometimes Dummy puts down only 12 visible cards. One card might be stuck behind another, or a card may have fallen to the floor. It is also possible that Dummy does not properly display the cards, placing the eight of diamonds amongst the hearts, for instance.

If for any of the above reasons or similar ones dummy fails to follow suit to a trick the director should not apply the Revoke Laws. The defenders, however, may well be due an adjustment.

From Duplicate Decisions:

"If one of dummy's cards is obscured, as by being stuck behind another, and the discrepancy goes unnoticed for some time, and its absence is found to have damaged the defenders, an adjusted score (Law 12) may be in order for failing to display dummy properly (Law 41 D).

"When a player, usually the dummy, says, 'Everyone is responsible for the dummy,' he is quoting a 1948 Law. This has no basis in current law. The player who is the dummy is responsible for the proper display of his hand.

"A director should look at how the play of the hand went and be ready to protect the nonoffending side, awarding an adjusted score if necessary. There is also no automatic penalty to the declaring side; a director should also consider how declarer may have played the hand differently had he been able to see all 13 cards. The goal is to restore equity. In gray areas of how the play MIGHT have gone the director should side with the non-offenders."


The bottom line appears to be that we should have been entitled to an adjustment to +200. It turned out not to matter. This was the last match in the round-robin phase of our annual unit team tournament, and we qualified easily for the KO semifinals. It might have affected the seeding, but that is of little concern.

[gnasher]

Dummy has infracted Law 41D ("... dummy spreads his hand in front of him ..."), and has gained as a result, so the declaring side should have its good board taken away from it.

If I were directing I'd want to stick the defenders with the result of their own carelessness, but I don't think I can. The test is (from Law 12C1B) whether the defending side "contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction)". Not noticing that dummy is a card short is certainly a serious error. Sadly, however, it's releated to the infraction, so I'd adjust to 4♠x-1 for both sides