[pescetom]

MP

---

South in 4♥ after a delicate opening and an interesting auction is relieved when he sees dummy.
He covers the lead of ♦K with A and leads ♣K, covered with A by East and ruffed low in hand.
West who was already concerned about spades is now distraught, and after following suit asks South if he had no clubs.
South confirms and West picks up his played card, noticing that he has inadvertently played a heart at the same time.
He apologizes to the other players who nod while he picks up the heart.
South pulls three rounds of trumps, with East showing out on the third.
Satisfied, he plays a spade towards the A in dummy and the remaining clubs honours.
To his astonishment, West ruffs and runs three tricks in diamonds.
South takes the remaining tricks and on the penultimate West notices he has a card more than the others.
The Director is called and all confirm the facts above.
South says that he would have made the contract had West played only his own cards.
How do you proceed and expect to rule?

[blackshoe]

pescetom, on 2023-April-09, 15:17, said:

To his (South's, ER) astonishment, West ruffs and runs three tricks in diamonds.
South takes the remaining tricks and on the penultimate West notices he has a card more than the others.
The Director is called and all confirm the facts above.
South says that he would have made the contract had West played only his own cards.
How do you proceed and expect to rule?

West originally revoked with a trump at trick 2, corrected immediately, putting the trump back in his hand. On trick 6 West trumped South's spade lead with a trump he should not have had, and runs 3 diamond tricks for down 1.

---

First thing is, where did West's extra card come from? It seems likely there's a deficient board somewhere. TD needs to find it. Is it at this table?

Second, the players failed to call the director at trick 2. Were East and South aware of the revoke? It seems like they must have been. The MPC wouldn't have mattered since South immediately drew trumps, but I'd still give the players a tongue lashing.

Third, the hand was played almost to completion, the Director having been called at trick 12, when West discovered he had an extra card.

Having found where the extra card (apparently a fourteenth heart) belongs, I would restore it there so I don't have any more problems with it. I would want to be sure that the 14th card is the only anomaly in this hand, so I'd check the hand record. Assuming no other problems (everybody else had the correct cards), now Law 13B2 applies: 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. One might look at Law 13D: When it is determined after play ends that a player’s hand originally contained more than 13 cards with another player holding fewer, the result must be cancelled and an adjusted score awarded (Law 86B may apply). An offending contestant is liable to a procedural penalty, but we are still in the play period, the director having been called at trick 12.

I would award an assigned adjusted score, 4♥ making 4, +620 NS. West will argue that he would not pitch a club, but he might, and his opponent, not he himself, gets the benefit of the doubt.

[smerriman]

blackshoe, on 2023-April-09, 18:39, said:

West will argue that he would not pitch a club, but he might, and his opponent, not he himself, gets the benefit of the doubt.

I don't think the pitch is relevant to the hand - the 10th trick comes from the marked finesse / endplay in spades whatever West throws. Same outcome.

[axman]

blackshoe, on 2023-April-09, 18:39, said:

[hv=pc=n&s=sj975hakqt2d7543c&w=sh954dkqjt2c87652&n=sa8hj87da98ckqj43&e=skqt6432h63d6cat9&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=1hp2c(GF)3spp4hppp]399|300|West originally revoked with a trump at trick 2, corrected immediately, putting the trump back in his hand.

When I read it, W followed suit AND at the same time contributed a heart. Perhaps the characterization of playing a heart is accurate, perhaps not. But it sounded like having first followed suit it is incorrect to characterize W to have revoked.

As to what to do I would think that the first order of business is to recreate the play to ascertain what happened before making conclusions.

[pescetom]

axman, on 2023-April-09, 21:58, said:

When I read it, W followed suit AND at the same time contributed a heart. Perhaps the characterization of playing a heart is accurate, perhaps not. But it sounded like having first followed suit it is incorrect to characterize W to have revoked.

West thought he had followed suit and at the same time contributed a heart. In reality the heart he picked up was the card played to the trick by Declarer, who after the question about revoke and subsequent mishap wrongly assumed that he had already quitted his own card.
So the extra card belongs in South's quitted tricks. The board conforms to diagram if you check (and then you will notice that 4♥ makes 10 tricks double dummy, if you consider that AI to TD).

[pescetom]

smerriman, on 2023-April-09, 18:59, said:

I don't think the pitch is relevant to the hand - the 10th trick comes from the marked finesse / endplay in spades whatever West throws. Same outcome.

An interesting related question is how obvious the marked play in spades would be to peers of this player (and how to ascertain this in reasonable time if we deem it necessary).

[smerriman]

Possibly nonobvious, but I feel as though this is one they'll all pull off without actually intending to.

[blackshoe]

axman, on 2023-April-09, 21:58, said:

When I read it, W followed suit AND at the same time contributed a heart. Perhaps the characterization of playing a heart is accurate, perhaps not. But it sounded like having first followed suit it is incorrect to characterize W to have revoked.

As to what to do I would think that the first order of business is to recreate the play to ascertain what happened before making conclusions.

If on reading it I thought as you did I would agree. I thought otherwise. Seems I was mistaken. See below.

pescetom, on 2023-April-10, 01:15, said:

West thought he had followed suit and at the same time contributed a heart. In reality the heart he picked up was the card played to the trick by Declarer, who after the question about revoke and subsequent mishap wrongly assumed that he had already quitted his own card.
So the extra card belongs in South's quitted tricks. The board conforms to diagram if you check (and then you will notice that 4♡ makes 10 tricks double dummy, if you consider that AI to TD).

Everything is AI to the TD. :-)

So Law 13 does not apply here. Let me try again. Question: was declarer in compliance with Law 65, or is he one of those players who simply drops his played cards in a pile? If the latter, IMO he rates a PP, given he might have noticed when West "stole" his card. :-)

West picking up South's played card violates

Quote

Law 7B3: During play each player retains possession of his own cards, not permitting them to be mixed with those of any other player. No player shall touch any cards other than his own (but declarer may play dummy’s cards in accordance with Law 45) during or after play except by permission of an opponent or the Director.

The first part of that is a "player does" law, so does not suggest that South should be penalized. The second part is a "shall" law, which suggests that West should get a PP "more often than not". I'm giving him one. Pescetom might not, given the venue.

Now we have a defective trick, since one of South's tricks doesn't have a card (West has the card in his hand). The Director should apply

Quote

Law 67B3: When the Director determines that the offender did play a card to the trick, but that card was not placed among the quitted tricks, the Director finds the card and places it correctly among the offender’s played cards. The Director shall award an adjusted score if the same card was played to a subsequent trick and it is too late to correct the illegal play.

So West's extra heart (that actually belongs to South) is placed among South's quitted tricks, and the director awards an adjusted score. And now I know I'm out of practice. At least I got the adjusted score part right. :-)

Interesting problem, thanks for posting it.

[pescetom]

I'm glad you do not consider the DD analysis or results from other tables as UI to TD My Director training was that we should avoid such information unless strictly necessary. I think it can't hurt to know.

I was wondering if everyone agrees that 67B3 applies even when the card is played to a subsequent trick by a player who never legally possessed it.

Also about what adjusted score people would assign.

[axman]

pescetom, on 2023-April-10, 07:08, said:

I'm glad you do not consider the DD analysis or results from other tables as UI to TD My Director training was that we should avoid such information unless strictly necessary. I think it can't hurt to know.

I was wondering if everyone agrees that 67B3 applies even when the card is played to a subsequent trick by a player who never legally possessed it.

Also about what adjusted score people would assign.

Given the apparent evidence as apparently updated, 67B does not activate.

[blackshoe]

axman, on 2023-April-10, 08:10, said:

Given the apparent evidence as apparently updated, 67B does not activate.

How would you rule then?

[mycroft]

Wow. You get the easy ones, don't you?

I don't think there's anything in the Laws that talks about playing your opponents' card (and thank you, I now have another hand for my crazy bridge game!)

I think I would just throw up my hands and tell the opponents "everybody did something wrong here, even if it was just not noticing that West took South's card and then played it, I'm just going to assign a score assuming everybody is partly at fault." And no, that doesn't mean Average/Average, unless it's not obvious how it's going to go.

I think the natural play on the auction and lead is run the clubs and endplay East. I'm willing to give South that line unless they really are weak, and depending on how strong South is, give East/West some percentage of -1.

Now, on the topic of "Can the TD use DD or other results information". Everybody who has said something is right (IMHO).

• Anything is AI to the director, and they can use that information should they desire.
  
• Use of "other results" is discouraged, and should never be the only factor. It should only be used knowing its strengths and flaws.
  
• Use of DD to assign results has the same problem as analyzing results against DD. It is to be assumed that TDs know this and will not just look at the Par score.
  
• I also say that you "should not" look at those things unless it's a "final decider" and you already have a good idea where your ruling will land.

This is a pretty safe case for "there's a line that works, it seems obvious to me, how much of it is 'seeing 52 cards' and how much is 'I'm flight A' and how much is 'it really is an obvious line'? Let's see how many others made it." Pretty much everybody in 4♥ is going to get there after a 3♠ overcall, and anybody who doesn't lead the diamond honour-of-agreement is looking at something other than their cards. Even the ruffing club finesse before pulling trump is pretty auto (but note, some of the -1s, and basically all of the -mores, are going to be "didn't think at trick 1, and led the ♥J"). But - and this is the key - even here you don't know that. And you might be assigning a score based on misplays that South or West successfully navigated at this table.

But:

• At table 4, they're playing EHAA or Fox-Lambert 2s and South's hand is a 2♥ opener. They probably get to play it, and East doesn't bid spades. Oh, they don't find the endplay and only make 9 tricks. Valid comparison?
  
• At table 6, Crazyman West overcalls 2NT at the right colours, finds their club fit, and ends up in 4♥. Now maybe North doubled, but maybe West thinks that "let's get him with his AQTx" and leads a club anyway. Valid comparison?

The key is - how do you know?

Change the hand, even slightly, and suddenly the comparisons are as ephemeral as the results from the 299er game.

How many Wests led a diamond, and how many a spade? And does the "no endplay" matter?

---

How many Easts come win with this suit? (maybe at the 2 level?)

---

Or this one?

---

And most hands will have many more decision points than this - even the tweaked hands I created. Plus "Yeah, but we open this 1NT, so." "We're playing Kontrast, our 1♥ opener is 8-14, and we mean 8. For us, this is an acceptance." "They're playing transfer responses to 1♣, the other tables didn't get to double 1♦ to show the suit." "Yeah, but most people wouldn't have seen the squeeze possibility at trick 1 and just pulled trump first"...

Like all information, it is available to the TD if useful. Like much information, its relevance and strength has to be carefully judged by the TD. Unlike say self-serving statements by the offenders, it is not obvious to the new TD (or the journeyman TD that hasn't been tripped up by it enough) how seductive this information is, and how it can lead you badly astray. So "don't look at 'other results' to assign a score" is a good first lesson. Like all lessons in bridge, as you gain experience, "unless it's right" or "in these cases (only!)" or "as a decider of weight between 50-50 and 75-25" may be determined to be the operative phrase on this hand. But usually not.

[weejonnie]

"Interesting hand, both sides make a trick with the two of hearts." (although it is probable that West made the trick with the nine)

I suppose I would have to do a short-cut and rule under 12C1b (restoration of probable result if no infraction had occurred). This is the Solomonic approach.

Both sides of course are at fault (if only for not calling the TD when West 'plays two cards to the same trick') so 12A1 (no rectification stated) does not apply. (And see my fixed comments below)

[pescetom]

Sorry I missed this one.

blackshoe, on 2023-April-10, 04:36, said:

Question: was declarer in compliance with Law 65, or is he one of those players who simply drops his played cards in a pile? If the latter, IMO he rates a PP, given he might have noticed when West "stole" his card. :-)

Yes, all players were in compliance with Law 65B and 65C, although Declarer accidentally violated 65A. The two played cards should not have been so close as to suggest to West that they were both his, but it's hard to say who is at fault there and it's not an infraction as such. I don't think Declarer is good enough to remember the rank of very small trumps, so no suprise that he did not recognise his own card played to the successive trick. West was in good faith and his play of another player's quitted card doesn't seem to be contemplated by the Laws, so no clear infraction there either.
I agree with weejonnie that we can only penalise them for not calling TD when two cards were (apparently) played by West (but silently thank them for not doing so, because we would probably have applied 58B and disposed a minor penalty card for once, thus aiding and abetting a fine mess :-).

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2023-April-10, 09:25, said:

I think I would just throw up my hands and tell the opponents "everybody did something wrong here, even if it was just not noticing that West took South's card and then played it, I'm just going to assign a score assuming everybody is partly at fault." And no, that doesn't mean Average/Average, unless it's not obvious how it's going to go.

I think the natural play on the auction and lead is run the clubs and endplay East. I'm willing to give South that line unless they really are weak, and depending on how strong South is, give East/West some percentage of -1.

Now, on the topic of "Can the TD use DD or other results information". Everybody who has said something is right (IMHO).

• Anything is AI to the director, and they can use that information should they desire.
  
• Use of "other results" is discouraged, and should never be the only factor. It should only be used knowing its strengths and flaws.
  
• Use of DD to assign results has the same problem as analyzing results against DD. It is to be assumed that TDs know this and will not just look at the Par score.
  
• I also say that you "should not" look at those things unless it's a "final decider" and you already have a good idea where your ruling will land.

This is a pretty safe case for "there's a line that works, it seems obvious to me, how much of it is 'seeing 52 cards' and how much is 'I'm flight A' and how much is 'it really is an obvious line'? Let's see how many others made it." Pretty much everybody in 4♥ is going to get there after a 3♠ overcall, and anybody who doesn't lead the diamond honour-of-agreement is looking at something other than their cards. Even the ruffing club finesse before pulling trump is pretty auto (but note, some of the -1s, and basically all of the -mores, are going to be "didn't think at trick 1, and led the ♥J"). But - and this is the key - even here you don't know that. And you might be assigning a score based on misplays that South or West successfully navigated at this table.

But:

• At table 4, they're playing EHAA or Fox-Lambert 2s and South's hand is a 2♥ opener. They probably get to play it, and East doesn't bid spades. Oh, they don't find the endplay and only make 9 tricks. Valid comparison?
  
• At table 6, Crazyman West overcalls 2NT at the right colours, finds their club fit, and ends up in 4♥. Now maybe North doubled, but maybe West thinks that "let's get him with his AQTx" and leads a club anyway. Valid comparison?

The key is - how do you know?

...
...

Like all information, it is available to the TD if useful. Like much information, its relevance and strength has to be carefully judged by the TD. Unlike say self-serving statements by the offenders, it is not obvious to the new TD (or the journeyman TD that hasn't been tripped up by it enough) how seductive this information is, and how it can lead you badly astray. So "don't look at 'other results' to assign a score" is a good first lesson. Like all lessons in bridge, as you gain experience, "unless it's right" or "in these cases (only!)" or "as a decider of weight between 50-50 and 75-25" may be determined to be the operative phrase on this hand. But usually not.

Your point about using other scores is taken of course. Actually in our club I can imagine an initial pass by South (stop looking at me like that) rather than 2♥, although that would probably lead to South in 4♥ all the same (strong 1NT opening and then natural after spades interference, the Sohl pairs would have opened South). But we do have our share of Crazyman 2NT West at this vulnerability (count me in, on Fridays).

I also accept "And no, that doesn't mean Average/Average, unless it's not obvious how it's going to go.". The possibilities are here are neither numerous nor not obvious, essentially spades or not at trick 8. So it's 4♥ making or with a small percentage of -1 if South is weak enough, and if that's an undeserved MP score for one side so be it.

[axman]

blackshoe, on 2023-April-10, 08:38, said:

How would you rule then?

Rulings ought to be in accordance with law.
Here the facts are muddled.
I posit that the law is defective and leads no where. I conclude that it is a waste of time to figure out what the facts are since the defective law leads nowhere.
Hence, I rule that the law is defective.