[jillybean]

You are called to the table at the end of the hand , N,E,W are sitting there with their 13th card face up on the table, dummy has all tricks quitted.
You are told that "somewhere back in the play", one of South's (declarer) cards ended up on the floor, it landed face down.
North (dummy) picked it up, placed it face down on the table and pushed it over to declarer. Declarer put the card with their quitted tricks.

Declarer wins tricks 12 and now has no 13th card to lead.

How do you rule? A-A+ (other than reminding all players that when there is an irregularity, they must call the Director)

[sanst]

It ain't that easy. Law 14B2 and B4 apply. The TD should figure out when the card was dropped. That can be done by reconstructing the play trick by trick. You probably will find a card that is added to a trick. That one is the card that the declarer plays in trick 13. A revoke by the declarer, because the missing card should have been played earlier, must be treated in the normal way. Next to that you give the players a verbal trashing for not calling you when they should have done.
A+/A- is an 'ultimum remedium' and should only be given if it's impossible to award a normal or adjusted score. But I know it's quite often the easy way out for not so experienced or lazy TD's.

[axman]

sanst, on 2024-August-08, 01:56, said:

It ain't that easy. Law 14B2 and B4 apply. The TD should figure out when the card was dropped. That can be done by reconstructing the play trick by trick. You probably will find a card that is added to a trick. That one is the card that the declarer plays in trick 13. A revoke by the declarer, because the missing card should have been played earlier, must be treated in the normal way. Next to that you give the players a verbal trashing for not calling you when they should have done.
A+/A- is an 'ultimum remedium' and should only be given if it's impossible to award a normal or adjusted score. But I know it's quite often the easy way out for not so experienced or lazy TD's.

Careful. The card on the floor (could be one of a string of irregularities) need not necessarily be a non played card (or even S card) and care ought to be taken in determining such fact. For instance. It is conceivable that S 'remembered' revoking- dropped (likely not intentional) that card on the floor and corrected the trick unnoticed.

It is a distraction that the facts presented suggest confusion that N has 13 quitted cards and a faced card. Which ought to be resolved prior to disposing of the ruling.

[pescetom]

 jillybean, on 2024-August-07, 19:05, said:

You are called to the table at the end of the hand , N,E,W are sitting there with their 13th card face up on the table, dummy has all tricks quitted.
You are told that "somewhere back in the play", one of South's (declarer) cards ended up on the floor, it landed face down.
North (dummy) picked it up, placed it face down on the table and pushed it over to declarer. Declarer put the card with their quitted tricks.

Declarer wins tricks 12 and now has no 13th card to lead.

Something is wrong in your account. Perhaps it is Declarer (not Dummy) who has all tricks quitted?

I agree with axman that great care should be taken in reconstruction of events, particularly if Declarer may have revoked before dropping an unplayed card that would have made this evident (a serious matter indeed, but not unthinkable).

If EW cannot be assigned a bridge result then they are not getting A+ either, at most A= and a stern warning for not calling TD immediately.

[blackshoe]

"Declarer wins trick twelve".

How many quitted tricks did each player have in front of him when you arrived at the table?
Was it trick twelve or trick thirteen that was in progress when you arrived?
Which trick was in progress "somewhere back in the play"? (You may not be able to determine this, but you have to try).
How did declarer's card end up on the floor? Okay, he dropped it, but how? Again, you may not be able to figure this out, but you have to try.

[mycroft]

(doubling pescetom's comment that something seems off in the description. I assume that declarer is the one out of cards, but maybe not. If it's dummy - especially if declarer has "14" now, it's the same ruling, but maybe different result.)

Yeah, this is one that you take your time over, which will be hard as everybody will be trying to "help" and speed things up to where "they know" the problem was. And, as everyone is saying, one where you read the FLB *before* you rule, preferably before you start the investigation (but see above about "help").

14B1 leads to 67B2, in all likelihood. But that card they found might not even be the 52nd card in this deck! (almost certainly is, if it has the right back, but it wouldn't be the first time.) If it isn't, you have to find the real one (under the bidding box, stuck to another card, still in the board(!), top card of the next board, whatever. But it almost certainly is the 52nd,...

(14B1 and not 14B2 because while it may have been found on the floor, at the point where the director is called, it will be found among the played tricks.)

So, we first find out what the contract is, and how many tricks each side has taken. Frequently you'll get a good idea where the extra card ended up by the pattern of wins and losses, as declarer's will be different from defenders and/or dummy. But keep that in your mind for later, don't jump ahead!

Once everyone agrees on what happened at the table, *then* go through each trick, one by one, following the play. Eventually you'll reach one trick that either doesn't make sense or isn't what the players remember. If it's in that area you thought about earlier, great!

Once you're satisfied you've found the "card on the floor", pull it out and reconstruct the rest of the play, the same way you would a (potential) revoke. And apply that adjustment if appropriate - RTFLB, as 67 isn't "normal play".

This definitely is a good one for "The Laws require". Because you're almost certainly going to get "but I never would have". And that's true. If your adjustment is "so we award" or "so I have to transfer" or anything putting the director as a person into the conversation, the "but I never would have" will become personal. If "in this case, the Laws state that this card is treated as in your hand the entire time, and should have been played to this trick. Because it wasn't, it's an established revoke and ...", then they can scream at the stupid Laws all they want, and feel hard done by, but *you* aren't the cause. Note: "The Laws require" is a good policy in general. Get in the habit. Work at it, and work hard to remove any of the phrases we all use that centre you (the TD) as an entity into the ruling. It might be a rhetorical trick, but it's true - you as the TD have a job, and that job is to apply the Laws correctly, your own personal feelings or opinions should not be a factor. Especially if you are a playing TD.

[jillybean]

Yes, correction. Declarer had all tricks quitted.

Dummy and opponents had 12 tricks quitted.

Asking how Declarer dropped his card matters because, if it slipped out of his hand when he went to pull another card, as opposed to it slipped out of his fingers when he pulled it out to play? I assume the latter because the dropped card, when returned to declarer, was put with the quitted tricks. (I know I can't assume anything here)

If the hand can't be reconstructed, I am considering assigning NS A- as declarer is directly at fault, and A+ to EW as they are in no way at fault for the error,
other than not calling the Director but that seems a bit harsh.

East will tell you that they said they wanted to call the Director but the other players said no. This was particularly alarming because I had a friendly chat with EW before the game and said if there is ANY problem at the table, just raise your hand and call the Director. The players, peer pressure and playing a nice game has a lot more power than the Director.

[mycroft]

If you are called at the time they found the card, it would be much better. You can then count everyone's cards/quitted tricks (whichever is easier) and find out at the time where it belongs. Sure, you're going to have to check after that about revoke still, but it's much less likely to have happened. Much more likely that all that happens is declarer plays suboptimally and there's no actual "ruling" needed.

One of the joys of directing these sorts of games is that it takes time for people to realize that it's simpler and more fun if the director handles things rather than "what we've always done". Well, that is, if the director does make it "simpler and more fun". That's a lot harder than it sounds. I'm still learning...

[pescetom]

 jillybean, on 2024-August-09, 09:53, said:

If the hand can't be reconstructed, I am considering assigning NS A- as declarer is directly at fault, and A+ to EW as they are in no way at fault for the error,
other than not calling the Director but that seems a bit harsh.

I think you are way off beam to consider them not partially at fault, unless they are beginners and you think they were bullied. They failed to call the Director when it was clear they should have done, they went along with the "peer pressure" gambit, they presumably screwed up their quitted cards otherwise you would have been able to reconstruct.

[pescetom]

 mycroft, on 2024-August-09, 09:44, said:

And, as everyone is saying, one where you read the FLB *before* you rule, preferably before you start the investigation (but see above about "help").

There is also the interesting question of whether you should read the F hand diagram before you start the investigation and also while you are doing it... I was taught no, but think that is ludicrous (although you should of course be capable of sorting things out without it, if not available).

[jillybean]

 pescetom, on 2024-August-09, 14:41, said:

I think you are way off beam to consider them not partially at fault, unless they are beginners and you think they were bullied. They failed to call the Director when it was clear they should have done, they went along with the "peer pressure" gambit, they presumably screwed up their quitted cards otherwise you would have been able to reconstruct.

EW are new players learning that more experienced players can fix problems and therefore avoid calling the Director. After all, we are playing a nice game.
My co-director and I are working hard, but gently ,to combat this attitude.

[sanst]

If you start punishing players for not calling a director, almost all, if not all clubs over here would loose most of the members. Besides, it would be almost impossible to find anyone willing to be a TD.
Not awarding A+ to EW in this case is a form of punishment or would at least be felt to be one. Besides, EW are completely innocent about the infraction, they didn't drop the card or put it with the played cards. If you would do something about not calling the director in this case, you should give them and NS a PP, although I think it'sabout the worst that you can do. A warning is far more appropriate in this case, just give them a piece of your mind.

[pescetom]

 jillybean, on 2024-August-09, 16:08, said:

EW are new players learning that more experienced players can fix problems and therefore avoid calling the Director. After all, we are playing a nice game.
My co-director and I are working hard, but gently ,to combat this attitude.

In that case the really important thing is that they see the opponents fuming after receiving a penalty, rather than smirking assuredly because they got away with doing their own thing yet again (and the Director knows her place).

[pescetom]

 sanst, on 2024-August-10, 02:04, said:

If you start punishing players for not calling a director, almost all, if not all clubs over here would loose most of the members. Besides, it would be almost impossible to find anyone willing to be a TD.
Not awarding A+ to EW in this case is a form of punishment or would at least be felt to be one. Besides, EW are completely innocent about the infraction, they didn't drop the card or put it with the played cards. If you would do something about not calling the director in this case, you should give them and NS a PP, although I think it'sabout the worst that you can do. A warning is far more appropriate in this case, just give them a piece of your mind.

I already supplied a succinct list of EW infractions, it seems to me absurd to consider them not partially responsible. I also disagree with the idea that a decent club will lose most members if you decide to apply the laws, but you know that already.

[axman]

 sanst, on 2024-August-10, 02:04, said:

If you start , almost all, if not all clubs over here would loose most of the members. Besides, it would be almost impossible to find anyone willing to be a TD.
Not awarding A+ to EW in this case is a form of punishment or would at least be felt to be one. Besides, EW are completely innocent about the infraction, they didn't drop the card or put it with the played cards. If you would do something about not calling the director in this case, you should give them and NS a PP, although I think it'sabout the worst that you can do. A warning is far more appropriate in this case, just give them a piece of your mind.

Food for thought. Poetic justice:

1. 'punishing players for not calling a director' The motivation for calling the TD is to resolve controversy in accordance with law and avoid stepping in it. The punishment for not includes those times when one is unhappy with the resolution....as well as when one avoidably steps in it.

2. 'Not awarding A+ to EW in this case is a form of punishment' Facts not in evidence. Without the finding of fact it is improper to arrive at a conclusion. For instance, if after the finding of fact is EW entitled to av+? or something else like a revoke penalty? As near as I can tell we are unable to know.

[sanst]

 pescetom, on 2024-August-10, 02:22, said:

I also disagree with the idea that a decent club will lose most members if you decide to apply the laws, but you know that already.

I'm afraid that most clubs in the Netherlands are indecent according to you. Here most players consider calling a director an accusation of cheating or at least an attempt to spoil the day for them. Usually they solve their problems between themselves if possible, or first make a mess and expect a director to clean that up for them. Their reasoning: "We play for fun". When you ask what is unfunny about following the laws, they just stare at you or say something like: "Oh, you know what I mean. Don't start nagging."
In general it's the above average players that call a director. Penalties are almost unheard off.

[mycroft]

It's a -ing club game, people. And it's a club that has had decades of "this is good enough" (and it seems like it is - where do you get 20 tables in a club these days?) that jillybean is trying to move closer to "rigorous, relatively serious, modern". That has to be done slowly - it is *very easy* to take a 20 table loose game and turn it into a solid, serious, totally Law-abiding, 6 table game.

Obviously, we tell people what we want them to do. We explain that (no matter what happened before) the Laws say this, so this is what we're doing. We explain that it's just better to have the (playing?) director come to the table to fix small problems, because sometimes they become big problems and waste more of her time. We explain that the opponents might be well-meaning, but they're still not on your side, or even impartial; you are responsible for protecting yourself. And all the rest.

But a newer pair playing against one of the pillars of the game, who ask if the director should be called and are told no, should not be considered at fault in this game. At least not the first time. They went a long way to "what we want", and got overwhelmed by The Gods - possibly more than we could really expect. Next time they'll insist, and we will be One Step Closer.

Now, it *should have* been worked out at the table. If it wasn't, because the director still wasn't called, that's a problem. If it wasn't, because the director didn't do everything she should have, or was unaware of what to do, or was careless, or... then it's Director Error, and we rule that. And 82C says "both sides treated as non-offending". Sure, over the issue, not over "call me earlier and this wouldn't happen", but still, reason to consider them "not at fault".

Would I rule the same way at the Regional next week? Of course not (though maybe in the 199er game). Would I rule the same in my open game in Chapala? Well, if it were [real A pair] playing [pair venturing out of the Friday NLM game for the first time], yeah, quite likely. If it were [other director] and parther playing regular C pair? I'd probably throw the book at [other director], especially if there was any look of attempting to get away with a revoke ruling. But would I consider the other pair, who definitely know what I want done in my games, partially at fault? Again, yeah, probably.

If it were someone who I know thinks the director is just another way to get a good score off the opponents, then that will be different, too.

Even a SB needs to know what's best for the game, and (within the Laws, but even if it's "closer to the Laws than what we had before" it's a win) rule accordingly.

[jillybean]

Let me be clear, this is not an ACBL sanctioned club. It is a weekly game run at a Senior/Recreation Centre.

During summer the table count is 16-18 tables, regular season 20 tables and we are looking at adding 4 more tables.
The games cost about $2-$3, no master points, no free coffee.

The players are from a very wide demographic. Seniors who have played duplicate (past ACBL players) or social bridge for decades, seniors who have progressed from the learn to play lesson at the same facility. 40-55 year olds who are taking up bridge “seriously”, a few club players who drop in from time to time and even one younger, aspiring tournament player who attends most tournaments, nationals. The players want multiple games a week and some have ventured on to local club games and sectionals.

My co-director and I try to run the game in accordance with the Laws of Duplicate Bridge and encourage the players to call the Diretor. We now have a dealing machine, we are going to have some fun trying 20+ table web movements. It will probably be more fun and important to us than for the players. Our only concern is the popularity and growth, we may have to turn players away.

[blackshoe]

It seems that players are the reason bridge is not a very good game.

[blackshoe]

If the best player in my club (if I had a club) were to tell a newbie not to call the director, and I found out about it, I would give her a disciplinary penalty of at least 50% of a top. If that causes her to quit playing, fine with me. If that causes the club to close down for lack of players, well, I would be saddened, but so be it.