[swanway]

EBU

North had 14 cards and, unfortunately, had looked at his hand before counting them. The extra card was the 4C and it belonged to South. The Director ruled that the hand could be played but he was prepared to give an adjusted score if N/S gained an advantage through knowing that South held the 4C. It is not until the end of play that the assessment is made and by this time it could be very difficult for E/W to decide whether N/S had gained an advantage. E/W tried to recall the line of play to see if they had been damaged but it was difficult. Wouldn't it be fairer if the 4C was treated as a major or minor penalty card. At least it gives E/W a chance to monitor the infraction as play progresses. In this case perhaps the 4C is not significant but the 9C could change the way a hand is played. Do you have any suggestions for dealing with this kind of problem?

[barmar]

Law 13 addresses this situation. The consequences differ a bit depending on whether the problem was discovered before (13D) or after (13A) North or South had made a call. But in both cases, the director may allow play to continue if he thinks the extra card is unlikely to affect the hand. 13E says that knowledge of the card is UI to the offenders. If they wanted it to be treated as a penalty card, they would have said so.

[blackshoe]

I don't see a legal basis for treating the ♣4 as a penalty card, major or minor, whatever EW want.

It's not up to EW to determine whether they've been damaged, it's up to the TD. I grant that he will have difficulty with that if EW have no clue how they might have been damaged or how the play went. Life's tough sometimes.

[barmar]

And if we were to treat the extra card as a major penalty card, it could significantly alter the play of the hand -- if South is the opening leader he'll be forced to lead it, and if North is on lead declarer could forbid or require a club lead. This results in a Catch-22: Because the TD decided that the card would make little difference in the play, it makes a BIG difference in the play. This is clearly counter to the intent of Law 13.

Making it a minor penalty card wouldn't be as bad. This would be a reasonable suggestion in the "Changing Laws" forum, but not here.

[pigpenz]

yes I always thought this law was weird in that it allows play to continue if bidding is completed and it took several tricks to realize that players had miscounted their hands.
How do you really provide equity? it all depends on the card that got moved from one hand to the other. so in some cases it may not have an effect.

I would always tend to giving a procedural penalty to both pairs and for sure to the other table that fouled the board.
and from there go with trying to figure out if there was a normal result on the board.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2012-December-03, 20:08, said:

Making it a minor penalty card wouldn't be as bad. This would be a reasonable suggestion in the "Changing Laws" forum, but not here.

If the card had belonged to an opponent, I think that opponent would feel pretty hard done by to be given even a minor penalty card.

[Vampyr]

swanway, on 2012-December-03, 10:40, said:

E/W tried to recall the line of play to see if they had been damaged but it was difficult.

If the director knows that all four players are inexperienced enough that it is possible that none of them will remember the play of the hand, she should stay there until the hand is completed.

[bluejak]

In a club I let them play it, where's the problem? No-one is going to worry over the ♣4.

As to whether this Law is correct, please do not ask such questions here, but start a new thread in Changing Laws & Regulations.