[par31]

Multiple teams event, boards hand-dealt, in general not by the same players who were to play them first.

When one board was being played for the first time, I was called to the table after Trick 10 as it had just been noticed by the players that dummy had started with 12 cards and one of the defenders with 14. I told the players to redeal the board and gave a standard PP to each side.

Is this ruling legal? I was worried that 13B suggested that it wasn't, but I'm not sure if this Law is intended to apply in the case where a `correct' version of the board has never existed, and the board clearly wasn't dealt initially in accordance with 6B.

[blackshoe]

It's legal. See Law 6D3. The board is essentially "fouled", but since this is the first time it was played, it makes sense to redeal it, and no law precludes that.

Did you consider a PP for whoever originally screwed up the deal? You should. See Laws 6B, 90A and 90B6, and note that 6B uses the word "must", which indicates a PP should be issued almost automatically (a failure to do what one "must" do is "a serious matter indeed", more so than the next worse class of offense, which "should incur a PP more often than not"). OTOH, Law 7B2 says "[i]each player counts his cards face down to be sure he has exactly 13[/i]," and the Introduction to the laws says that when the laws say a player "does" something this "establishes correct procedure without suggesting that the violation be penalized", so I'm not sure I would have issued PPs to the players at the table, unless they have been found guilty of this of this infraction before, and warned about doing it again.

[pran]

I agree with you except on one point (which is rather technical):

As the players who dealt the boards were not the ones to first play them, they did not deal the boards in their capacity as players (Law 6E1) but as the Director's agents (Law 6E3).

So while PP's are in order for violation of Law 7B2 there is no justification for reaction against the "player" who actually dealt the board in error.

[par31]

This question didn't arise in practice, as nobody knew at that point who had dealt the board.

[blackshoe]

I disagree. The usual procedure is to deal the boards and then move them, and that seems to be what happened in this case. Aside from that, 6B doesn't distinguish between players and "director's agents". I do agree that if the director hires or otherwise acquires assistants to deal the board before the session starts, which is I think the situation envisioned in 6E3, then no player should receive a PP for violating 6B. I suppose you could give the agent(s) PPs, but why would they care?

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2012-June-17, 03:30, said:

[...]6B doesn't distinguish between players and "director's agents". [...]

6E does, and is the law that specifies how cards can legally be dealt for a game of bridge. (6B is a remnant from old days.)

[blackshoe]

I don't care about "remnant from old days". It's the current law. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. Again.

[bluejak]

The person who dealt it wrong has inconvenienced other contestants and as such is liable to penalty under Law 90A. No need to worry about whether he was a Director's agent or not: he was a player who inconvenienced another contestant.