[jeffford76]

---

When dummy came down it had only 12 cards with one of the clubs hidden. The defense led a club, winning the ace, and switched to a low diamond. Midway through the hand when the extra club was found behind the hearts, east immediately called the director to say they would have defended differently with five clubs visible in dummy as this made it more likely the lead was a stiff. (That last part clarified after the hand, not in the middle of play.)

At the table declarer made 11 tricks. Any adjustment?

[ArtK78]

Without citing any laws on the subject, it is my recollection that all of the players are responsible for the dummy. As dummy was exposed, everyone had an opportunity to notice that there were only 12 cards visible. So, there is no adjustment.

If North deliberately concealed one of dummy's cards, there might be a procedural penalty. But good luck proving that.

[PhilKing]

jeffford76, on 2013-April-26, 10:18, said:

they would have defended differently with five clubs visible in dummy as this made it more likely the lead was a stiff.

Since the chances were already 100%, they could hardly rise further.

[RMB1]

ArtK78, on 2013-April-26, 10:20, said:

Without citing any laws on the subject, it is my recollection that all of the players are responsible for the dummy. As dummy was exposed, everyone had an opportunity to notice that there were only 12 cards visible. So, there is no adjustment.

In England, we teach that dummy is responsible for correctly displaying dummy - failure to correctly display dummy is a failure to comply with Law 41C. There is no penalty in that law so we apply Law 12A1 and adjust the score if defenders were damaged by not being able to see all of dummy's cards.

We don't care about deliberate concealment, so we don't have to worry about:

ArtK78, on 2013-April-26, 10:20, said:

If North deliberately concealed one of dummy's cards, there might be a procedural penalty. But good luck proving that.

[jeffford76]

RMB1, on 2013-April-26, 10:28, said:

In England, we teach that dummy is responsible for correctly displaying dummy - failure to correctly display dummy is a failure to comply with Law 41C. There is no penalty in that law so we apply Law 12A1 and adjust the score if defenders were damaged by not being able to see all of dummy's cards.

Not just England. The ACBL book Duplicate Decisions contains the following:

Quote

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,” the response should be that some are more responsible than others. This statement has no basis in current law. The player who is the dummy is responsible for the proper display of his hand.

[ArtK78]

Laws 41C and 41D (ACBL Edition):

C. Opening Lead Faced

Following this clarification period, the opening lead is faced, the play period begins irrevocably, and dummy's hand is spread (but see Law 54A for a faced opening lead out of turn). After it is too late to have previous calls restated (see B above), declarer or either defender, at his own* turn to play, is entitled to be informed as to what the contract is and whether, but not by whom, it was doubled or redoubled.

D. Dummy's Hand

After the opening lead is faced, dummy spreads his hand in front of him on the table, face up, sorted into suits, the cards in order of rank with lowest ranking cards towards declarer, and in columns pointing lengthwise towards declarer. Trumps are placed to dummy's right. Declarer plays both his hand and that of dummy.

You are certainly correct that there is no penalty ascribed to Dummy for not properly complying with these laws.

Law 12A (ACBL Edition):

A. Power to Award an Adjusted Score

On the application of a player within the period established under Law 92B or on his own initiative the Director may award an adjusted score when these Laws empower him to do so (in team play see Law 86). This includes:

1. The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation committed by an opponent.

2. The Director awards an artificial adjusted score if no rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board (see C2 below).

3. The Director may award an adjusted score if there has been an incorrect rectification of an irregularity.

It might be a stretch to say that inadvertently concealing one of dummy's cards when the dummy was spread is an irregularity, in that all of the players can view the dummy and determine for themselves if all of the cards are there. But you may very well be right that the ruling might go this way. I have certainly never seen it.

[jeffford76]

PhilKing, on 2013-April-26, 10:28, said:

Since the chances were already 100%, they could hardly rise further.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but why 100%? From East's perspective, clubs could be 3442 around the table with partner holding xxx. The systemic lead from that is the lowest one over here.

[ArtK78]

jeffford76, on 2013-April-26, 10:45, said:

Not just England. The ACBL book Duplicate Decisions contains the following:

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,” the response should be that some are more responsible than others. This statement has no basis in current law. The player who is the dummy is responsible for the proper display of his hand.

That quote is interesting. But as far as I know, Duplicate Decisions is not part of the laws. I am not saying that it is wrong, but that the basis in the laws for making such a ruling is thin.

[gordontd]

ArtK78, on 2013-April-26, 10:47, said:

It might be a stretch to say that inadvertently concealing one of dummy's cards when the dummy was spread is an irregularity

It's hard to see how you could say otherwise.

[jeffford76]

ArtK78, on 2013-April-26, 10:53, said:

That quote is interesting. But as far as I know, Duplicate Decisions is not part of the laws. I am not saying that it is wrong, but that the basis in the laws for making such a ruling is thin.

I understand that you are not convinced, but I would be more interested in opinions on whether there should be an adjustment *under the assumption that it is an irregularity by dummy to put down a 12-card hand*.

[billw55]

jeffford76, on 2013-April-26, 10:48, said:

Perhaps I'm missing something, but why 100%? From East's perspective, clubs could be 3442 around the table with partner holding xxx. The systemic lead from that is the lowest one over here.

If declarer drops the king, I will consider it.

Although, it is not like nobody ever leads from Kxx.

[mink]

When I adjust based on Laws 41D and 12A1, assuming they lead high from doubleton and low from 3 cards, I consider that with 4 ♣ cards in the dummy it is possible that declarer has 2 and West has 3. If East sees 5 cards in the dummy, declarer can only have 1 or 3 cards. If he has 1 card, East can safely continue ♣ as partner must have the King. I he has 3 cards, partner will appreciate 2 ruffs. So I adjust to 8 tricks for the declarer.

Karl

[mycroft]

ACBL tournament policy is that of Duplicate Directions - if dummy misboards the hand, and it's reasonable that as a result, the opponents misdefend, and are damaged, they are awarded an adjusted score. It's not wrong to use judgement to decide what's "reasonable" - my first appeal was based on the 12-card dummy, and the ruling was "pretty much everybody would have worked out that the line taken was zero percent, even without the extra card; but this defender isn't 'pretty much everybody'. With the extra card, it was zero percent even for this player." Effectively "you did something wrong; we all do sometimes. 99% of the time, it doesn't cause a problem; it's unfortunate you picked the only person in the room that could have been damaged by it."

"everyone's responsible for dummy" - yes, that has not been in the Laws for a long time (and by long time, I mean "since I started directing" at least - I guess that means since the 1985 Laws). My response to that is "there's no extra penalty for failing to play a faced card, specifically including a card from dummy. That's it."

[PhilKing]

jeffford76, on 2013-April-26, 10:48, said:

Perhaps I'm missing something, but why 100%? From East's perspective, clubs could be 3442 around the table with partner holding xxx. The systemic lead from that is the lowest one over here.

Yep - my bad. But pairs who play 3rd and 5th tend to notice how many cards are indummy.

[ArtK78]

mycroft, on 2013-April-26, 11:42, said:

ACBL tournament policy is that of Duplicate Directions - if dummy misboards the hand, and it's reasonable that as a result, the opponents misdefend, and are damaged, they are awarded an adjusted score. It's not wrong to use judgement to decide what's "reasonable" - my first appeal was based on the 12-card dummy, and the ruling was "pretty much everybody would have worked out that the line taken was zero percent, even without the extra card; but this defender isn't 'pretty much everybody'. With the extra card, it was zero percent even for this player." Effectively "you did something wrong; we all do sometimes. 99% of the time, it doesn't cause a problem; it's unfortunate you picked the only person in the room that could have been damaged by it."

"everyone's responsible for dummy" - yes, that has not been in the Laws for a long time (and by long time, I mean "since I started directing" at least - I guess that means since the 1985 Laws). My response to that is "there's no extra penalty for failing to play a faced card, specifically including a card from dummy. That's it."

It is interesting that "ACBL tournament policy is that of Duplicate Decisions." (I assume you meant Duplicate Decisions, not Directions, unless your title is right and jefford's title is wrong). I do not see Duplicate Decisions on the ACBL website.

One would think that such an authoritative volume that is the official policy of the ACBL would be available on its website.

EDIT:

I found it on the ACBL Website. It was not easy to find. It was under the Club Administration tab, then the Club Directors tab under that heading, then there was a paragraph about Duplicate Decisions which allowed me to view the volume.

Here are the first three paragraphs of the introduction:

INTRODUCTION

Duplicate Decision is a version of the official Laws of Duplicate Bridge written in everyday English. Its purpose is to help club directors understand the Laws and make good rulings. This book can be used at the club level in place of the official law book. Duplicate Decisions can be used to make most of the rulings that will come up during a typical club game. The ideal way to use this publication is to tab the most common rulings. Occasionally, Duplicate Decisions will refer the director to the official Laws book. In those cases, the director will have to do some research before making a ruling.

In order to make good rulings, a club director needs to be familiar with the Laws. It is helpful to highlight the sections of each Law that are most frequently used in making a ruling.

I don't see anything here that makes Duplicate Decisions the official policy of the ACBL. In fact, it states that "at the club level" Duplicate Decisions can be used in place of the law book. It makes no statement about anything above the club level.

In any case, it does seem to carry some weight. But, by its own terms, it does not constitute the law or have the weight of the law.

[GreenMan]

ArtK78, on 2013-April-26, 12:16, said:

It is interesting that "ACBL tournament policy is that of Duplicate Decisions." (I assume you meant Duplicate Decisions, not Directions, unless your title is right and jefford's title is wrong). I do not see Duplicate Decisions on the ACBL website.

One would think that such an authoritative volume that is the official policy of the ACBL would be available on its website.

The club directors page has links to a PDF of Duplicate Decisions and to Baron Barclay to buy a hard copy.

[pran]

Why does nobody consider Law 23 here?

Dummy violated

Law 41D said:

After the opening lead is faced, dummy spreads his hand in front of him on the table, face up, sorted into suits, the cards in order of rank with lowest ranking cards towards declarer, and in columns pointing lengthwise towards declarer. Trumps are placed to dummy’s right.

Law 23 said:

Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed). When the play has been completed the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity*.

Could dummy at the time of his irregularity have been aware that it could well damage opponents?
Certainly, and there is no reason to go into the question of deliberate or accidental irregularity.

The result should be adjusted to one two down

[CSGibson]

pran, on 2013-April-26, 12:49, said:

The result should be adjusted to one down

I'm pretty sure that 2 down is correct, or no adjustment. I see no reason why they would not get a 2nd ruff.

that being said, I'm pretty sure that a diamond switch is either nullo or close to it; partner cannot have both a club card and a diamond card.

[pran]

CSGibson, on 2013-April-26, 13:06, said:

I'm pretty sure that 2 down is correct, or no adjustment. I see no reason why they would not get a 2nd ruff.

that being said, I'm pretty sure that a diamond switch is either nullo or close to it; partner cannot have both a club card and a diamond card.

Quite true, I stand corrected.

(I couldn't see OP while writing my comment and remembered just one ruff)

[mycroft]

ArtK78, on 2013-April-26, 12:16, said:

It is interesting that "ACBL tournament policy is that of Duplicate Decisions." (I assume you meant Duplicate Decisions, not Directions, unless your title is right and jefford's title is wrong). I do not see Duplicate Decisions on the ACBL website.

One would think that such an authoritative volume that is the official policy of the ACBL would be available on its website.

Ah. You misunderstand me, sorry. Duplicate Decisions is an informal book, as everyone is saying, and not necessarily the way we will do it in all cases (certainly there are edge cases that DD doesn't cover, and it's at least one generation of law book old). It is just that TD policy, as explained to me by my supervisor-the-National-TD, is equivalent, in this case, to what was said above coming from DD.