[Xiaolongnu]

Every now and then we have the situation where a 14-12 was found out only nearing the end of the play. Sometimes, players complain that Ave+ is not good enough for them especially where the superficially "correct" contract was going down 4 or something. Any advice on this? What I mean is, does the law give us any power to redress this? Should the law give us such powers?

The only seemingly applicable reference is L12C2a which uses the somewhat vague word "at least" so many percent of a top.

[chrism]

Law 13 – Incorrect Number of Cards
A. Director Deems Normal Play
When the Director determines that one or more hands of the board contained an incorrect number of cards (but see Law 14) and a player with an incorrect hand has made a call, then when the Director deems that the deal can be corrected and played the deal may be so played with no change of call. At the end of play the Director may award an adjusted score.

B. Adjusted Score and Possible Penalty
Otherwise when a call has been made the Director shall award an adjusted score and may penalize an offender.

C. Play Completed
When it is determined after play ends that a player’s hand originally contained more than 13 cards with another player holding fewer (but see Law 13F), the result must be cancelled and an adjusted score awarded (Law 86D may apply). An offending contestant is liable to a procedural penalty.

So if play has not been completed and the director judges that the misplaced cards had no bearing on the auction and play to that point (progressively less likely as the deal comes closer to an end, of course) 13A allows the card to be corrected and play completed.

Otherwise the deal is cancelled and the director can award either an assigned or an artificial adjusted score. Assuming that the 14 and 12 belong to the same partnership, an artificial score would almost always be Ave+/Ave- (3 IMPs at teams); if there are credible predictions of likely bridge results, then the director could instead assign a result or weighting of results as defined in Law 12C1. This would be pretty rare, but maybe if the 14-12 hands were defenders, passing throughout the auction and following throughout the play, for example, it might be possible.

The "at least" in 12D(Edit)12C2(a) does not give the director discretion to vary the percentage for Average+, in my understanding. It refers to the protection that Ave+ gives a side the better of 60% or their actual percentage for the session (or IMP equivalent), as specified in 12C2(c). Law 86A allows IMP artificial adjusted scores to be varied at the discretion of the Tournament Organizer, but I read that as referring to a blanket redefinition applying to all events, not a case by case variation.

[barmar]

Are the players claiming that even if the OS held the correct cards, they were going to get into the same ridiculous contract? What is the "correct" contract for hands like this? Do they have a system bid to show 4=4=4=2 shape?

[blackshoe]

All else aside, you do not award an artificial adjusted score if an assigned adjusted score can be determined.

There is no 12D.

[chrism]

blackshoe, on 2015-December-16, 12:31, said:

All else aside, you do not award an artificial adjusted score if an assigned adjusted score can be determined.

There is no 12D.

That's what happens when I post in the small hours. for 12D read 12C2(a).