[bluejak]

Well, it is less that 24 hours since this happened at my table. I am quite sure I said "Two off" and no-one disagreed. All cards were shuffled - new Law, of course - returned to the board but when I scored it my opponents told me it was one off.

I would not like you to have come to the table and ruled that all four of us were lying when we said it had been played. I think it is actually a disgraceful suggestion that you assume that to be the case.

[blackshoe]

Sven Pran, on Jul 29 2009, 12:49 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Jul 29 2009, 03:00 PM, said:

Sven, you are defining "normal play of the board" to include determining the score. Not unreasonable, but I'm not sure it's right. Convince me. 

I was puzzled by this question because I cannot remember having used the term "normal play" anywhere in this thread.

However, I assume you have in mind my reference to Law 12A2, and you may then be aware that this related to when no play could be established by the players: None of them could demonstrably show the sequence in which he (allegedly) had played his cards, nor could the players agree upon any result on that board.

As I indicated: all the (few) times I have met such situations it was subsequently found that they in fact had not played the board at all, and so will I rule in this situation. This is where L12A2 enters the picture.

My experience is that when a board has been played at least one of the players will have his cards in sequence until a result has been formally recorded and accepted.

Sven

You don't get to solve one hypothetical situation by inventing a completely different one, Sven. In the situation at hand, the board was played. Live with it. Accept it. Don't try to change the scenario.

It is law 12A2 that uses the term "normal play".

[Sven Pran]

bluejak, on Jul 29 2009, 08:45 PM, said:

Well, it is less that 24 hours since this happened at my table. I am quite sure I said "Two off" and no-one disagreed. All cards were shuffled - new Law, of course - returned to the board but when I scored it my opponents told me it was one off.

I would not like you to have come to the table and ruled that all four of us were lying when we said it had been played. I think it is actually a disgraceful suggestion that you assume that to be the case.

OK.

Status:

I have two sides agreeing on the contract played but one claiming one off and the other claiming two off. No result has so far been recorded but all four players have shyffled their cards and returned them to the board, thus violating Laws 65D and 79A, possibly also Law 72B3.

Neither side enjoys more credibility than the other. Consequently I consider both sides at fault for the situation.

If time permits I might consider having the four players repeat the board under my supervision, I shall expect them to be able to reliably doing just that. However, in this case I shall issue a procedural penalty to each side of at least 10% of a top score for causing delay to the arrangement.

My favourite ruling is to award a split score with each side receiving the score that is most unfavourable for its side.

However, unless a regulation prohibits weighted scores I might also choose to ignore the fact that both sides are at fault and assign a weighted adjusted score with each of the two alternatives given the same weight.


I cannot help feeling that this is a constructed case with little relevance in real life? During my 30 years of directing I have never experienced such a situation without the players being able to agree on the result with much less ado.

Sven

[bluejak]

Differences over tricks are quite common, and your suggestion they do not occur is ludicrous. In my view we had agreed the tricks last night. Your suggestion that if not lying you are going to fine us because our very inexperienced opponents had misunderstood the agreed number of tricks is unacceptable. We teach our players that the TD is their friend: if they called you over such a disagreement and you decided if they were not lying you would fine them then they woudl no longer believe us.

I think you need a complete re-appraisal of oyur attitude to bridge players. Your presumptions that they are lying, cheating or whatever is just not true: they are often not very good and decent TDs help them.

[blackshoe]

I think that Sven is saying that the possibility that no player can reconstruct the play is remote — so obviously he hasn't played at my local club.

That said, Sven did say he expected these players were lying, in spite of the fact the original scenario (deliberately) gave no such impression. I agree that such a pre-disposition is not good in a director (at any level).

Sven, I've asked as least twice for the legal basis and rationale behind the ruling in this case. While your latest seems to agree with my conclusion, it doesn't show the reasoning. Can you do that, please?

[Cascade]

blackshoe, on Jul 30 2009, 01:00 AM, said:

Law 65D does not specify a rectification. What Law, Wayne, will you use to justify whatever rectification you're going to make?

This will do for me:

"LAW 12 - DIRECTOR’S DISCRETIONARY POWERS
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."

When I am adjusting for NS I consider EW non-offenders - they did not cause NS to disturb their cards.

When I am adjusting for EW I consider NS non-offenders.

[Sven Pran]

blackshoe, on Jul 30 2009, 01:53 AM, said:

I think that Sven is saying that the possibility that no player can reconstruct the play is remote — so obviously he hasn't played at my local club.

That said, Sven did say he expected these players were lying, in spite of the fact the original scenario (deliberately) gave no such impression. I agree that such a pre-disposition is not good in a director (at any level).

Sven, I've asked as least twice for the legal basis and rationale behind the ruling in this case. While your latest seems to agree with my conclusion, it doesn't show the reasoning. Can you do that, please?

Sorry, I thought I made it clear: The basis for my favourite ruling is that no result has been agreed upon and cannot be decided with better probability than 50% for each of two alternatives. Both sides are at fault for this situation.

To me this is sufficient for applying Law 12C1(e)(ii) for both sides.

Alternatively I can apply Law 12C1© if I feel like disregarding their "at fault" status.


I am surprised that this sort of happenings are common; do we live in different worlds?

When I have been called to tables because of disagreement on a result my experience is that players and Director cooperate and settle the question to everybody's satisfaction within seconds, usually because players know that they have nothing to say if they have disordered their cards. I suppose that the fact we are using Bridgemate helps as well (the technology forces dicipline).

Sven

[Cascade]

Sven Pran, on Jul 30 2009, 02:49 PM, said:

I suppose that the fact we are using Bridgemate helps as well (the technology forces dicipline).

At last an advantage for using Bridgemates

[Sven Pran]

Cascade, on Jul 30 2009, 04:59 AM, said:

Sven Pran, on Jul 30 2009, 02:49 PM, said:

I suppose that the fact we are using Bridgemate helps as well (the technology forces dicipline).

At last an advantage for using Bridgemates

One of the minor advantages

Regards Sven

[McBruce]

OK, I'll bite. How exactly do Bridgemates prevent players from mixing their cards before they agree on a result?

[bluejak]

They don't.

[Sven Pran]

McBruce, on Jul 30 2009, 12:21 PM, said:

OK, I'll bite.  How exactly do Bridgemates prevent players from mixing their cards before they agree on a result?

They don't.

But you are immediately in trouble if you don't record everything required in time.

David's story about stating down one, feeling an agreement from opponents only to later have an objection "it was down 2" doesn't happen that way. You cannot record any result without a joint action between North and East: North registers and East confirms. Only then can you start on the next board at that table.

Sven

[barmar]

Sven Pran, on Jul 30 2009, 04:21 PM, said:

McBruce, on Jul 30 2009, 12:21 PM, said:

OK, I'll bite.  How exactly do Bridgemates prevent players from mixing their cards before they agree on a result?

They don't.

But you are immediately in trouble if you don't record everything required in time.

David's story about stating down one, feeling an agreement from opponents only to later have an objection "it was down 2" doesn't happen that way. You cannot record any result without a joint action between North and East: North registers and East confirms. Only then can you start on the next board at that table.

Sven

In a case like this, I think the TD would hit the Confirm button, explaining that he'll make a correction later if he rules that the result was different.

[bluejak]

Sven Pran, on Jul 30 2009, 09:21 PM, said:

David's story about stating down one, feeling an agreement from opponents only to later have an objection "it was down 2" doesn't happen that way. You cannot record any result without a joint action between North and East: North registers and East confirms. Only then can you start on the next board at that table.

I do not like being called a liar, and I suggest an immediate retraction is in order.

It did happen that way two nights ago.

It is not a question of later in the way that you seem to mean: I said "two off", everyone shuffles their cards, and then we started to do the scoring. This is perfectly normal, happening a million times every day. At this point - and whether we were using Bridge Mates or not is totally irrelevant - it became apparent that my LHO thought it was one off and was not aware I had said "two off".

You can say it does not happen all you like, Sven, but it does, it did, this is not the first time, and it will not be the last.

[barmar]

I agree with David, that's a very typical scenario. Usually it's resolved pretty quickly, when one of the players says something like "I lost 2 diamonds, a club, and the trump finesse", and the player who disagreed says, "oh yeah, that's right" or "no, I also got a second trump at the end". If this doesn't happen, you then try to replay the hand quickly. With experienced players, this shouldn't be too difficult.

Where things can get tricky is with novices. They might not even be able to remember what the opening lead was, let alone all the details of the play.