[blackshoe]

I got this off a NZ TD board. It's a hypothetical question. As I'm not sure of the correct answer, I thought I'd post it here.

The TD is called to the table and informed that after the hands were returned to the just completed board, a disagreement arose as to the number of tricks won. Both members of the declaring side insist the contract was made, both defenders insist it was down one. No one at the table is able to reconstruct the play. What's your ruling? What laws pertain?

[Cascade]

If no agreement was made before the hands were put back then I would give both sides the worst of it.

[blackshoe]

What laws, Wayne?

[NickRW]

How about:

12A2 said:

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).

It really annoys me if I get a Director call about disputed number of tricks and the quitted tricks have been disturbed, or worse, returned to the board. There is often no way to reconstruct what actually happened. I've made it a standing rule that if they can't agree it quietly and quickly and I can't help them because they've messed the quitted tricks it is automatic average minus to whichever (or both sides) that have done it. It has put paid to some individuals scooping up their cards announcing "3 made" without getting agreement of the other players. It has also put an end to the bad feeling that is caused otherwise.

Nick

[Cascade]

blackshoe, on Jul 28 2009, 12:03 PM, said:

What laws, Wayne?

Whichever law says that they have an obligation to agree on the result at the end of the hand.

[Cascade]

Ok I looked it up:

65D. Agreement on Results of Play
A player should not disturb the order of his played cards until agreement
has been reached on the number of tricks won. A player who fails to comply
with the provisions of this Law jeopardizes his right to claim ownership of
doubtful tricks or to claim (or deny) a revoke.

If both sides have disturbed the order of their cards then both have jeopardized their right to the doubtful tricks so I give the tricks to neither side.

I can even imagine a situation in which I would be inclined towards penalizing one side - say if 4♠= was (semi-normal) so that the side that was getting that adjustment was not really affected by the ruling. I probably would not do this though in many situations - inexperienced players, first offense etc etc

[JoAnneM]

What if it's a situation where every table in the room made 4? Isn't it really skewing the scores to allow a "fake" result?

[Cascade]

Any result could be fake if the players cannot tell you what the result is.

[blackshoe]

NickRW, on Jul 27 2009, 08:52 PM, said:

How about:

12A2 said:

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).

It really annoys me if I get a Director call about disputed number of tricks and the quitted tricks have been disturbed, or worse, returned to the board. There is often no way to reconstruct what actually happened. I've made it a standing rule that if they can't agree it quietly and quickly and I can't help them because they've messed the quitted tricks it is automatic average minus to whichever (or both sides) that have done it. It has put paid to some individuals scooping up their cards announcing "3 made" without getting agreement of the other players. It has also put an end to the bad feeling that is caused otherwise.

Nick

If you own the club, perhaps you can legally make such a regulation. I say "perhaps" because I'm not sure it wouldn't conflict with the laws.

As for 12A2, the board was played normally, it's just that no one is sure of the result.

[JoAnneM]

By "fake" I meant any kind of an adjustment score other than the game score. It seems if everyone else made the contract I might lean pretty heavily toward that side.

[jillybean]

JoAnneM, on Jul 27 2009, 10:33 PM, said:

By "fake" I meant any kind of an adjustment score other than the game score. It seems if everyone else made the contract I might lean pretty heavily toward that side.

Which law are you following here?

[campboy]

What everyone else did really isn't evidence of anything.

However, if you looked at the hand -- and perhaps were able to find out from the players what the lead was -- and one number of tricks was overwhelmingly more likely, then that is evidence. Failing that, though, I think Wayne is right.

[McBruce]

The trouble with giving each side the result the other thinks is correct is that there isn't a Law that allows you to give two scores on the same hand unless you have one offending side and one non-offending side. (12A2 doesn't work for it instructs the TD to give an artificial adjusted score, AVG, AVG+ or AVG-.)

IIRC, when this came up in the old forum, before it moved to BBO, the opinion was that it was unfair to decide one way and hit the side you believed with a PP to make both sides pay equally.

When this happens at the table, I first work out who has mixed their cards (unless all of them have), and whether there was any sort of agreement before the mixing of the cards. Then, if necessary, I have them play the whole hand again, warning the players that I will penalize loud discussion or debate and that I will judge what seems most likely from the replay and the minimal discussion that should ensue. Sometimes you'll need to do two or more separate replays when players disagree. But at the end the TD makes a decision on the result, and may add a PP (equal to both sides unless one side was clearly at fault) for the failure to agree on tricks before mixing the cards. Definitely I will give AVG- for any boards missed because of the delay if time runs out on the round (or on the next round after a late change).

More often than not, you will favor the more experienced pair if there is one, but not always.

[jeremy69]

The thought of replaying it a couple of times(and listening to "He led the H9, no he didn't it was the SK) especially if there is a playing director is too hard to bear. If it is the end of the round you are going to hold up the whole movement for this. I think Av- for both has a certain practicality on a club evening if the TD judges both sides were at fault.

[bluejak]

I really do not understand some of the replies. The TD makes his best guess as to what happened using such evidence as is available. So if anyone has undisturbed cards he nearly always assumes they are correct and ignores anyone else. He listens to anything that is said. If no-one can tell him anything reasonable but everyone in the world would make ten tricks on the hand that is evidence so rule ten tricks.

Any split score including an artificial one is an illegal cop-out. TDs have to do their job even when it is difficult. But this one is not even difficult. Make your mind up, state a number of tricks, tell anyone who does not like it to appeal, and give a DP to anyone who argues.

[barmar]

bluejak, on Jul 28 2009, 09:33 AM, said:

Make your mind up, state a number of tricks, tell anyone who does not like it to appeal, and give a DP to anyone who argues.

And maybe also give a PP to both sides for not agreeing on the result before pocketing their hands.

[peachy]

JoAnneM, on Jul 27 2009, 08:37 PM, said:

What if it's a situation where every table in the room made 4? Isn't it really skewing the scores to allow a "fake" result?

Results can be skewed for many reasons, like at one table there is a revoke, and an unmakeable game is scored as making because of the transfer of one or more tricks. What happens or happened at other tables has nothing to do with a ruling that is based on laws. There is nothing in the laws that allow considering what the field is doing.

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on Jul 28 2009, 09:33 AM, said:

Any split score including an artificial one is an illegal cop-out. TDs have to do their job even when it is difficult. But this one is not even difficult. Make your mind up, state a number of tricks, tell anyone who does not like it to appeal, and give a DP to anyone who argues.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with this. In the hypothetical case I presented, the only evidence available is the hands themselves. Given that, I agree that the TD has to do his job, but...

Suppose you look at the hands, and decide that there's a 70% chance that the contract makes, and a 30% chance that it goes down one. In a 12C1{c} jurisdiction, you can award a weighted score. In a 12C1{e} jurisdiction, you would give the non-offending side the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred, and the offending side the most unfavorable result that was at all probable. In this case [b]both/b] sides are offending, because they both mixed their cards, so the declaring side should get the score for down one, and the defending side the score for the contract making. Or so it seems to me.

[iviehoff]

blackshoe, on Jul 28 2009, 04:34 PM, said:

...In the hypothetical case I presented, the only evidence available is the hands themselves. Given that, I agree that the TD has to do his job, but...

Suppose you look at the hands, and decide that there's a 70% chance that the contract makes, and a 30% chance that it goes down one. In a 12C1{c} jurisdiction, you can award a weighted score....

In a 12C1c jurisdiction you can award a weighted score. But that is only if you are awarding an adjusted score under 12C1. The essential elements for awarding an adjusted score under 12C1 appear to be absent in the present situation.

If in practice the TD fails to get any more evidence than two contradictory statements, I suppose he just has to metaphorically toss a coin. Not very satisfactory, but there you are.

[NickRW]

blackshoe, on Jul 28 2009, 02:17 AM, said:

NickRW, on Jul 27 2009, 08:52 PM, said:

How about:

12A2 said:

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).

It really annoys me if I get a Director call about disputed number of tricks and the quitted tricks have been disturbed, or worse, returned to the board. There is often no way to reconstruct what actually happened. I've made it a standing rule that if they can't agree it quietly and quickly and I can't help them because they've messed the quitted tricks it is automatic average minus to whichever (or both sides) that have done it. It has put paid to some individuals scooping up their cards announcing "3 made" without getting agreement of the other players. It has also put an end to the bad feeling that is caused otherwise.

Nick

If you own the club, perhaps you can legally make such a regulation. I say "perhaps" because I'm not sure it wouldn't conflict with the laws.

As for 12A2, the board was played normally, it's just that no one is sure of the result.

I beg to differ. Putting your hand back in the board without agreeing the tricks made is an infraction under the law that Wayne quoted. The board has not been played properly - and - if all 4 of them have done it - the actual result is utterly indeterminable by an unbiased referee who was not a witness to the entire play.

Who, if anyone, owns the club has nothing to do with it.

Though it occurred infrequently, I've had people come to me at the end of the evening (who should have called the director but didn't) virtually in tears about a dispute about the number of tricks or whether there was a revoke or not. I decided to put an end to it and did - life is much more pleasant this way regardless of what law that may or may not support me - and frankly I don't see that I have violated any law anyhow.

In any event, I have not, in fact, had to rule this way - I just made it quite plain that agreeing the number of tricks before putting the hand away was a requirement and that anyone who didn't would probably find themselves on the wrong end of the ruling - end of problem.

Nick