[campboy]

McBruce, on Jul 28 2009, 07:02 AM, said:

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-.)

Bruce has convinced me. We're not giving an adjusted score because Law 79 doesn't say that we can, we're adjudicating how many tricks were won. So it's like a claim; we never give a split score after a claim and we can't here.

[blackshoe]

NickRW, on Jul 28 2009, 02:27 PM, said:

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.

True. Possibly irrelevant.

Quote

  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.

I said "normally" - and so does the law. If you consider that a board cannot have been played normally if there isn't agreement on the score, then you're right. But I was referring to the fact that the hand was played out, and there were apparently no problems in the bidding and play.

An unbiased referree who didn't see the whole play cannot, you're right, determine with certainty what the actual outcome was -— but often his judgement will be pretty close.

Quote

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

I disagree. The TO, not the TD, has the authority to make regulations (Law 80B2{f}).

Quote

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.

IOW you explained the existing law to the players. Okay. What does that have to do with the case at hand?

[Cascade]

bluejak, on Jul 29 2009, 01:33 AM, said:

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.

"LAW 85 - RULINGS ON DISPUTED FACTS
When the Director is called upon to rule on a point of law or regulation in
which the facts are not agreed upon, he proceeds as follows:
...
B. Facts Not Determined
If the Director is unable to determine the facts to his satisfaction, he
makes a ruling that will permit play to continue."

I don't see how a ruling 4♥= for one side and 4♥-1 for the other side:

1. does not allow play to continue

2. is disallowed by the procedure outlined in the law.

[blackshoe]

I asked about pertinent laws. People (including me) started talking about Law 12 and the mechanics of score adjustment. But how do we get there?

I've looked again. Laws 65A, B, and C deal with how the cards of completed tricks are supposed to be place when the trick is quitted. These are "player does" laws, of which the Introduction to the Laws says "estabishes correct procedure without suggesting that a violation be penalized". Law 65D says

Quote

A player should not disturb the order of his played cards until agreement has been reached on the number of tricks won.

The Introduction says, of what players "should" do, that failure to do it is an infraction which will jeopardize the player's rights, but will not often be penalized. Law 65D goes on to reiterate that violation may jeopardize rights. Law 66D says

Quote

After play ceases, the played and unplayed cards may be inspected to settle a claim of a revoke or of the number of tricks won or lost, but no player should handle cards other than his own. If, after such a claim has been made, a player mixes his cards in such a manner that the director can no longer ascertain the facts, the director shall rule in favor of the other side.

The emphasis is mine. Law 79A says

Quote

the number of tricks won shall be agreed upon before all four hands have been returned to the board.

Of "shall" the Introduction says

Quote

a violation will incur a procedural penalty more often than not.

In the instant case, both sides are guilty of the emphasized violation above (mixing their cards so the TD cannot determine the facts). So, per that part of Law 66D, the TD shall, for each side in the dispute, rule in favor of the other. That is, for the declaring side, down 1, and for the defending side, contract making. A split score. Law 12 doesn't come into it — we are following the instruction in Law 66D. Since Law 79A was also violated and since that Law uses "shall", I would issue a PP except to rank beginners. If this ruling is wrong in law, or for some other reason, please explain why it's wrong.

[campboy]

Cascade, on Jul 28 2009, 03:59 PM, said:

"LAW 85 - RULINGS ON DISPUTED FACTS
When the Director is called upon to rule on a point of law or regulation in
which the facts are not agreed upon, he proceeds as follows:
...
B. Facts Not Determined
If the Director is unable to determine the facts to his satisfaction, he
makes a ruling that will permit play to continue."

I don't see how a ruling 4♥= for one side and 4♥-1 for the other side:

1. does not allow play to continue

2. is disallowed by the procedure outlined in the law.

Well, a ruling isn't the same as an adjusted score. Law 12A says that the director can give an adjusted score when the laws empower him to do so. Several laws explicitly empower him to do so in certain situations; law 85 does not.

I read Law 85B as meaning that allowing play to continue is the overriding concern, and if that means making some facts up because they can't be determined, so be it.

[blackshoe]

The play of this board is over. The problem isn't one of playing the board, it's one of determining what result was obtained when it was played. Play can continue (move on to the next board) even before the TD decides how to rule.

It is not within the purview of the TD to make "facts" up.

[Cascade]

campboy, on Jul 29 2009, 11:45 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jul 28 2009, 03:59 PM, said:

"LAW 85 - RULINGS ON DISPUTED FACTS
When the Director is called upon to rule on a point of law or regulation in
which the facts are not agreed upon, he proceeds as follows:
...
B. Facts Not Determined
If the Director is unable to determine the facts to his satisfaction, he
makes a ruling that will permit play to continue."

I don't see how a ruling 4♥= for one side and 4♥-1 for the other side:

1. does not allow play to continue

2. is disallowed by the procedure outlined in the law.

Well, a ruling isn't the same as an adjusted score. Law 12A says that the director can give an adjusted score when the laws empower him to do so. Several laws explicitly empower him to do so in certain situations; law 85 does not.

I read Law 85B as meaning that allowing play to continue is the overriding concern, and if that means making some facts up because they can't be determined, so be it.

We are not adjusting a score. There is no score to adjust.

[campboy]

blackshoe, on Jul 28 2009, 04:12 PM, said:

In the instant case, both sides are guilty of the emphasized violation above (mixing their cards so the TD cannot determine the facts). So, per that part of Law 66D, the TD shall, for each side in the dispute, rule in favor of the other. That is, for the declaring side, down 1, and for the defending side, contract making. A split score. Law 12 doesn't come into it — we are following the instruction in Law 66D. Since Law 79A was also violated and since that Law uses "shall", I would issue a PP except to rank beginners. If this ruling is wrong in law, or for some other reason, please explain why it's wrong.

Well, after reading your post, I'm no longer quite so sure it is wrong. But I am not convinced that we can give a split score except where the laws explicitly permit it -- and the only law which explicitly mentions it is law 12.

[blackshoe]

campboy, on Jul 28 2009, 07:55 PM, said:

But I am not convinced that we can give a split score except where the laws explicitly permit it

Why not?

[bluejak]

Cascade, on Jul 28 2009, 09:59 PM, said:

bluejak, on Jul 29 2009, 01:33 AM, said:

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.

"LAW 85 - RULINGS ON DISPUTED FACTS
When the Director is called upon to rule on a point of law or regulation in
which the facts are not agreed upon, he proceeds as follows:
...
B. Facts Not Determined
If the Director is unable to determine the facts to his satisfaction, he
makes a ruling that will permit play to continue."

I don't see how a ruling 4♥= for one side and 4♥-1 for the other side:

1. does not allow play to continue

2. is disallowed by the procedure outlined in the law.

This does not work. A ruling that both sides should take their clothes off and continue play might be deemed to fall within the actual wording of Law 85, but such a ruling is not legal, and Law 85 does not say that the TD should make an illegal ruling. If we cannot find a legal way of splitting the score then Law 85 does not suddenly allow us to split the score.



As others have said we are not adjusting a score here, so we cannot use Law 12C1C to weight or 12C1E to split an adjustment.



One of the problems with forums - and one of the reasons why I have left the completely impractical BLML - is that people often quote possibilities which rarely or neverr happen in real life. In fact players just about never give the TD a situation of this type that he cannot decide with some confidence one way or another, and all this wailing about how it is completely impossible does not impress me. I do not say such situations never happen, but they are very rare.

My advice is unchanged: this is usually a problem with an easy solution: sometimes it needs a bit more. A TD who goes into it - like so much else in life - expecting failure will often fail. I advise TDs to expect to solve this one.



However, on the odd occasion a decision is difficult, Ed's reading of Law 66D is interesting. I am not sure he is right but I am not sure he is wrong either.

So if you cannot decide and all the cards have gone, give them both a bad score, quote Law 66D, and tell them to appeal to the National Authority if they do not like it. In NZ I do not know what effect that will have: in the ACBL I do not think the ACBL permit such appeals: in the EBU or WBU your 75 GBP deposit should be safe enough and the relevant L&EC will have fun considering it.

[Cascade]

blackshoe, on Jul 29 2009, 09:12 AM, said:

I asked about pertinent laws. People (including me) started talking about Law 12 and the mechanics of score adjustment. But how do we get there?

I've looked again. Laws 65A, B, and C deal with how the cards of completed tricks are supposed to be place when the trick is quitted. These are "player does" laws, of which the Introduction to the Laws says "estabishes correct procedure without suggesting that a violation be penalized". Law 65D says

Quote

A player should not disturb the order of his played cards until agreement has been reached on the number of tricks won.

The Introduction says, of what players "should" do, that failure to do it is an infraction which will jeopardize the player's rights, but will not often be penalized. Law 65D goes on to reiterate that violation may jeopardize rights. Law 66D says

Quote

After play ceases, the played and unplayed cards may be inspected to settle a claim of a revoke or of the number of tricks won or lost, but no player should handle cards other than his own. If, after such a claim has been made, a player mixes his cards in such a manner that the director can no longer ascertain the facts, the director shall rule in favor of the other side.

The emphasis is mine. Law 79A says

Quote

the number of tricks won shall be agreed upon before all four hands have been returned to the board.

Of "shall" the Introduction says

Quote

a violation will incur a procedural penalty more often than not.

In the instant case, both sides are guilty of the emphasized violation above (mixing their cards so the TD cannot determine the facts). So, per that part of Law 66D, the TD shall, for each side in the dispute, rule in favor of the other. That is, for the declaring side, down 1, and for the defending side, contract making. A split score. Law 12 doesn't come into it — we are following the instruction in Law 66D. Since Law 79A was also violated and since that Law uses "shall", I would issue a PP except to rank beginners. If this ruling is wrong in law, or for some other reason, please explain why it's wrong.

66D requires the mixing of cards to occur after the dispute.

If the players mix there cards and then subsequently cannot agree then it is not strictly addressed by 66D.

[blackshoe]

Now that is really a stretch, Wayne.

[Cascade]

blackshoe, on Jul 29 2009, 02:13 PM, said:

Now that is really a stretch, Wayne.

Your bolded statement is conditional. And the condition is "after such a claim has been made".

I don't see why this is a stretch.

For me it would be a stretch if you automatically applied the rule without reference to the condition written therein.

[blackshoe]

Okay. Find a law that does apply in your opinion.

[Cascade]

blackshoe, on Jul 29 2009, 03:37 PM, said:

Okay. Find a law that does apply in your opinion.

65D is what was violated

"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."

The tricks were disturbed before the players agreed.

[Sven Pran]

Cascade, on Jul 29 2009, 05:50 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Jul 29 2009, 03:37 PM, said:

Okay. Find a law that does apply in your opinion.

65D is what was violated

"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."

The tricks were disturbed before the players agreed.

And the very moment a player disturbs his cards he "jeopardises his right to claim ownership of doubtful tricks or to claim (or deny) a revoke"

The first thing I do when called to a table where the "problem" is to determine the sequence in which cards have been played, is to ascertain that cards have been arranged as specified in Law 65C: Each player arranges his own cards in an orderly overlapping row in the sequence played.

Any player that has failed to obey this law is told to keep mum shut; I shall only listen to those players that have, and that still have their cards in undisturbed sequence.

If no player has his cards in order and the players cannot agree upon any result then I see no alternative other than to apply Law 12A2.

The few times I have experienced situations like that the real reason has always turned out to be that the board had not been played (Discovered when they subsequently looked at the hand printouts)

regards Sven

[blackshoe]

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

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.

[NickRW]

This is really beginning to annoy me. Have the wording of the law changed if it you don't like it. I like having people agree the number of tricks before disturbing their cards - and it makes for a happier environment. Frankly I hardly care whether you can't see the sense of this.

Nick

[bluejak]

I do not understand your post, Nick. No-one has made any post that approves of disturbing their cards, that is right, no-one. So why are you annoyed by posts discussing what to do when they have?

[Sven Pran]

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