[Cyberyeti]

The hands themselves are irrelevant to this, club bridge in the back of beyond.

Broadly speaking, dummy went down with 13 cards, but at some point part way through the play, a card must have gone missing, meaning that dummy had all winners left and declarer duly claims. This is conceded by the opponents who note they've only taken 4 tricks against 3N, so sign for -400 despite the fact that declarer only made 8.

Now imagine that at the end of the evening, the opponents look at the hand records, and work this out, long after the other pair have left but probably technically withing the correction period. Also it becomes apparent that declarer may have managed to revoke in dummy due to the card that wasn't present.

What are the processes involved in sorting this out ?

[axman]

Cyberyeti, on Aug 3 2009, 07:06 PM, said:

The hands themselves are irrelevant to this, club bridge in the back of beyond.

Broadly speaking, dummy went down with 13 cards, but at some point part way through the play, a card must have gone missing, meaning that dummy had all winners left and declarer duly claims. This is conceded by the opponents who note they've only taken 4 tricks against 3N, so sign for -400 despite the fact that declarer only made 8.

Now imagine that at the end of the evening, the opponents look at the hand records, and work this out, long after the other pair have left but probably technically withing the correction period. Also it becomes apparent that declarer may have managed to revoke in dummy due to the card that wasn't present.

What are the processes involved in sorting this out ?

L65D. 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 jeopardises his right to claim ownership of doubtful tricks or to claim (or deny) a revoke.

The supposed reason for agreeing to the outcome prior to mixing one's cards is to be able to settle disputes with verifiable facts. After mixing one's cards the element of relying upon memory is not particularly reliable, especially after significant passage of time.

Generally, to alter the score as provided by L79 in such a situation the TD should have total confidence in the accuracy of the facts. Also, when confidence is less than total, there being a reasonable assertion that a score is too high, and the score is corrected lower there is unlikely to be justification for a corresponding increase in score to the other side.

In the subject scenario, should the other side corroborate the assertion of quitting an incorrect card [a] it still is unlikely that the order of play can be determined with certainty [b] there can be no revoke penalty [L64B4] [c] because of [a] the provisions of L64C are not available and [d] the provisions of L79 suggest that declarer's score may be corrected while defenders stand.

Without corroboration there is no basis for altering the score.

From personal experience the opponents on many occasions have convinced me after the fact [including recently after the fact] that they took tricks that in actuality they did not. The circumspect attitude in L79 is indeed appropriate.

[bluejak]

Hmmm. "technically" within the Correction Period? What does this mean?

If it is not in the Correction Period the TD does nothing.

If it is in the Correction Period the TD is required as a matter of Law [81C3] to investigate, so he investigates.

If he is able to talk to the other side, for example next week, he does so. If there is agreement that the case is as described then he amends the result to what actually happened, including restoring equity if necessary for any revoke [Law 64C]. If the opposition do not agree - for example because they do not remember - then the result stands as recorded on the score sheet.

If he cannot talk ot the oppositiojn then he rules as he would if they do not remember, ie no change to the score.

Law 65D is irrelevant. The did not disturb the order of tricks until a result was agreed: it is just that now the result has been challenged.

Law 79B2 applies, but it is incredibly rare that a different number of tricks be awarded to each side at club level: that bit of the Law was put in because an American National Pairs was won by a top class player who came to the TDs after play was ended with a couple of simpering females in tow, who said that they were terribly silly, weren't they, but of course that nice Mr ***** had made eight tricks not seven and how silly they were to have mis-scored it. This moved the top American expert from second to first and Kaplan said "Never again". It is not designed for an odd disagreement in a club.

Basically, if the TD can establish the score was wrong he adjusts: if he cannot be sure he does not. But there are no penalty tricks for any revoke since it was [a] dummy and [b] out of time.

[axman]

bluejak, on Aug 4 2009, 07:17 AM, said:

Law 65D is irrelevant. The did not disturb the order of tricks until a result was agreed: it is just that now the result has been challenged.

If, at the time the TD begins his investigation, the cards have not been mixed then the TD can have high confidence in the facts he ascertains. In the situation named, the cards had long been mixed prior to the assertion of an irregularity.

And is this not the fundamental basis for "If he cannot talk ot the oppositiojn then he rules as he would if they do not remember, ie no change to the score."?

[bluejak]

axman, on Aug 4 2009, 02:44 PM, said:

bluejak, on Aug 4 2009, 07:17 AM, said:

Law 65D is irrelevant.  The did not disturb the order of tricks until a result was agreed: it is just that now the result has been challenged.

If, at the time the TD begins his investigation, the cards have not been mixed then the TD can have high confidence in the facts he ascertains. In the situation named, the cards had long been mixed prior to the assertion of an irregularity.

Exactly: that is completely irrelevant to this case.

axman, on Aug 4 2009, 02:44 PM, said:

And is this not the fundamental basis for  "If he cannot talk ot the oppositiojn then he rules as he would if they do not remember, ie no change to the score."?

That is what I said. But in a club that is unusual.