[mjk43]

In the local club's pairs tournament, (which also happened to be a heat of the world sims), we had a ruling from the director of 60% to us (our session average was in the 50's) and 30% to our opponents. Without an adjusted score, had the director insisted the hand be quickly finished, we'd have scored 100%. The director said he is allowed to award a maximum of 60%; at home later, I wonder whether 12.10 in the White Book gives him discretion to award more. Advice greatly appreciated please.

Here is the background (it is board 9 of the world sims on 4 June if you still have the booklet). Playing against a pair known to be troublesome. My LHO opens 1H, partner overcalls 3S, RHO bids 4H and that ends the auction. Partner puts a card face down, I confirm "no questions", partner turns it over to reveal KS. At this point, dummy says "I have the Ace of those" and proceeds to lay down a hand with a void in Spades, AK10x of Hearts and two minor suits each headed by the King. Declarer studies dummy for a few seconds and says "play the Ace". Dummy contributes the smallest trump, not the Ace. We call the director and seek a ruling and director requires dummy to play the Ace of Hearts. Declarer proceeds to play as slowly as he humanly can whilst dummy berates us constantly about our appalling behaviour in not accepting the small Heart at trick 1. It turns out that trick 1 has made no difference to the score as it becomes apparent after about 6 tricks that partner's pre-emptive overcall was effective - they have 13 tricks on top. Declarer nevertheless continues to play at a snail's pace while dummy continues to berate us. The move has been called some minutes ago, we reach trick 11, declarer is still going in slow motion and I made what now seems to be a tactical error: I called the director. Presumably, we could instead have conceded the rest of the tricks and written up 4H+3 to them for a top for us. The director is annoyed with our opponents, rules that the board is out of time and awards 60% and 30%. We pointed out to him the unjustness at the time and asked him again at the end of the session whether he had discretion to award a fairer score. He was convinced that his hands are tied at 60% (or session average if higher). Are they? Or where that is blatantly unfair to the non-offending side, can director award more?

[shyams]

Link to the board:
http://www.simpairs.com/freq.asp?Board=9&C...&session=004610

4♥ +3 score 80.5% for E/W

[RMB1]

The TD is not constrained to award at most 60% for a cancelled board:

Law 12 C 1. (a)

Quote

When after an irregularity the Director is empowered by these laws to adjust a score and is able to award an assigned adjusted score, he does so. Such a score replaces the score obtained in play.

In this case the TD is clearly able to assign 4H+3 and should do so.

The alternative is that players will not finish playing a board (e.g. feign illness) where the artificial adjustment would be better than the bad score they are heading for.

[In the EBU, it is not recommended to cancel a board once it has started.]

[peachy]

It is bad practice (I don't know if it is illegal) to cancel a board already in play, when all players are in correct seats and it is the board they are scheduled to play. The TD should also monitor slow tables. And the players (regardless of whose fault slowness was) should do their best to catch up. None of this apparently happened.

It should have been scored 4H+3.

[blackshoe]

A pair which deliberately plays slowly in retaliation for opponents' insistence on conforming to the rules ought to get more than just a score adjustment.

[axman]

mjk43, on Jun 15 2010, 03:21 PM, said:

In the local club's pairs tournament, (which also happened to be a heat of the world sims), we had a ruling from the director of 60% to us (our session average was in the 50's) and 30% to our opponents. Without an adjusted score, had the director insisted the hand be quickly finished, we'd have scored 100%. The director said he is allowed to award a maximum of 60%; at home later, I wonder whether 12.10 in the White Book gives him discretion to award more. Advice greatly appreciated please.

Here is the background (it is board 9 of the world sims on 4 June if you still have the booklet). Playing against a pair known to be troublesome. My LHO opens 1H, partner overcalls 3S, RHO bids 4H and that ends the auction. Partner puts a card face down, I confirm "no questions", partner turns it over to reveal KS. At this point, dummy says "I have the Ace of those" and proceeds to lay down a hand with a void in Spades, AK10x of Hearts and two minor suits each headed by the King. Declarer studies dummy for a few seconds and says "play the Ace". Dummy contributes the smallest trump, not the Ace. We call the director and seek a ruling and director requires dummy to play the Ace of Hearts. Declarer proceeds to play as slowly as he humanly can whilst dummy berates us constantly about our appalling behaviour in not accepting the small Heart at trick 1. It turns out that trick 1 has made no difference to the score as it becomes apparent after about 6 tricks that partner's pre-emptive overcall was effective - they have 13 tricks on top. Declarer nevertheless continues to play at a snail's pace while dummy continues to berate us. The move has been called some minutes ago, we reach trick 11, declarer is still going in slow motion and I made what now seems to be a tactical error: I called the director. Presumably, we could instead have conceded the rest of the tricks and written up 4H+3 to them for a top for us. The director is annoyed with our opponents, rules that the board is out of time and awards 60% and 30%. We pointed out to him the unjustness at the time and asked him again at the end of the session whether he had discretion to award a fairer score. He was convinced that his hands are tied at 60% (or session average if higher). Are they? Or where that is blatantly unfair to the non-offending side, can director award more?

If I were DIC I would rule that canceling the board was a TD error. That L82C provides for an adjusted score of ??13 tricks. I would ascertain declarer's reason for slow play [and given the statements here] assess further for improper delay of game a PP of 1/2 board per table in the section plus a PP of one board for improper behavior [calculated to irritate the opponents]. Also, hold a conduct and ethics hearing.

[bluejak]

4♥ +3, and a DP of 40% of a top. It is my view that once a board is started that it is not legal for the TD to stop it part way through, though of course there may be situations where a board becomes unplayable - illness is the obvious one. But Robin's solution seems fine to me if a pair is playing deliberately slowly.

Come to think of it, playing slowly gets a PP, so let us tack on a 10% PP as well.

[Bbradley62]

Yes, you deserve your 80.5% score. But you also deserve a one-shot berating for calling the director at trick one.

[pran]

Bbradley62, on Jun 16 2010, 10:29 AM, said:

Yes, you deserve your 80.5% score. But you also deserve a one-shot berating for calling the director at trick one.

What on earth was wrong with calling the Director at trick one?

Dummy failed to play the card requested by Declarer (a Law 45D violation).

[bluejak]

Bbradley62, on Jun 16 2010, 10:29 AM, said:

Yes, you deserve your 80.5% score.  But you also deserve a one-shot berating for calling the director at trick one.

Why? There was an infraction, the TD was called. To berate someone for calling the TD at such a time is a disgrace, and is very bad for the game.

What we have here is a pair who do not wish to play by the rules. Well, they are the ones in the wrong, and should be treated as such.

[gwnn]

I think he wanted to say not calling the TD at trick 1. If any of you had just read the opening post, it would have been clear to you

[pran]

gwnn, on Jun 16 2010, 01:13 PM, said:

I think he wanted to say not calling the TD at trick 1. If any of you had just read the opening post, it would have been clear to you

In the OP I read: Declarer studies dummy for a few seconds and says "play the Ace". Dummy contributes the smallest trump, not the Ace. We call the director and seek a ruling and director requires dummy to play the Ace of Hearts

From where do you have basis for saying not calling the TD at trick 1?

[gwnn]

Oh. Looks like there was indeed someone who didn't read the OP, but it wasn't who I thought it was

[Bbradley62]

Oh, come on, guys! When Dummy said "I have the ace of that suit", he was clearly jokingly referring to a low trump, and when declarer continued the joke it should have been clear what he meant. I suppose it would have been more clear if he had said "play your ace of spades", translated as the low trump, but really... Maybe the director should be called in the Vanderbilt, where they play hardball (I hope I got that reference right), but not in a club game (world sim or not). If you got a bad ruling when you summoned the director for a second time, I'd call that karma.

[jeremy69]

Quote

Oh, come on, guys! When Dummy said "I have the ace of that suit", he was clearly joking

How we did laugh! They may have thought that they were joking but it isn't going to win an award here. If they can't just get on rather than make feeble and pathetic asides then they deserve what they get in my view.
Any sympathy for this particular Laurel and Hardy quickly disappears(not that I started with any) when you note the rest of their behaviour.

[barmar]

This would never be an issue in the Vanderbilt. First, it's probably such an old joke to them that they wouldn't bother. But if someone did, they'd all recognize it for what it was, and not make a big deal of it. I've watched many ACBL national finals (as Vugraph operator), and even though they're concentrating intently, it's still a congenial atmosphere (especially at Ron Smith's table, he's a total cut-up).

The Law on incomplete designations says something like "except when declarer's intent is incontrovertible". In this case, I think you would have to work pretty hard to convince the TD that declarer intended to ruff with the ace instead of a small trump (although if his trumps are solid, this might be a safe way to avoid even the small chance of an overruff).

[Vampyr]

pran, on Jun 16 2010, 11:46 AM, said:

Bbradley62, on Jun 16 2010, 10:29 AM, said:

Yes, you deserve your 80.5% score.  But you also deserve a one-shot berating for calling the director at trick one.

What on earth was wrong with calling the Director at trick one?

Dummy failed to play the card requested by Declarer (a Law 45D violation).

Come on, Sven. While the declaring side's "joke" was about the stupidest thing I have ever heard, it seems clear that joking what what they were doing. What I find strange about the story is that they apparently explained neither to their opponents nor to the director that they were indulging in zany, madcap fun.

[pran]

barmar, on Jun 17 2010, 01:38 AM, said:

This would never be an issue in the Vanderbilt.  First, it's probably such an old joke to them that they wouldn't bother. But if someone did, they'd all recognize it for what it was, and not make a big deal of it. I've watched many ACBL national finals (as Vugraph operator), and even though they're concentrating intently, it's still a congenial atmosphere (especially at Ron Smith's table, he's a total cut-up).

The Law on incomplete designations says something like "except when declarer's intent is incontrovertible". In this case, I think you would have to work pretty hard to convince the TD that declarer intended to ruff with the ace instead of a small trump (although if his trumps are solid, this might be a safe way to avoid even the small chance of an overruff).

Precisely!

[campboy]

Quote

In this case, I think you would have to work pretty hard to convince the TD that declarer intended to ruff with the ace instead of a small trump (although if his trumps are solid, this might be a safe way to avoid even the small chance of an overruff).

Well, you wouldn't have had to work hard at all to convince me. The OP left me vaugely wondering why on earth declarer had called for the ace of trumps, but not in any doubt that he had done so. Not being familiar with this "joke", I couldn't make much sense of dummy's comment either -- how on earth could he mistake the king of spades for a heart? Why did declarer apparently believe dummy's suggestion that a heart had been led, rather than looking?

Of course, once someone had explained to me what they meant by these ridiculous comments I might well rule that declarer was trying to play a small trump, but I would be pretty much out of patience with them. I would instruct dummy in no uncertain terms to observe law 74B2 in future.

[Vampyr]

campboy, on Jun 17 2010, 02:56 AM, said:

Of course, once someone had explained to me what they meant by these ridiculous comments I might well rule that declarer was trying to play a small trump, but I would be pretty much out of patience with them.

I must admit that I was very confused at first reading of the post as well. It wan't until I read a later post that I realised that the players were attempting a joke, and it seems very reasonable that neither the opponents nor the director understood this.

Quote

I would instruct dummy in no uncertain terms to observe law 74B2 in future.

Both declarer and dummy definitely need a warning, but no more if this is a first offence.