Strange Ruling problem from STL

[Joe de Balliol]

I believe the result of "down one" must stand. Even if west did in fact revoke, which is impossible to determine based on the information available, we have Law 11B:

 

The right to penalize an irregularity may be forfeited if attention is first drawn to the irregularity by a spectator for whose presence at the table the non-offending side is responsible.

This only holds if N/S are responsible for the kibitzer's presence. If they are, result stands.

Otherwise, I judge as follows: the kibitzer thought that West had a club left and South's play makes no sense whatsoever unless he thought West had pitched a club. So as director, I choose to believe that West accidentally revoked. So I rule back to 3N tick.

 

J

[blackshoe]

Regarding Law 11B: it has not been established, AFAICS, that NS are responsible for this kibitzer's presence at the table. If they're not, this law does not apply.

 

Regarding establishment of the revoke: a revoke is established when the OS acquiesces in the claim (Law 64A3), so if there was a revoke, it was established.

 

It is true that South's claim statement makes no sense unless he saw West discard on the third club trick, but he could have been mistaken. Equally so, West says he didn't revoke, but he could have been mistaken. North and East said they didn't see West's card. Since there is not a preponderance of evidence to support the suggestion of a revoke, I would rule that it cannot be established that there was one.

 

As someone else suggested, I would want to know what East meant when he said "3". If he meant "3 club tricks" then at least he tried to correct South's erroneous concession. But if he did try, then he didn't try hard enough. Law 72A2 applies here, and it says a player must not accept the score for a trick he could not win. That's a very strong admonition, and if East meant "3 club tricks" then he rates a gold star for trying, and a PP for failing, to comply with this law. I might make the PP a warning, under the circumstances.

 

Even an expert West might miss the boat at the table and not realize South had conceded a trick he couldn't lose (well, not to a club, anyway), but he did go and talk to the director afterwards, so it seems he did realize eventually that something wasn't right, and tried to get it fixed.

 

The question of a spade finesse in the later play (or in the claim statement) will have seemed moot to South, who has to pitch a spade and a heart on the fourth and fifth club trick - or so he thinks.

 

I would give South back the club trick he erroneously conceded (Law 71C), but now he has 8 tricks and a two way finesse. Law 70E tells me he doesn't get to guess right, so he's still down one.

 

"Don't claim" is bad for the game. Rather, perhaps, "don't claim unless you''re sure you're right."

[jikl]

The interesting thing here is if Justin "thought" W pitched, then it must have been a ♠, a red card would be more obvious to everyone at the table. Now if W did in fact revoke with a ♠ pitch, now that suit becomes far more interesting.

 

Sean

[Guest Jlall]

The interesting thing here is if Justin "thought" W pitched, then it must have been a ♠, a red card would be more obvious to everyone at the table. Now if W did in fact revoke with a ♠ pitch, now that suit becomes far more interesting.

 

Sean

Or the guy just revoked and then wasn't honest about it lol...

[Apollo81]

re: lho

 

wow

[Gerben42]

Okay I'm entering this late, but here's my view:

 

We are in time to change a result, the claim may be corrected after the match / session. However establishment of the

 

If declarer thought he saw West not follow suit, West probably didn't follow suit. Why else would he claim? Now there's two roads from here.

 

I. Evaluate the revoke. West didn't make the revoke trick, but his side made one or more tricks after / including the revoke trick. 1 Trick penalty --> 3NT made.

 

II. Consider that South made a claim on "incorrect information". In this case any doubt should be in favour of the NOS, South --> 3NT made.

 

My decision: 3NT making.

 

What is the correct reason though, I. or II.? I think it is II.

 

Bad rulings that might occur but should NEVER happen on this board:

* Throw out the board

* Artificial score like 40% 60%

[awm]

Before we accuse LHO of things here (whoops maybe too late already), does he necessarily know that declarer has a third club? Especially at the top levels I have noticed that people often don't really show their hands when claiming. LHO can only know that clubs weren't 3-3-5-2 around the table by looking at declarer's hand. And RHO did try to correct the claim, but his poor English combined with declarer's insistance that down one was the result didn't allow him to do so.

 

Most likely either declarer didn't see west's card correctly, or west pulled the wrong card from his hand. Either of these is quite possible, and there's not very strong evidence for one over the other (since apparently no one at the table other than south and west saw west's card at all).

 

Imagine if you were LHO and were sure you had followed suit and figured clubs were 3-3-5-2, and then saw declarer (at the prompting of a kibitzer) trying to get his own poor claim overturned and additionally get credit for a correct two-way finesse? Wouldn't you feel like declarer was the one being unethical?

 

I'm not trying to accuse declarer of anything here, just trying to calm down the people who seem eager to accue LHO of cheating.