Director Ruling

[awm]

During the play of a hand, declarer's left-hand opponent attempted to concede all but one of the remaining tricks. Right-hand opponent immediately said "no, that's not right."

 

The director was called, and instructed the table to "play the hand out." At this point declarer's left-hand opponent thought for a very long time, then managed to find a brilliant discard which caused declarer (who always had one more trick to lose to each opponent) to actually lose several more tricks.

 

The declarer was upset by this, feeling that left-hand opponent (who had apparently believed the hand was over) probably wouldn't have found this play if not for the information that right-hand opponent had another trick. He also believed that the laws do not support "playing the hand out" after a claim or concession.

 

Who's right here, and what should've happened?

 

(this is offline bridge, if it matters)

[mtvesuvius]

In the laws it is clearly stated that once a claim is made play stops. The hand cannot be played out, so an adjustment if any is necessary may be given. It is NOT legal to "Play the hand out". I think that should be reported to the district... Appealed if possible also.

[LH2650]

Law 68B2 - ...if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred.

 

The Director is correct in requiring play to continue, but should probably award an adjusted score, since unauthorized information may have affected the play.

[JoAnneM]

There are no circumstances in which complaining to the District about a Director ruling is appropriate. If it is a club or unit game the District has no jurisdiction as to the employment or use of directors, and if it was at a Sectional or Regional the ACBL is the employer of the Director and the proper person to contact would be the DIC or the Field Supervisor.

[blackshoe]

This was a concession, not a claim, in spite of the fact that the player did not attempt to concede all the tricks. Now...

 

If a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred. Unauthorized information may exist, so the director should be summoned immediately. Play continues.

 

So the assertion that the TD made an error in law in instructing the players to play on turns out to be incorrect.

 

When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information, he should summon the director when play ends*. The director shall assign an adjusted score (see Law 12C) if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in an advantage for the offender.

 

* It is not an infraction to call the Director earlier or later.

 

So I agree that the TD should consider an adjustment, but not because UI "may have affected" the play — he has to decide the UI suggested the play in question, and that the player had an LA.

 

It makes no difference whether this was on line or off, in law.

 

An appeal is certainly possible, and IMO reasonable, but on the grounds of use of UI, not that "play on" was an illegal ruling.

 

NB: one may still appeal a ruling on a matter of law. The difference is that the AC cannot overrule the TD, but only suggest that he reconsider. I suppose that the AC could forward the case to the National Authority (the ACBL in this case) if they felt strongly enough and the TD refused to change the ruling. Or the appellants could do so. In theory, anyway. The ACBL seems to have built fences around this right in law, so in practice it might be a waste of effort.

 

Reporting the TD to anybody would seem to be contraindicated, since his initial ruling was certainly correct.

[Hanoi5]

If I could take my vote back I would. I didn't remember the law about concessions so all declarer could do was to appeal, since in the Director's opinion there was no UI but in his there certainly was.

[BillHiggin]

I do not see anything in the OP that suggests the director was resummoned at the end of play. Of course, that might have happened, but it is not stated. If the literal reading is correct, then there is no ruling to appeal, simply an intstruction which was proper (on good days, the director might have added "and call me after the hand if you feel damage has occurred").

 

Did the director have a chance to rule on the possible infraction?

[Finch]

What blackshoe said, with BillHiggin's qualification.

 

(yeah, I know, another "I agree" post... but as there have been various suggestions made here I thought you might care that I think he's right)

[JoAnneM]

It would be nice to know what kind of game this was, because:

 

1. If a club game and the club has an established appeals policy then a ruling can be appealed, but

2. If a club game and there is no established appeals policy then then the director's ruling stands, although good ones do consult fellow directors, if available.

3 There is no higher jurisdiction for club or unit games for director decisions.

4. At Sectional or Regional Tournaments the process to follow is laid out in the Condition of Contest, which defaults to the ACBL COC if none is available at the tournament level. These COC's usually provide for appeals committees, but never beyond.

5. You can send a letter to ACBL for an "opinion" on a ruling - but it is only that, not binding in any way.

[blackshoe]

Joanne, I think you should read laws 80B2(k), 92, and 93, including the ACBL's elections regarding Law 93 on page 137 of the ACBL version of the law book.