Disagreement on tricks won

[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]

"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]

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]

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

Why not?

[bluejak]

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.

 

:ph34r:

 

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.

 

:D

 

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

 

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. :lol:

[Cascade]

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

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

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

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

Of "shall" the Introduction says

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]

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]

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]

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. :P

[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]

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

[bluejak]

Well, it is less that 24 hours since this happened at my table. I am quite sure I said "Two off" and no-one disagreed. All cards were shuffled - new Law, of course - returned to the board but when I scored it my opponents told me it was one off.

 

I would not like you to have come to the table and ruled that all four of us were lying when we said it had been played. I think it is actually a disgraceful suggestion that you assume that to be the case.

[blackshoe]

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

You don't get to solve one hypothetical situation by inventing a completely different one, Sven. In the situation at hand, the board was played. Live with it. Accept it. Don't try to change the scenario.

 

It is law 12A2 that uses the term "normal play".

[Sven Pran]

Well, it is less that 24 hours since this happened at my table. I am quite sure I said "Two off" and no-one disagreed. All cards were shuffled - new Law, of course - returned to the board but when I scored it my opponents told me it was one off.

 

I would not like you to have come to the table and ruled that all four of us were lying when we said it had been played. I think it is actually a disgraceful suggestion that you assume that to be the case.

OK.

 

Status:

 

I have two sides agreeing on the contract played but one claiming one off and the other claiming two off. No result has so far been recorded but all four players have shyffled their cards and returned them to the board, thus violating Laws 65D and 79A, possibly also Law 72B3.

 

Neither side enjoys more credibility than the other. Consequently I consider both sides at fault for the situation.

 

If time permits I might consider having the four players repeat the board under my supervision, I shall expect them to be able to reliably doing just that. However, in this case I shall issue a procedural penalty to each side of at least 10% of a top score for causing delay to the arrangement.

 

My favourite ruling is to award a split score with each side receiving the score that is most unfavourable for its side.

 

However, unless a regulation prohibits weighted scores I might also choose to ignore the fact that both sides are at fault and assign a weighted adjusted score with each of the two alternatives given the same weight.

 

 

I cannot help feeling that this is a constructed case with little relevance in real life? During my 30 years of directing I have never experienced such a situation without the players being able to agree on the result with much less ado.

 

Sven

[bluejak]

Differences over tricks are quite common, and your suggestion they do not occur is ludicrous. In my view we had agreed the tricks last night. Your suggestion that if not lying you are going to fine us because our very inexperienced opponents had misunderstood the agreed number of tricks is unacceptable. We teach our players that the TD is their friend: if they called you over such a disagreement and you decided if they were not lying you would fine them then they woudl no longer believe us.

 

I think you need a complete re-appraisal of oyur attitude to bridge players. Your presumptions that they are lying, cheating or whatever is just not true: they are often not very good and decent TDs help them.

[blackshoe]

I think that Sven is saying that the possibility that no player can reconstruct the play is remote — so obviously he hasn't played at my local club. :)

 

That said, Sven did say he expected these players were lying, in spite of the fact the original scenario (deliberately) gave no such impression. I agree that such a pre-disposition is not good in a director (at any level).

 

Sven, I've asked as least twice for the legal basis and rationale behind the ruling in this case. While your latest seems to agree with my conclusion, it doesn't show the reasoning. Can you do that, please?

[Cascade]

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

This will do for me:

 

"LAW 12 - DIRECTOR’S DISCRETIONARY POWERS

A. Power to Award an Adjusted Score

On the application of a player within the period established under Law 92B

or on his own initiative the Director may award an adjusted score when

these Laws empower him to do so (in team play see Law 86). This includes:

1. The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws

do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular

type of violation committed by an opponent."

 

When I am adjusting for NS I consider EW non-offenders - they did not cause NS to disturb their cards.

 

When I am adjusting for EW I consider NS non-offenders.

[Sven Pran]

I think that Sven is saying that the possibility that no player can reconstruct the play is remote — so obviously he hasn't played at my local club. :D

 

That said, Sven did say he expected these players were lying, in spite of the fact the original scenario (deliberately) gave no such impression. I agree that such a pre-disposition is not good in a director (at any level).

 

Sven, I've asked as least twice for the legal basis and rationale behind the ruling in this case. While your latest seems to agree with my conclusion, it doesn't show the reasoning. Can you do that, please?

Sorry, I thought I made it clear: The basis for my favourite ruling is that no result has been agreed upon and cannot be decided with better probability than 50% for each of two alternatives. Both sides are at fault for this situation.

 

To me this is sufficient for applying Law 12C1(e)(ii) for both sides.

 

Alternatively I can apply Law 12C1© if I feel like disregarding their "at fault" status.

 

 

I am surprised that this sort of happenings are common; do we live in different worlds?

 

When I have been called to tables because of disagreement on a result my experience is that players and Director cooperate and settle the question to everybody's satisfaction within seconds, usually because players know that they have nothing to say if they have disordered their cards. I suppose that the fact we are using Bridgemate helps as well (the technology forces dicipline).

 

Sven

[Cascade]

I suppose that the fact we are using Bridgemate helps as well (the technology forces dicipline).

At last an advantage for using Bridgemates :D

[Sven Pran]

I suppose that the fact we are using Bridgemate helps as well (the technology forces dicipline).

At last an advantage for using Bridgemates :)

One of the minor advantages :)

 

Regards Sven

[McBruce]

OK, I'll bite. How exactly do Bridgemates prevent players from mixing their cards before they agree on a result?