Adjustment questions VI

[xx1943]

Directing a Pairs-MP-tournament I came to a table by chance. I saw declarer claiming 12 tricks in his 6♦ slam. He had not lost a trick and he couldn't loose any trick. Trumps are drawn only high cards in declarers hand and dummy. The claim was accepted and 6♦= appeared in the movie.

 

None of the 4 players registered the mistake. None of them called me.

 

I decided not to adjust for these reasons:

(1) The adjust would be unfair to tables, where the same happened, but I didn't see it.

(2) Imo a wrong claim is identical with a misclick or a miscount .....

 

I'm wondering if my decision had been the same, if one Player (or perhaps all four players) had asked me to do so.

 

What's your opinion to this?

 

Al

[McBruce]

Agree with your actions. If any of the four players asks, adjust after a second look (we all miss things sometimes).

 

Don't forget that you can make such adjustments even some time after the final results are displayed. If this were the last board, I would give the players at least 10 minutes or so to ask for an adjustment. One of my pet peeves is TDs who announce their winners and scram seconds later.

[DrTodd13]

It would be nice if the software could prevent people from failing to claim tricks that are impossible to lose. Moreover, if the software detects that it is impossible for either side not to get the rest of the tricks then the software can itself claim with a message to everyone at the table saying that the result is inevitable. This would be especially useful at the end of the hand to speed things up. It would also help with those cases where someone gets to a ridiculous contract and claims 0 tricks at trick 1. Those results screw up the scores for everyone.

 

So, to sum up, whenever someone claims, have the software check to see if it is impossible any possible line of play to take that number of tricks. Also, the software could make automatic claims when the result on all possible lines of play are identical.

[mink]

Hi Al!

 

First of all lets discuss the question if you should do anything in cases where nobody called. There are 2 spots I have found in the laws that may be relevant to that question.

 

Law 81C:  Director’s Duties and Powers

The Director’s duties and powers normally include the following:

...

6. Errors

to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C.

and

 

LAW 9 _PROCEDURE FOLLOWING AN IRREGULARITY_

...

B. After Attention Is Called to an Irregularity

1. Summoning the Director

  (a) When to Summon

  The Director must be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity.

  (:huh: Who May Summon

  Any player, including dummy, may summon the Director after attention has been drawn to an irregularity.

"... in any manner ..." clearly includes the case that the director learns about an irregularity by chance. And law 9B clearly stated that the director must be summoned at once - "must" here ist the strongest word that the law could possibly use here and emphasizes the intention of the laws that the director should deal with any irregularity.

 

In face to face bridge I would make 2 exceptions, however:

 

1. If I am director and kiebitz a table and see an usufficient bid, I would not intervene because LHO has the right accept this as legal, and he can do so by just making the next bid.

 

2. In case of revokes Law 64B 4. and 5. define the possibility that no penalty is assigned if the non-offending side fails to draw attention to the revoke in time. I conclude from that that in this case it is really the duty of the non-offending side to see the revoke, and it would be wrong if the director would do it on behalf of them.

 

 

The relevant law for accepted claims is

LAW

69 ACQUIESCENCE IN CLAIM OR CONCESSION

 

A. When Acquiescence Occurs

Acquiescence occurs when a contestant assents to an opponent’s claim or concession, and raises no objection to it before his side makes a call on a subsequent board, or before the round ends. The board is scored as though the tricks claimed or conceded had been won or lost in play.

 

B. Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn

Within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C, a contestant may withdraw acquiescence in an opponent’s claim, but only if he has acquiesced in the loss of a trick his side has actually won, or in the loss of trick that could not, in the Director’s judgement, be lost by any normal(20) play of the remaining cards. The board is rescored with such trick awarded to the acquiescing side.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

(20) For the purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71 "normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not irrational.

 

My first observation is that there is it makes a difference at what time the non-offending side withdraws the acceptance of the claim. So I would at least not say anything before the round ends or any call has been made for the next board by the non-offending side. When Law 69B becomes relevant this way, you might lean back because it requires the non-offending side to make a move.

 

But I think this is different from a revoke. At the revoke, it is clearly stated that a penalty must not be assigned when the time is over. These revoke penalties apply even in cases where there was no harm done to the non-offending side, and so it deems right to me that the non-offending side has to call for it. And they lose their rights completely when it is too late.

 

In case of a claim where tricks were claimed (or conceded) that could not be won (or lost), the non-offending is given the opportunity to find an obvious mis-accept until the correction period of law 79C ends. Within this period it is possible e.g. possible to correct wrong entries in the traveller sheet. And this is something the director would do on his own initiative if he discovers some weird score - asking both pairs before of course.

 

And: Claiming is not bridge - it is only a technique invented in order to save time and mental energy. Wrong claims and wrong acceps therefore should not be allowd to stand, no matter how they are discovered. I cannot believe the reason why law 69B states "... a contestant may withdraw ..." is that it really is the exclusive duty of the non-offending side to withdraw an accidental acceptance. Because I think no director would refuse to adjust if the claimer calls later and says he accidentially claimed too many tricks. I would even adjust if a kibitzer tells me about a wrong claim - law 81C6 applies!

 

And another thing: if you see somebody in the north seat conceding 6 tricks in 6ntx at IMPs, obviously in order to punish his partner for something he just said, and opps do accept that, would you let it stand, giving an unfair good score to EW at this table and to the NS pairs at all other tables as well as an unfair bad score to the EW pairs at all other tables? I hope not.

 

About the your reasons not to adjust:

 

(1) not relevant as it is really highly unlikely that the same false claim is made at another table and accepted.

 

(2) There is already a big difference between misclick and miscount: According to BBO regulations you are allowed to ask for an undo _only_ in case of misclick and therefore not in case of miscount - the latter is always a lack of bridge abillities in the moment it occurs and therefore should be allowed to affect the score. The reason why undos in tourney may be disabled is to prevent them from being abused for other cases besides misclicks.

 

But the argument for disallowing undos could also be that in case of the equivilant of a misclick in face to face bridge - showing an unintended card that could be legally played - is not subject to anything like an undo according to the laws. Compared with that, we have law 69 that allows acceptance of claims to be withdrawn within certain limits.

 

Karl

[anssibragge]

Sometimes one does claims giving opponents a trick. Because of doing something wrong earlier. Because of being polite.

 

Let's not make this impossible.

 

abe

[mink]

Sometimes one does claims giving opponents a trick. Because of doing something wrong earlier. Because of being polite.

 

Let's not make this impossible.

 

abe

Sorry, in a tourney this is not just a matter between you and opps; it has always more or less influence on the scores for all other pairs.

 

I strongly object giving a trick in order to be polite. Of course you can do what you like at a table in the main bridge club, but not in a tourney, please. If you think there is a problem please call the director and let him decide. If you think you can do it better by yourself, I ask you not to play in a tourney that I host.

 

Karl

[anssibragge]

So, in a toourney hosted by you, a friendly table shouldn't be able to resolve a situation betwen themselves without you AND the software making decisions about the whole situation?

 

abe

[JRG]

Sometimes one does claims giving opponents a trick. Because of doing something wrong earlier. Because of being polite.

 

Let's not make this impossible.

 

abe

I don't believe this is playing bridge. It might be a socially nice and friendly thing to do, but it is not bridge.

 

An aside:

 

There have been some interesting discussions over the years in The Bridge World about purposefully losing a match when it is to your advantage to do so. The general consensus is that the conditions of contest should be structured in such a way that it can NEVER be to your advantage to throw a match. In fact, even stronger, even if you are guaranteed to win a quarter final (or semi-final), the contest should be structured in such a way that it is still to your advantage to win EVERY match you play.

[mink]

So, in a toourney hosted by you, a friendly table shouldn't be able to resolve a situation betwen themselves without you AND the software making decisions about the whole situation?

 

abe

abe, here I quote law 9B the second time in this thread:

Law 9B. After Attention Is Called to an Irregularity

1. Summoning the Director

  (a) When to Summon

  The Director must be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity

I says _must_. That means if you do not do it you this is a subsequent irregularity produced by you. This is not only true for my own tourneys, but for any tourneys, face to face or online.

 

Karl

[xx1943]

Don't forget that you can make such adjustments even some time after the final results are displayed.

Thanks for this hint.

 

three more questions:

 

(1) Does the leaderboard shows the changes?

(2) Will be the results in bridgebase.com/myhands also changed?

(3) How long after I can make adjusts?

 

Al

[mink]

hi Al,

(1) Does the leaderboard shows the changes?

I believe yes.

(2) Will be the results in bridgebase.com/myhands also changed?

no

(3) How long after I can make adjusts?

As long as the tourey page is visible inside BBO. I believe thie is for about 30 Minutes.

 

Karl

[hotShot]

Hi!

 

Stupid Bidding is not irregular,

stupid play is not irregular and

stupid claims are not irregular.

 

The opponents have a right to get a good score, if the declarer does one of the above.

Irregular would have been, if the dummy tried to correct the claim.

 

So the TD has no right or reason to correct the score here!

 

Have a nice day

hotShot

[mink]

Hi Robert,

 

bridge is about getting the higest score possible without risking too much. In this sense claiming is not playing bridge, as you can never get a better sorce by claiming, except you claim too many tricks and opps do not see this.

 

If you indeed claim too many tricks your are not punished for that, as normally every director would asume you did this accidentially. In trivial cases you just get the tricks afterwards that you would have got if you correctly claimed in the first place.

 

The other side, however, is suddenly in a new situation: all cards are displayed, and you are required to verify the claim unsing that extra information. I sometimes did not see the linie of play though it was obvious, as I overlooked something, so I rejected. This has no negative consequences for me, but only uses time. On the ohter hand, it is not unlikely that the inverse case happens: like the claimer I think I see the obvoius line, but I miss some point and accidently accept a claim for more tricks than possible. If the director would never think of adjusting in such a case, the logical consequence for me should be that I always reject claims - this way I can never accept a false claim, and always rejecting is no disadvantage for me.

 

There is another reasoning that has more merits with directors that never adjust an claim: You might claim early and, if the situation is not really obvious, just intentionally claim one trick more than you would get. Normally opps reject, you play one or to more tricks and then claim the correct number of tricks, saying "sorry for wrong claim". This is no disadvantage at all for the claimer. But sometimes, opps may not see that the claim is wrong and accept. Now you have an advantage. Of course this behaviour could not be prevented, but if the directors usually adjust if somebody recognizes a wrong claim, intentional wrong claims would be less rewarding.

 

 

Maybe with your post you only wanted to vote for not adjusting claims of too few tricks. The please have a look at Law 72A 2.:

Scoring of Tricks Won

A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that his side did not win or the concession of a trick that his opponents could not lose.

If such a claim was accepted, this is indeed an irregularity, and the director should adjust.

 

Karl

[hotShot]

Hello Karl!

 

I see your point now!

 

Have a nice day

Robert

[Rain]

what if at the time of claiming claiming party didn't realise he could take all tricks? And only realised after reviewing of boards? Hence claiming party claimed 12, opponents accepted. Then claiming party realises he could take all 13. He calls director and asks for adjustment.

 

Thanks

 

Rain

[mink]

hi Rain!

 

It depends on when the director is called. If he is called before the end of the round and before the claiming side has made a bid for the next board, the director should adjust if the trick cannot be lost by normal play. After that, the director should only adjust if the trick cannot be lost by any legal play. See:

 

LAW 71 CONCESSION CANCELLED

 

A concession must stand, once made, except that within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C, the Director shall cancel a concession:

 

A. Trick Cannot Be Lost

if a player has conceded a trick his side had, in fact, won, or a trick his side could not have lost by any legal play of the remaining cards.

 

B. Contract Already Fulfilled or Defeated

if declarer has conceded defeat of a contract he had already fulfilled, or a defender has conceded fulfilment of a contract his side had already defeated.

 

C. Implausible Concession

if a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. Until the conceding side makes a call on a subsequent board, or until the round ends, the Director shall cancel the concession of a trick that could not have been lost by any normal play of the remaining cards.

Karl

[sfbp]

There IS a problem in the software that causes the number of tricks claimed to change if someone manages to play a card while the claim is being made. I say "problem" not "bug". Usually the client software fixes the claim as it is being made. However it is still, IMO technically possible to make an incorrect claim by no fault (not even an error) but only because of some weird sequence of events.

 

Maybe this is even what happened. I doubt it because usually the error is in the other direction (eg you claimed 12 and got 13). But the principle is the same - if everyone agrees that the claim was for n tricks, then n tricks should be the result.

 

This would tend to suggest that unless declarer did his claim deliberately and opponents accepted, the result should stand. Many times I have seen an honest declarer "adjust" his own claim because it was easier than an undo for an bovious misclick (the infamous "double-click" bug) which was obvious but not permitted. Which is the worse perturbation of the matchpoint scores in this case?

 

Cheers

 

Stephen