Not the best claim ever

[jallerton]

I understand they just called the TD.

I think the correct procedure for the TD is then to ask East/West how many tricks they actually want. If they specify a number then that is the agreed number of tricks per Law 69A.

 

Yes, there may need to be an adjustment under Law 71 if the number of agreed tricks could not have been arrived at under "normal" play, but given declarer's state of mind, "normal" might well include playing misere. Hence:

 

then it becomes a double dummy problem to see how declarer can restrict himself through legal plays to the minimum number of tricks.

 

seems entirely reasonable.

[mjj29]

But what surprised me is that according to Law 71 it seems as if the Director shall try the concession even if he becomes aware of it simply by accident?

It's not that surprising, surely, given L81C3 (emphasis mine):

to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner within the correction period ...

[pran]

But what surprised me is that according to Law 71 it seems as if the Director shall try the concession even if he becomes aware of it simply by accident?

It's not that surprising, surely, given L81C3 (emphasis mine):

to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner within the correction period ...

Well, I cannot say that I consider a concession to be an error or irregularity? :unsure: :) :D

[blackshoe]

Well, I cannot say that I consider a concession to be an error or irregularity? :unsure: :rolleyes: :D

Not in itself, but surely conceding tricks one cannot lose is an error.

[dburn]

Yes, there may need to be an adjustment under Law 71 if the number of agreed tricks could not have been arrived at under "normal" play, but given declarer's state of mind, "normal" might well include playing misere.  Hence:

 

then it becomes a double dummy problem to see how declarer can restrict himself through legal plays to the minimum number of tricks.

 

seems entirely reasonable.

This is actually quite a difficult "helpmate" problem - can North take no tricks with spades as trumps, assuming the best defence and the worst play?

 

But it is not "entirely reasonable" for anyone to be called upon to solve it as part of the administration of a game of bridge.

 

Suppose that with the ruling on this board outstanding, the (knock-out) match score is plus 1 IMP to North-South's team, and that East-West at the other table record plus 400 (unlikely, but they might have defended a higher-level spade cue bid and defeated it eight tricks on "normal" play - bridge is a funny game, although it is not intended to be).

 

Now: if North is ruled down eight or fewer in three spades, he wins the match; if he is ruled down nine, he loses it. Is jallerton's notion simply that because of North's outburst when he found himself declarer in 3♠, a Committee should be formed that might or might not solve the tricky problem of whether North could, if he made strenuous efforts, have gone down nine?

[pran]

Well, I cannot say that I consider a concession to be an error or irregularity? :unsure:  :rolleyes:  :D

Not in itself, but surely conceding tricks one cannot lose is an error.

Not a legal error????

What law is violated?

[axman]

Yes, there may need to be an adjustment under Law 71 if the number of agreed tricks could not have been arrived at under "normal" play, but given declarer's state of mind, "normal" might well include playing misere.  Hence:

 

then it becomes a double dummy problem to see how declarer can restrict himself through legal plays to the minimum number of tricks.

 

seems entirely reasonable.

This is actually quite a difficult "helpmate" problem - can North take no tricks with spades as trumps, assuming the best defence and the worst play?

 

But it is not "entirely reasonable" for anyone to be called upon to solve it as part of the administration of a game of bridge.

 

Suppose that with the ruling on this board outstanding, the (knock-out) match score is plus 1 IMP to North-South's team, and that East-West at the other table record plus 400 (unlikely, but they might have defended a higher-level spade cue bid and defeated it eight tricks on "normal" play - bridge is a funny game, although it is not intended to be).

 

Now: if North is ruled down eight or fewer in three spades, he wins the match; if he is ruled down nine, he loses it. Is jallerton's notion simply that because of North's outburst when he found himself declarer in 3♠, a Committee should be formed that might or might not solve the tricky problem of whether North could, if he made strenuous efforts, have gone down nine?

It would seem that equity would be served if the defenders offered a line of play. And then it would be straight forward for the TD to tally the resulting tricks with accuracy. Presumably there is left about 3 minutes of the allotted time for the board and it would therefore be reasonable to give those 3 minutes to the defenders to give it their best shot.

 

It might be noticed that such an approach will result in some semblance of the hand being solved by the players.

[Pig Trader]

This must all have happened towards the end of the teams in the upstairs section as I was one of the TDs and never heard about this incident! But while on the Harrogate Congress, I had to complement one of my collegues on his cool quick response to

 

"If you rule against me, I'm never playing in any EBU event ever again!"

 

which was

 

"I really don't think that you wanted to say that to me!"

 

and it elicited

 

"No, I didn't. I apologise!"

 

Barrie :rolleyes:

[shintaro]

This must all have happened towards the end of the teams in the upstairs section as I was one of the TDs and never heard about this incident! But while on the Harrogate Congress, I had to complement one of my collegues on his cool quick response to

 

"If you rule against me, I'm never playing in any EBU event ever again!"

 

which was

 

"I really don't think that you wanted to say that to me!"

 

and it elicited

 

"No, I didn't. I apologise!"

 

Barrie  :rolleyes:

Lol as an aside a colleague of ours at Brighton a few years back said to me 'If you rule against me I shall appeal'

 

That got him 1VP fine and asked if he wished to go for more:: also he should remember he was playing on the Balcony:: and its a long way down :D :)

[jdonn]

Bridge in Britain sounds fun! :rolleyes:

[pran]

Lol as an aside a colleague of ours at Brighton a few years back said to me 'If you rule against me I shall appeal'

 

That got him 1VP fine and asked if he wished to go for more:: also he should remember he was playing on the Balcony:: and its a long way down :D :)

Incredible!

 

I would take the statement 'If you rule against me I shall appeal' as information, not as a threat.

 

What was the justification for fining him? He simply informed you in advance that he was prepared to execute his privilege of appealing any ruling that would affect him in an unfavourable way.

[blackshoe]

The last time a player said something like that to me, she quite clearly was attempting to influence my ruling. Maybe she did. As annoyed as I was by her comment, I ruled in her favor. The opponents appealed, and the committee changed my ruling. :)

[shintaro]

Lol as an aside a colleague of ours at Brighton a few years back said to me 'If you rule against me I shall appeal'

 

That got him 1VP fine and asked if he wished to go for more:: also he should remember he was playing on the Balcony:: and its a long way down  :D  ;)

Incredible!

 

I would take the statement 'If you rule against me I shall appeal' as information, not as a threat.

 

What was the justification for fining him? He simply informed you in advance that he was prepared to execute his privilege of appealing any ruling that would affect him in an unfavourable way.

mmm here we do not tolerate players making such comments ;)

[jdonn]

He simply informed you in advance that he was prepared to execute his privilege of appealing any ruling that would affect him in an unfavourable way.

Politely stated definition of a threat?

[pran]

He simply informed you in advance that he was prepared to execute his privilege of appealing any ruling that would affect him in an unfavourable way.

Politely stated definition of a threat?

I can honestly state that I would never let such remarks from a player influence my ruling and I am surprised that any trained Director who knows his business might.

 

If a player acts improperly and without the required respect towards the Director it is of course a different matter, but simply informing the Director in an acceptable manner that he will if neccessary appeal my ruling is no such case. And I saw no threat in the OP presentation.

[jallerton]

I think it rather depends on the tone used. Some players might say something like this to a TD they know well in a manner such that they are clearly joking. In sounds as though the tone of the remark was rather different in the case Shintaro cites.

[lamford]

I think it rather depends on the tone used.  Some players might say something like this to a TD they know well in a manner such that they are clearly joking.  In sounds as though the tone of the remark was rather different in the case Shintaro cites.

No it doesn't. Shintaro began "Lol as an aside a colleague of ours at Brighton a few years back said to me". I understand that you may not be familiar with "newspeak" but I believe Lol means "laughing out loud". And the clause "Lol as an aside" is used to describe how the colleague stated it. In addition, as he was described as a colleague, rather than just another competitor; that suggests he was well-known to the TD, whose 1VP fine does seem rather draconian. Also, if the TD had made any suggestion that he would be thrown off the balcony, he should immediately complain to the chief TD, unless, of course, the threat was made in an obviously joking manner, but even then such a comment has no place whatsoever in a bridge tournament.

[bluejak]

It is a clear threat that if you rule against him he will appeal, and as such is unacceptable. How bad is a different matter. But it shows a complete lack of respect for the process.

[jdonn]

And the clause "Lol as an aside" is used to describe how the colleague stated it.

It looks to me like "as an aside" is used to describe the context in the current conversation in this thread and has nothing to do with how the colleague stated anything.

 

Also, if the TD had made any suggestion that he would be thrown off the balcony, he should immediately complain to the chief TD, unless, of course, the threat was made in an obviously joking manner, but even then such a comment has no place whatsoever in a bridge tournament.

Ah, we have found something better than legislating judgment out of bridge. Let's legislate the fun out!

[lamford]

It looks to me like "as an aside" is used to describe the context in the current conversation in this thread and has nothing to do with how the colleague stated anything.

That is not my understanding of grammar; and why would it be of interest to know that the person posting to the thread was laughing out loud, if nobody could hear him?

[pran]

It is a clear threat that if you rule against him he will appeal, and as such is unacceptable.  How bad is a different matter.  But it shows a complete lack of respect for the process.

A Director who lets his ruling become influenced by extraneous remarks (or even real threats) that has no relevance in the case is not worth his salt.

 

"Threatening" to execute one's perfectly legal rights is no threat as such.

 

"I'll break your leg if you rule against me" is on the other hand obvioously a clear threat.

[lamford]

"I'll break your leg if you rule against me" is on the other hand obvioously a clear threat.

But suggesting that you will throw someone off the balcony is just "fun".

[bluejak]

A Director who lets his ruling become influenced by extraneous remarks (or even real threats) that has no relevance in the case is not worth his salt.

No-one apart from you has suggested that a TD would let himself be influenced by such a threat, so I do not why you are repeating this which has nothing to do with anything in the thread.

 

There is a question as to whether this constitutes a threat, and how it should be dealt with. There is no question whatever as to whether a TD should be influenced by such a threat.

[nige1]

Lol as an aside a colleague of ours at Brighton a few years back said to me 'If you rule against me I shall appeal'

That got him 1VP fine and asked if he wished to go for more:: also he should remember he was playing on the Balcony:: and its a long way down  :D  :)

It is a clear threat that if you rule against him he will appeal, and as such is unacceptable.  How bad is a different matter.  But it shows a complete lack of respect for the process.

Telling the director that you intend to appeal an adverse ruling is blatant Lèse majesté. Mercifully, Bridge law prescribes a disciplinary penalty in the first instance, reserving capital punishment for a repeat offence.

[Vampyr]

I don't understand any of this. If a director comes to the table and gives a ruling, and a player says he is appealing, the director has to go get him an appeal form. Isn't a player who says in advance that he will appeal just saving the director a trip?