Error in Score

[One Short]

England

 

The traveller shows that one particular pair bid and made 3NT

This is disputed by a pair who, having played the same board later at another table, claim that it was impossible to arrive at the contract of 3NT let alone make it

Their objection was made soon after the session ended

They want it put right

Nobody at the 3NT table kept a scorecard

Not yet resolved and the debate rages on

 

What now?

 

What should really have happened?

[blackshoe]

I can't find any law that permits a contestant to protest a score at another table on these grounds. Nonetheless, if upon investigation the TD finds evidence that the recorded score was wrong, he can "put it right" (Law 79C1). It sounds here like no such evidence was found, so the score stands.

[Phil]

I wish I had a nickel for every time a table called me after looking at the traveler and said, "This score is wrong, there's no way you can make (fill in the blank)" B)

[campboy]

This is disputed by a pair who, having played the same board later at another table, claim that it was impossible to arrive at the contract of 3NT let alone make it

On the contrary, there are, by my count, 12443642546855641088 ways for the pair in question to have arrived at 3NT.

[Cyberyeti]

I have seen in clubs somebody write the word revoke next to a score like this on the traveller which tends to prevent some of the tortured enquiries.

 

I've also had one of these where there was no rational explanation. Defence had 4 tricks, dummy clearly had all winners, but had played 2 cards to one of the previous tricks. Declarer (my pard) claimed, 3N= was scored, and we went home none the wiser till we reconstructed the play in the car.

[Pict]

I suppose the complainants (from the information given) complained that:

 

a. The contract was unreachable in a normal auction

 

b. If reached, was unmakeable by normal play

 

It was the combination of two highly improbable events that attracted their attention and complaint.

 

We have recently seen obsessive discussion on this general theme. So I don't understand the pretended mystification of posters so far.

[campboy]

The point is that we all see implausible numbers of tricks made in implausible contracts all the time in clubs.

[Pict]

Well that closes a number of threads, past and future, Campboy.

[peachy]

Nothing should have happened. The board was scored and both sides agreed to the score at the time. A number of things can have happened to make the score the actual score that was achieved.

 

If there is a history somehow/somewhere of wrong scores by this scorekeeper, then still "Nothing" when there are no private scorecards to look it up and nobody remembers anything.

[bluejak]

It all reminds me of a hand in one of the London events some years ago where a player told me a score on the traveller was "impossible", being a 3-3 fit that had made. As TD of course I had to check. It turned out to have been played by Roman Smolski.

 

"Oh, yes, David," said Roman, " I remember that hand: would you like me to tell you about the bidding and the play?"

 

"No," I said, firmly, clearly, loudly and completely unsuccessfully. So I had to listen to four minutes of Roman telling me how to bid and play a 2S contract in a 3-3 fit.

 

The answer, One Short, is that since it was brought to the TD's attention, he must investigate. But he should be very wary of the word "impossible" in either bidding or play, and if he cannot find out any facts to support the view that it was impossible, the result stands. The situation, as can be seen elsewhere in this thread, is very common.

[aguahombre]

It was the combination of two highly improbable events that attracted their attention and complaint.

 

We have recently seen obsessive discussion on this general theme.  So I don't understand the pretended mystification of posters so far.

Yes, it was a combo. Yes, we have seen the obsessive discussion.

 

But no one has shown that the combination of two highly improbable events, or the collective opinions of every expert in the world, constitutes evidence that an irregularity ocurred on this hand. It might convince me, but there is nothing in 85A1 which --the way I read it--- allows a director to rule "balance of probabilities" when there is no dispute as to actual facts, but merely supposition or disbelief.

[McBruce]

At least somebody has sought out the TD and raised the possibility of error. Some clubs at which I have directed have members of the International Question Mark Brigade (usually seated North, but if there is a late-arriving North who is obliged to sit East or West it is not unknown for him to forcefully express his views and force the addition).

 

IQMB members love to add question marks to scores that they suspect when they view the traveler. (Usually the score is a good one for another North-South pair; strangely, they don't seem to notice an error that benefits N-S as often.)

 

However, the IQMB considers it poor form for the TD to be called; instead, the TD is expected to rush out into the parking lot in search of the pair who can confirm the score when he finally gets the travelers at the end of the game (often after discovering it under someone's drink while people are leaving). Sometimes the reason for the question mark is a complete mystery:

 

3S....E....+1.......-----...170........?

 

A few weeks ago I encountered a different type of traveler violation:

 

6N....N...+1.....1470

6D....N...+1.....1390

6N....N... = .....1460

6N....N...+1.....1470

3N....N...+4.....710

6N....N...+1.....1470

6N....N... = .....1460

6N....N...+1.....1470

6N....N...+1.....1480

 

The last player (scoring from the top down) decided that since he was playing in notrump he was deserving of an extra ten points. Because it was the last round, there were no members of the IQMB to express their disapproval.

 

And when I entered it into ACBLScore, the program just assumed they were in 4S**+1, which it did not find unusual enough to express its disapproval with a beep or even an on-screen highlight. :)

[jdonn]

The traveller shows that one particular pair bid and made 3NT

This is disputed by a pair who, having played the same board later at another table, claim that it was impossible to arrive at the contract of 3NT let alone make it

It's always possible to get there and make it, especially at the club. And it always happens. You need more than a hunch to change a score.

[iviehoff]

I suppose the complainants (from the information given) complained that:

 

a. The contract was unreachable in a normal auction

 

b. If reached, was unmakeable by normal play

 

It was the combination of two highly improbable events that attracted their attention and complaint.

Actually if you are in an implausible contract, you have often a better chance of making an implausibly large number of tricks in that denomination than if you were in a plausible contract. This is because sometimes the defence don't realise you are in an implausible contract, and play as if you have the cards you ought to have, so you can pull the wool over their eyes. This scenario has resulted in several of my most pleasing bridge memories.

 

What really irked me on one occasion was with a pick-up partner of some supposed experience who, early in the session, overbid utterbeginnerishly to put me in an implausible 3N contract, which I then implausibly made (by above technique) it for a cold top (not yet visible on the scoresheet); but then appeared completely oblivious of the miracle wrought before her eyes, and provided not even a routine "well done".

[bluejak]

That's normal. I also find embarrassing is to completely misplay a cold 3NT, misguess every suit, only for the opponents to block their suit, endplay themselves and give me the contract. I find partner's "Well done" somewhat ill-timed! :rolleyes:

[ggwhiz]

I once had a director call where north pointed out a previous score of 2♦ down four and said "that's impossible, we have a 4-1 ♦ fit."

 

I asked what her contract was and she said "2♦ but I went down five."

 

Result stands.

[PeterAlan]

It all reminds me of a hand in one of the London events some years ago where a player told me a score on the traveller was "impossible", being a 3-3 fit that had made.  As TD of course I had to check.  It turned out to have been played by Roman Smolski.

 

"Oh, yes, David," said Roman, " I remember that hand: would you like me to tell you about the bidding and the play?"

 

"No," I said, firmly, clearly, loudly and completely unsuccessfully.  So I had to listen to four minutes of Roman telling me how to bid and play a 2S contract in a 3-3 fit.

 

The answer, One Short, is that since it was brought to the TD's attention, he must investigate.  But he should be very wary of the word "impossible" in either bidding or play, and if he cannot find out any facts to support the view that it was impossible, the result stands.  The situation, as can be seen elsewhere in this thread, is very common.

Partner and I have bid and made 4H on a 3-3 fit and a perfectly sensible auction (3S-X-P-4H, where both hands were playing partner to have 4+ hearts).

 

Moreover, there was no defence to it and it was the only making game.

 

PeterAlan

[Pict]

The only time I recall putting a ? against a club score is when the score and the contract and the vulnerability didn't match (ie incoherence).

 

The rest of the judgments here are (IMO) just possibly relevant, more often self-congratulatory, but don't particularly match the OP.

 

I would have thought the obvious next step from the OP would be to consult the players who conceded the 'unlikely' score.

 

Consulting people who have once had a similar lucky experience seems to me completely pointless. Sitting around chewing the fat about your own (as TD) miraculous scores, seems insulting to the players who approached you.

[Echognome]

A few weeks ago I encountered a different type of traveler violation:

 

6N....N...+1.....1470

6D....N...+1.....1390

6N....N... = .....1460 ?

6N....N...+1.....1470

3N....N...+4.....710

6N....N...+1.....1470

6N....N... = .....1460 ?

6N....N...+1.....1470

6N....N...+1.....1480 ?

 

The last player (scoring from the top down) decided that since he was playing in notrump he was deserving of an extra ten points. Because it was the last round, there were no members of the IQMB to express their disapproval.

 

And when I entered it into ACBLScore, the program just assumed they were in 4S**+1, which it did not find unusual enough to express its disapproval with a beep or even an on-screen highlight. :)

My application for the IQMB is above.

[bluejak]

The only time  I recall putting a ? against a club score is when the score and the contract and the vulnerability didn't match (ie incoherence).

Don't you think summoning the TD and pointing the alleged incorrect score out to him would be:

• helpful, and
  
• timely, and
  
• courteous, and
  
• following the Laws of bridge?
  

Is not sticking a question mark so that the TD sees it at the end after half the players have gone and it is difficult for him to do anything about it:

• posturing, and
  
• discourteous, and
  
• wastes time, and
  
• leads to wrong results?
  

[jdonn]

Is not sticking a question mark so that the TD sees it at the end after half the players have gone and it is difficult for him to do anything about it:

• 
   
   
  
• posturing, and
   
   
  
• discourteous, and
   
   
  
• wastes time, and
   
   
  
• leads to wrong results?
   
   
  

It's possibly 3, and possibly 4, but definitely not 1 and 2, that is a gross overreaction. Especially if the situation is a small or medium sized game with a playing director then I think this is normal, players tend not to leave until they have seen how they did and you don't risk the director seeing the scores for a board he hasn't played.

[campboy]

The only time  I recall putting a ? against a club score is when the score and the contract and the vulnerability didn't match (ie incoherence).

Don't you think summoning the TD and pointing the alleged incorrect score out to him would be:

• helpful, and
  
• timely, and
  
• courteous, and
  
• following the Laws of bridge?
  

Is not sticking a question mark so that the TD sees it at the end after half the players have gone and it is difficult for him to do anything about it:

• posturing, and
  
• discourteous, and
  
• wastes time, and
  
• leads to wrong results?
  

That depends. If there is a non-playing TD then of course you should always call him, but if there is a playing TD who is due to play the board in a later round (which is usually easy enough to verify) then drawing attention to it with a question mark will ensure that he sees it as soon as he has played the board and is ready to deal with it.

[bluejak]

My experience is that they put a question mark with a non-playing TD, and with a playing TD who has played the board. I found it very annoying.

[shintaro]

:D

 

what constitutes a 'sensible' auction

 

is 1NT p - 2♥-p - p - p

 

a sensible auction

 

The transfer to ♠ being passed

 

 

played in a 2 - 1 fit making 8 tricks when opps holding 5 ♥ each decide not to double and trap Declarer

 

Declarer then made 5 top outside tricks and 3 Ruffs for 8

 

Club level at every table from then on Calling director saying it is IMPOSSIBLE

[pran]

In one club where I am a regular playing director I often found question marks on the traveller next to funny results when I scored the travellers at home after the event. (This is a small club with just about four or five tables playing old-fashioned Howell and recording results on paper)

 

I told the players that I cannot deal with question marks (only) and nobody to ask, I need something more substantial to work on.

 

The results that are at all legally possible remain unchanged by me, I correct impossible recordings to what in my opinion seem most likely, but now I see very few such question marks any more.