Impossible to accept Claims

[cloa513]

[hv=pc=n&s=shdjc&w=shdakq6542c&n=shdt987c&e=shd3c]399|300[/hv]

 

The contact is 7DXX

Declarer has no other losers.

After the lead of A♠ is ruffed and and A♦D is lead, declarer claims and opponents accept!!!

 

Not exactly those hands but distribution and honours are right for hands.

[Free]

Your point being? If NS don't investigate the a claim, it's their own problem...

[bucky]

Well, calling attention on this hand is not just for the benefit of the NS involved, it is for the fairness to other pairs as well...

[mikestar13]

Well, calling attention on this hand is not just for the benefit of the NS involved, it is for the fairness to other pairs as well...

 

The laws don't provide field protection for this case.

[blackshoe]

Per Law 69B, acquiescence in a claim can be withdrawn within the correction period specified by Law 79C (i.e., within 30 minutes of the posting of the scores, or such other period as the TO may - in written regulations available to all players prior to the start of the event — specify). It's up to the claimer's opponents to do so, however. If they don't, the agreed score stands. The fact that if the hand was played out the defense would have got another trick is irrelevant. OTOH, if the TD is called, he should give the defense their trick, since there's no way they can lose it.

[ggwhiz]

Seems like an innocent mistake and as blackshoe points out, can only be corrected legally by the N/S side withdrawing their acceptance.

 

I don't know any E/W pairs that would try to profit by the lack of that, nor would I want to and have seen quite a few ask for the proper adjustment themselves.

[blackshoe]

It did not seem to me that there is any reason to believe that the claiming side was aware that they claimed a trick they couldn't, on the lie of the cards, possibly win. It still doesn't. B)

[bucky]

Per Law 69B, acquiescence in a claim can be withdrawn within the correction period specified by Law 79C (i.e., within 30 minutes of the posting of the scores, or such other period as the TO may - in written regulations available to all players prior to the start of the event — specify). It's up to the claimer's opponents to do so, however. If they don't, the agreed score stands. The fact that if the hand was played out the defense would have got another trick is irrelevant. OTOH, if the TD is called, he should give the defense their trick, since there's no way they can lose it.

This seems like a loophole then. What if someone deliberately wants to give away matchpoints (I am not saying this N/S pair is)? I thought the law is supposed to restore equity to the game. If the E/W pair gets an undeserving score for whatever the reason, the law should protect the other pairs in the field.

[blackshoe]

Generally speaking, the Law does not "protect the field". I'm pretty sure the concept is not supported by the lawmakers.

 

Deliberately giving away matchpoints, OTOH, is generally a violation of conditions of contest, and would be handled by the sanctions in those CoC.

[bucky]

Generally speaking, the Law does not "protect the field". I'm pretty sure the concept is not supported by the lawmakers.

 

Deliberately giving away matchpoints, OTOH, is generally a violation of conditions of contest, and would be handled by the sanctions in those CoC.

In the case of dealing with revoke, the exact wording of "restore equity" is used. I don't know if that is the general spirit or principle that applies to other parts of the law. In my view, fairness should be the overriding principle in any competitive game. This is not always achievable in reality, but it should be the goal.

[blackshoe]

In the case of dealing with revoke, the exact wording of "restore equity" is used. I don't know if that is the general spirit or principle that applies to other parts of the law. In my view, fairness should be the overriding principle in any competitive game. This is not always achievable in reality, but it should be the goal.

 

Different people have different ideas about what constitutes "fairness". TDs are constrained to follow the laws and regulations in force.

 

IAC, when the TD is not called, he's not going to do anything. Whether that's "fair" or not seems a moot point.

[bucky]

Different people have different ideas about what constitutes "fairness". TDs are constrained to follow the laws and regulations in force.

 

IAC, when the TD is not called, he's not going to do anything. Whether that's "fair" or not seems a moot point.

I understand. The question I raise is whether others (not the players involved) are allowed to spot the irregularity and bring it to TD's attention.

[barmar]

I understand. The question I raise is whether others (not the players involved) are allowed to spot the irregularity and bring it to TD's attention.

No. Kibbitzers are not allowed to participate in the game, unless a TD asks them a question.

 

I think there was a recent case in a major tournament where a kibbitzer or Vugraph operator reported a revoke. I think it was decided that the TD couldn't act on this.

[bucky]

No. Kibbitzers are not allowed to participate in the game, unless a TD asks them a question.

 

I think there was a recent case in a major tournament where a kibbitzer or Vugraph operator reported a revoke. I think it was decided that the TD couldn't act on this.

I meant players at other tables, upon examining the hand record, can they report the incident? Let's take an extreme (and imaginary) case. Say there are two boards a round, in a particular round a pair scores 7NTXX -13 on both boards for -7600. Is there nothing that can be done?

[barmar]

As far as the Laws are concerned, I don't think there's any difference between players at other tables ad kibbitzers. The only exception, I think, is team games, where other team members can also get involved.

[Zelandakh]

As far as the Laws are concerned, I don't think there's any difference between players at other tables ad kibbitzers. The only exception, I think, is team games, where other team members can also get involved.

I do not believe this is correct. Say you are in a Pairs game and the winning pair made a slam from such an impossible claim which turned a bottom into a top. Now say that the difference between first and second was less than this number of MPs. I believe the second-placed pair have the right to appeal here as long as the impossibility of the claim is verifiable. (I might be wrong though)

[blackshoe]

I do not believe this is correct. Say you are in a Pairs game and the winning pair made a slam from such an impossible claim which turned a bottom into a top. Now say that the difference between first and second was less than this number of MPs. I believe the second-placed pair have the right to appeal here as long as the impossibility of the claim is verifiable. (I might be wrong though)

 

I'm afraid you are wrong. A contestant (in a pairs contest, a pair, in a team contest the team) may appeal a ruling made at their table. In the case you hypothesize, there was no ruling, so there is no right for anyone to appeal. Equally, only an involved contestant may ask for a ruling. So there is no right for someone else to ask for one.

 

OTOH, the director is required to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware "in any manner". Even so, in this case, there was no irregularity, the defenders simply failed to contest the claim. Suppose, though, that the second place pair went to the defenders here, and convinced them to withdraw their acquiescence in the claim. Now the TD has to rule on that. I think I would "turn the top into a bottom" as you say, and then issue a PP to the second place pair large enough to ensure they don't come first.

[bucky]

I'm afraid you are wrong. A contestant (in a pairs contest, a pair, in a team contest the team) may appeal a ruling made at their table. In the case you hypothesize, there was no ruling, so there is no right for anyone to appeal. Equally, only an involved contestant may ask for a ruling. So there is no right for someone else to ask for one.

 

OTOH, the director is required to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware "in any manner". Even so, in this case, there was no irregularity, the defenders simply failed to contest the claim. Suppose, though, that the second place pair went to the defenders here, and convinced them to withdraw their acquiescence in the claim. Now the TD has to rule on that. I think I would "turn the top into a bottom" as you say, and then issue a PP to the second place pair large enough to ensure they don't come first.

Why would you give the second place pair a PP for simply talking to the defenders involved to correct an error? What did they do wrong?

[blackshoe]

Why would you give the second place pair a PP for simply talking to the defenders involved to correct an error? What did they do wrong?

 

They tried to influence the result of the match in their favor.

[NickRW]

Surely pairs sitting in the opposite direction to the lazy defenders here are in the same position as the other pair in a team match and are involved parties. I don't remember - does the law specifically make the case that team matches are different to pairs games in this particular respect? (And if it does and it applies in this scenario, then arguably the wording of the law is bad).

 

Nick

[NickRW]

They tried to influence the result of the match in their favor.

 

So you think that the 2nd place pair should not only be deprived of something that many would say they deserved but then should be stamped on for trying to correct the injustice. Welcome to the police state in Bridge!

[gnasher]

They tried to influence the result of the match in their favor.

 

Which rule did they break by doing that?

[blackshoe]

The law speaks, as I said in my first post, to "contestants". The contestants involved at a particular table in a particular hand are the ones who have a right to request a ruling or to appeal one. In a pairs game, that means the pairs at the table, not the pairs at other tables.

 

Police state? Not hardly.

 

What rule did they break? Off the top of my head, I don't know for sure. If there isn't one, I suppose I'll have to withdraw the PP - and then I'll be the one arguing the law is wrong (but not in this forum).

[gnasher]

What rule did they break? Off the top of my head, I don't know for sure. If there isn't one, I suppose I'll have to withdraw the PP - and then I'll be the one arguing the law is wrong (but not in this forum).

 

This might be a cultural difference, but I think it's better if the director determines what rule has been broken before issuing a penalty.

[Bbradley62]

LAW 71

CONCESSION CANCELED

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

1. if a player conceded a trick his side had, in fact, won; or

2. if a player has conceded a trick that could not be lost by any normal* play of the remaining cards. The board is rescored with such trick awarded to his side.

* For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, normal includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved.

 

LAW 79

TRICKS WON

C. Error in Score

1. An error in computing or tabulating the agreedupon score, whether made by a player or scorer, may be corrected until the expiration of the period specified by the Tournament Organizer. Unless the Tournament Organizer specifies a later* time, this correction period expires 30 minutes after the official score has been made available for inspection.

2. Regulations may provide for circumstances in which a scoring error may be corrected after expiry of the correction period if the Director and the Tournament Organizer are both satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the record is wrong.

* An earlier time may be specified when required by the special nature of a contest.

 

Law 71(2) does not say that cancellation of concession must be initiated by players and not kibitzers (including players at other tables).