Impossible to accept Claims

[bucky]

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).

"Contestants" should refer to at least all players in the same section (or multiple sections, if scored across), since the result from that particular hand at that particular table affects them.

 

Also, I don't think there is anything wrong for players to legally try something in their favor, just like nothing wrong to bid and play well to win a board.

[blackshoe]

What concession are you suggesting be cancelled?

 

If a kibitzer brings the TD's attention to an irregularity, the TD must rule on it. The only sanction available against such kibitzer is to ban him from the playing area.

If a player not involved at the table where something happened brings that to the TD's attention, then if there was an irregularity, the TD must rule on it. Whether there are sanctions available against such player I do not, at this moment, know for sure, but I sure hope there are.

 

I am not convinced that any Tom, Dick or Harry can just waltz in and suggest to the TD that a concession be canceled, and then he must cancel it.

[cloa513]

Interesting that people are going laws assessment on this topic- I just thought people could offer their most rediculous claims accepted. I saw another one at a high level competition on BBO

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sa764ha76dq54ckjt&w=skt85hkjt954d832c&n=sqj2h832dt9ca9632&e=s93hqdakj76cq8754]399|300[/hv]

 

After some bidding, West reaches 3H. North leads the Q♠, South wins the A♠ and returns spade. West ducks to give North the J♠. Declarer concedes one down when with reasonable play it should be contract made.

[blackshoe]

"Contestants" should refer to at least all players in the same section (or multiple sections, if scored across), since the result from that particular hand at that particular table affects them.

 

Maybe it should (I don't think so), but it doesn't.

 

 

Also, I don't think there is anything wrong for players to legally try something in their favor, just like nothing wrong to bid and play well to win a board.

 

If it's legal. I don't think (but cannot at the moment prove - and I'm not going to research it right now, I have other things to do) what was suggested (talking another pair into asking for a ruling when the ones doing the talking weren't involved at the table) is legal.

[bucky]

Maybe it should (I don't think so), but it doesn't.

Says who (or which law clause)?

 

If it's legal. I don't think (but cannot at the moment prove - and I'm not going to research it right now, I have other things to do) what was suggested (talking another pair into asking for a ruling when the ones doing the talking weren't involved at the table) is legal.

Well, I think it goes down to whether the other pairs are considered contestants. If they are, then they can directly ask the TD for a ruling, so the scenario of talking to another pair into asking for ruling won't exist.

[mrdct]

If a player not involved at the table where something happened brings that to the TD's attention, then if there was an irregularity, the TD must rule on it. Whether there are sanctions available against such player I do not, at this moment, know for sure, but I sure hope there are.

 

I am not convinced that any Tom, Dick or Harry can just waltz in and suggest to the TD that a concession be canceled, and then he must cancel it.

Routinely, players in a duplicate session can and should draw the TD's attention to potential scoring irregularities either on the travelling scoresheet or the bridgemate display if enabled. If I see an impossible score on a traveller, whether or not it's to my advantage, I place a question mark next to it and/or draw the TD's attention to it during a break or at the end of the session. I have never encountered a situation where the TD has not appreciated players highlighting potential scoring irregularities on a traveller and there is certainly nothing in the Laws to restrict a player from doing so.

[Echognome]

What if the other pairs are simply trying to point out what they believe to be a scoring error to the TD? It certainly happens all the time in a pairs game with travelers. You notice that the score at another table seems "impossible", e.g. you made 6♠ your way and it was a lay down contract and you see another table scoring 6♠ making in the other direction. My understanding is that you should point out the possible scoring error to the TD. If I do that, should I be fined?

 

What if the contract were 7♦ and they were off the ♦A? Or, as in this case, they were in grand and had an unavoidable trump loser. It seems overly harsh to me to look at fining a pair for calling attention to an irregularity, regardless of whether it was at their table. I can certainly understand that pairs at other tables should not actively seek out irregularities at other tables.

 

To give yet another example, how to do you judge pairs that call attention to another table speaking too loudly and discussing boards? What about when they call attention to arguments and potential zero tolerance penalties? Are they "involved" or "not involved". How are you determining that in each case?

[hotShot]

Imagine I have just played board XX and I'm writing down our table result.

I discover that the results 1-5 are identical to ours which is result number 7.

The 6th result is the same contract claimed made by the other axis.

 

Am I allowed to draw the TD's attention to this strange result?

 

How is that different from drawing attention to a grand made in a trump suit, that I could not make because where opps held the trump ace?

 

Does the knowledge that it was a misclaim and not a mix-up of cards make a difference?

 

Why should it be a breach of rules to ask the pair involved how they managed to lose their trump ace trick?

[blackshoe]

Routinely, players in a duplicate session can and should draw the TD's attention to potential scoring irregularities either on the travelling scoresheet or the bridgemate display if enabled. If I see an impossible score on a traveller, whether or not it's to my advantage, I place a question mark next to it and/or draw the TD's attention to it during a break or at the end of the session. I have never encountered a situation where the TD has not appreciated players highlighting potential scoring irregularities on a traveller and there is certainly nothing in the Laws to restrict a player from doing so.

 

A scoring irregularity is by no means the same thing as acquiescence in a claim.

[blackshoe]

Says who (or which law clause)?

 

 

Well, I think it goes down to whether the other pairs are considered contestants. If they are, then they can directly ask the TD for a ruling, so the scenario of talking to another pair into asking for ruling won't exist.

 

The definition of "contestant" in the laws is

Contestant: in an individual event, a player; in a pair event, two players playing as partners throughout the event; in a team event, four or more players playing as teammates.

 

Law 92A says

A contestant or his captain may appeal for a review of any ruling made at his table by the director. Any such appeal, if deemed to lack merit, may be the subject of a sanction imposed by regulation.

The emphasis is mine.

 

David Stevenson, eminent international TD and senior moderator of the International Bridge Laws Forum here says

I have always understood that you cannot ask for a ruling or appeal at another table. Presumably it is an interpretation of the wording of Law 92A.

 

My understanding accords with David's. He also said

You could always persuade a pair who were at the table to ask for a ruling or to appeal, I suppose.

Having looked through the law book now, and not found support in it for my position that one can't do this, I must agree with David that one can. On the other question, though, the interpretation David cites extends the restriction ("at his table") to asking for rulings as well as appealing.

 

Note: when we speak of "interpretation" of the laws, we mean interpretation by the lawmakers or the regulating authority.

[bucky]

As far as I can see, law 92A governs who may appeal for an existing ruling. But clearly all pairs in the tournament are considered "contestants", and there is nothing so far that prevents them from pointing out irregularity to TD.

[ArtK78]

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

 

 

I cannot imagine that the second place pair, on becoming aware that the first place pair won on such an irregularity, could be penalized for asking the opponents of the first place pair on the hand in question to notify the TD of the irregularity.

 

The general tone and spirit of the laws should be to restore equity. I believe that there is a statement to that effect somewhere in the laws or in the proprieties. If there isn't, there should be.

[blackshoe]

As far as I can see, law 92A governs who may appeal for an existing ruling. But clearly all pairs in the tournament are considered "contestants", and there is nothing so far that prevents them from pointing out irregularity to TD.

You are ignoring the interpretation. Aside from that, there was no irregularity here.

I cannot imagine that the second place pair, on becoming aware that the first place pair won on such an irregularity, could be penalized for asking the opponents of the first place pair on the hand in question to notify the TD of the irregularity.

There was no irregularity. I did agree that there is no lawful penalty that could be imposed here.

The general tone and spirit of the laws should be to restore equity. I believe that there is a statement to that effect somewhere in the laws or in the proprieties. If there isn't, there should be.

"Introduction to the Laws of Bridge", first paragraph.

[Zelandakh]

Perhaps I am missing something in 79B but from what I can see it does not distinguish between where a disagreement has arisen from. Once the TD has made a decision on the disagreement then 92A would apply as to who could challenge this ruling. However, if the TD has not made a ruling then 92A is meaningless. Of course, as others have pointed out, merely telling the defenders that the claim was impossible means that they must speak to the TD or they have committed an infraction (knowingly conceded a trick that their opponents could not lose. There are (at least) 2 points here that make it absolutely essential that the seocnd placed pair be allowed to draw the Director's attention to the impossible claim. The first is fairness which, as has been pointed out, is given in the introduction to the rules as the guiding principle; the second is to avoid cheating. Although in the case being discussed it is not suggested that the defenders conceded knowingly, if it were impossible to investigate such an occurence then this becomes quite feasible and difficult to catch. The case of the Hel's team from Norway shows that fixing does take place from time to time even at a very high level. If any TD genuinely believes that the laws are designed such that it is not correct that the score on such a board be rectified then I personally think they should take a good long look at themselves and whether they are in fact regulating within the spirit of the laws.

[barmar]

You are ignoring the interpretation. Aside from that, there was no irregularity here.

The Law says that you may not concede a trick that could not be lost. Doesn't that make acquiescing to this claim an irregularity?

 

What if, instead of the 2nd place pair trying to convince the opponents of the winners that they should contest the claim, they're just discussing hands during the session break, as many players do routinely? And during the discussion, they realize their error. Does it make a difference whether they're just talking casually versus trying to convince them?