Persuasion

[blackshoe]

1. It has been suggested in another forum that it is perfectly legal, in a pairs game, for a pair not involved at the table to bring to the TD's attention a situation where one pair at the table acquiesced in a claim when they were entitled to one or more tricks. Comments?

 

2. It has been suggested that in the situation mentioned above it is perfectly legally for the uninvolved pair to attempt to persuade the involved pair to go to the TD and withdraw their acquiescence in the claim. Comments?

[Bbradley62]

I see you've used the word "entitled", but it might be relevant that it was physically impossible for the contract to make as claimed (and conceded).

[mrdct]

1. It has been suggested in another forum that it is perfectly legal, in a pairs game, for a pair not involved at the table to bring to the TD's attention a situation where one pair at the table acquiesced in a claim when they were entitled to one or more tricks. Comments?

Law 71 is completely silent as to the manner in which the TD's attention might be drawn to a potentially erroneous concession and gives the TD no discretion but to cancel an impossible concession and rescore the board if it's within the correction period. It is completely normal for a pair not involved at the table in question to see an impossible score on the travelling scoresheet and draw the TD's attention to it. Usually this is for things like 4♥ by North instead of West or a result scored with the wrong vulnerability, but can also be impossible results like, in this case, 7♦ making with an unavoidable trump loser.

 

2. It has been suggested that in the situation mentioned above it is perfectly legally for the uninvolved pair to attempt to persuade the involved pair to go to the TD and withdraw their acquiescence in the claim. Comments?

Nothing in the Laws would prevent this and an analogous situation would be where at the end of session when chatting about the hands it becomes evident that a board was played in a fouled state at my friend's table but was as per the hand record at my table. In such a situation, I would most certainly encourage my friend to inform the TD, even though I had no direct involvement with the board being played in a fouled state.

[blackshoe]

There were several scenarios presented in the thread where this originated. In none of them, as I recall, was there a concession. The question was about a claim of all the tricks and an acquiescence in that claim. So Law 71 is irrelevant. The relevant law is 69B.

 

In the last scenario presented (which led to my situation #2 in this thread), the pair doing the persuading had come second in the event. If the TD changed the first place pair's top to a bottom (the effect of ruling on the case), the second place pair would have come first. Perhaps this is completely legal, but it bothers the hell out of me. I wouldn't want to win that way, and I would hope no one else would either.

[bluejak]

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.

 

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

[peachy]

I like scenario 3. An uninvolved kibitzer (a pair of contestants in this case) could talk the claiming side and ask them first. If the claimers were "real human beings" they would be happy {well, maybe sad} to correct the score.

 

Or the uninvolved pair could go to the TD directly. The TD is afterall there to deal with any irregularities brought to his attention, no matter how they are brought to his attention.

[blackshoe]

Or the uninvolved pair could go to the TD directly. The TD is after all there to deal with any irregularities brought to his attention, no matter how they are brought to his attention.

 

Yes. I mentioned that. Several times. If I were the TD I would deal with the irregularity, if there were one. But I don't have to like it. OTOH, failure to realize that you should not acquiesce to a claim is not an irregularity. I don't think the TD's duty to deal with irregularities extends to hunting down contestants who acquiesced to a claim and suggesting to them they should not have done so.

 

On your other point, if the claiming side were informed that they had been awarded a trick they could not have won might consider Law 79A2:

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.

 

Also, I don't think a pair who currently has come in second, but stands to win the event if the score on this board is changed, is "uninvolved".

[mrdct]

There were several scenarios presented in the thread where this originated. In none of them, as I recall, was there a concession. The question was about a claim of all the tricks and an acquiescence in that claim. So Law 71 is irrelevant. The relevant law is 69B.

 

In the last scenario presented (which led to my situation #2 in this thread), the pair doing the persuading had come second in the event. If the TD changed the first place pair's top to a bottom (the effect of ruling on the case), the second place pair would have come first. Perhaps this is completely legal, but it bothers the hell out of me. I wouldn't want to win that way, and I would hope no one else would either.

Pragmaticly, accepting a claim of the remaining tricks is the same thing as conceding the rest of the trick so I think one would make a reasonable arguement that Law 71 could apply; but even within the constraints of Law 69B, if the TD's attention is drawn to an impossible claim or concession by any party it would seem perfectly appropriate for him to look at the hand and invite the pair who accepted the claim to withdraw their acceptance and then rescore the board.

 

As for the ways in which players would want to win, personally all I ever want is to play in a fair contest where everyone is trying their best and playing in accordance with the laws and the proprieties of the game. I most certainly would not want to win an event based on my own incorrect claim and perhaps the "persuasion" ought to be directed at the person who declared 7♦ who, like his opponents, seems to have either not counted the number of missing trumps or wasn't looking at the pips properly.

 

If the scenario was the pair coming second persuading another pair to appeal a 50/50 TD ruling I think that would be douche-bagesque, but if it's simply highlighting an unambiguous injustice such as 7♦ making on a bad claim with an unavoidable trump loser I don't see anything remotely wrong with it.

[blackshoe]

I think you're wrong about Law 71 applying. As to the rest, I suppose it's "to each his own". B)

[Cascade]

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.

 

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

 

L92A is silent on your rights regarding results or happenings at another table.

[blackshoe]

Not exactly. The law says

A contestant or his captain may appeal for a review of any ruling made at his table by the director.

Clearly this implies that if the ruling was not made at the table of the contestant in question, that contestant may not appeal it.

 

Law 9 is not explicit, but it seems pretty clear that it expects that attention would be drawn to an irregularity, in general, by the players involved at the table, who are then responsible for calling the TD. Nonetheless, it is also clear in Law 81C3 that if someone else draws the TD's attention to an irregularity, the TD still has to deal with it.

 

It seems there is nothing in the law that prohibits a contestant from drawing attention to an irregularity or other occurrence in which that contestant was not originally involved.

[pran]

Not exactly. The law says Clearly this implies that if the ruling was not made at the table of the contestant in question, that contestant may not appeal it.

 

Law 9 is not explicit, but it seems pretty clear that it expects that attention would be drawn to an irregularity, in general, by the players involved at the table, who are then responsible for calling the TD. Nonetheless, it is also clear in Law 81C3 that if someone else draws the TD's attention to an irregularity, the TD still has to deal with it.

 

It seems there is nothing in the law that prohibits a contestant from drawing attention to an irregularity or other occurrence in which that contestant was not originally involved.

 

I agree so long as the question is about an irregularity, but including "or other occurrence" is in my opinion drawing it too far.

 

Thus the director should only take action on for instance a claim or concession if asked by any of the contestants involved. An accepted but faulty claim or concession is no irregularity as such, and third party intervention gives the director no cause for action.

[Mbodell]

I don't see the problem in either situation. A pair that wasn't at the table can still be "involved" in the results if the change of score effects them. I don't see why this is any different than a poorly recorded board (4♥= by N instead of by W) or a wrong score (recording a score of -1100 for down 6 doubled not vulnerable rather than -1400) or an impossible claim (claiming all the tricks even though the opponents posses the A of trump).

 

It doesn't matter to me if the "uninvolved" pair found out from looking at travelers or looking at results sheet or discussing hands while waiting for the last round results. And it doesn't matter to me if their approach upon seeing this is to ask a TD (aren't we encouraged to contact the TD any time we see something that seems odd or irregular?) or through talking to the pair at the table (How did you let a grand make when you held the A?) who then ask the TD.

[bluejak]

Nor do I, and if you want to change the Laws there is a forum for it. You can then discuss all the bad things that will happen with such a change rather than concentrating the good things.

 

But we do not decide things on how we would wish them to be, and the accepted interpretation of Law 92A is as I said, despite the fact that it could be read differently or interpreted differently.

[pran]

I don't see the problem in either situation. A pair that wasn't at the table can still be "involved" in the results if the change of score effects them. I don't see why this is any different than a poorly recorded board (4♥= by N instead of by W) or a wrong score (recording a score of -1100 for down 6 doubled not vulnerable rather than -1400) or an impossible claim (claiming all the tricks even though the opponents posses the A of trump).

 

It doesn't matter to me if the "uninvolved" pair found out from looking at travelers or looking at results sheet or discussing hands while waiting for the last round results. And it doesn't matter to me if their approach upon seeing this is to ask a TD (aren't we encouraged to contact the TD any time we see something that seems odd or irregular?) or through talking to the pair at the table (How did you let a grand make when you held the A?) who then ask the TD.

 

It occationally happens that "third party" calls my attention to a strange result.

 

If it seems likely that there has indeed been an irregularity I perform some preliminary investigation; otherwise I leave it to the directly involved contestants to call for my assistance. This is IMHO both according to laws and also the best procedure.

[Zelandakh]

Double posting this here since we now have 2 parallel posts on the same matter...

 

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 second 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.

[Zelandakh]

Please note that my comment refers to a case of an indisputably impossible claim. The OP kindly missed this out.

[barmar]

I think you're wrong about Law 71 applying.

L68 defines a concession as "Any statement to the effect that a contestant will lose a specific number of tricks". Acquiescing to a claim is a statement that you'll lose the tricks that the claimant says he'll win, which fits that definition. Therefore, L71 applies.

[Zelandakh]

L68 defines a concession as "Any statement to the effect that a contestant will lose a specific number of tricks". Acquiescing to a claim is a statement that you'll lose the tricks that the claimant says he'll win, which fits that definition. Therefore, L71 applies.

It actually does not matter if it is a claim or a concession since this law also sets the precedent that the result is an error in computing the score, something that would not have occurred to me personally. Therefore 79C can be applied to either case.

[blackshoe]

It seems to me that the last few posts have descended into nonsense. First, there was no concession, there was a claim. Acquiescence in a claim is not a concession. "Disagreement" in the context of Law 79 means "disagreement between the contestants directly involved at the table".

 

This is not blml. We don't care how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or how many different ways someone can twist the words of the laws.

[Cascade]

It seems to me that the last few posts have descended into nonsense. First, there was no concession, there was a claim. Acquiescence in a claim is not a concession. "Disagreement" in the context of Law 79 means "disagreement between the contestants directly involved at the table".

 

This is not blml. We don't care how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or how many different ways someone can twist the words of the laws.

 

And now we descend into insulting members of another forum. This seems completely inappropriate here.

 

"twist the words of the laws" is exactly how I would describe David Stevenson's claim that

 

But we do not decide things on how we would wish them to be, and the accepted interpretation of Law 92A is as I said, despite the fact that it could be read differently or interpreted differently.

 

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.

 

David further engages in this "twist the words of the laws" earlier when he wrote:

 

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.

 

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

 

Which subtlely adds "ruling" to his interpretation of L92A which deals only with "appeals" and "review of any ruling".

 

Law 81C3 clearly states the director's responsibility to rectify irregularities.

 

to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any

manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law

79C.

 

I would consider an invalid claim an irregularity.

 

As a player I do not have to ask for a "ruling" at another table I just need to make the director aware of the "irregularily" and the director has a responsibility to "rectify".

 

I don't really see how this could be more clear in the laws nor why David and others wish to "twist the words of the laws" in order not to "rectify" an "irregularity" at a table.

[blackshoe]

I think the members of blml waste their time on things on which time is not worth wasting. I said so. If that's insulting them, so be it.

 

I wasn't referring to David. I happen to agree with him wrt 92A.

 

An irregularity is a departure from correct procedure. The law defines correct procedure in claiming. It doesn't say anything procedurally about whether the claimer has to be right in his claim. So I think you're misusing "irregularity" if you say that a claim of all the tricks which was made in a procedurally correct manner is an irregularity.

 

Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say anything at all about anyone not wanting to avoid rectifying an irregularity. I don't think there's been an irregularity. Surely I'm allowed to disagree with you on that point?

[mjj29]

I think the members of blml waste their time on things on which time is not worth wasting. I said so. If that's insulting them, so be it.

 

I wasn't referring to David. I happen to agree with him wrt 92A.

 

An irregularity is a departure from correct procedure. The law defines correct procedure in claiming. It doesn't say anything procedurally about whether the claimer has to be right in his claim. So I think you're misusing "irregularity" if you say that a claim of all the tricks which was made in a procedurally correct manner is an irregularity.

 

Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say anything at all about anyone not wanting to avoid rectifying an irregularity. I don't think there's been an irregularity. Surely I'm allowed to disagree with you on that point?

If you have pointed out to either side involved that the claim was impossible and they've not called the director themselves then there has been a breach of 79A2, which _is_ an irregularity. That aside, even without that I don't see how 71 wouldn't apply anyway. It says nothing about how the director uncovers the "player conceded a trick which could not be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards", just that he "shall cancel the concession". I certainly don't think that informing the Director of manifest (or possible) errors is unethical, it would appear to me to merely be obeying law 72A "the chief objective is to obtain a higher score etc etc".

 

Finally, speaking as a director, I would much rather people pointed out to me suspect scores during the night rather than getting home with the travellers and trying to work out why 4S has made both ways or why pair 6 appears to have played the board three times...

[Bbradley62]

I don't think this question has anything to do with claims or concessions. What happens if a player reports to the director, during the correction period, that there is a table scored as 7♥ bid and made by NS when this can't be because E holds ♥A? The players from that table are gone and can't be asked about it. Does the director let the impossible result stand as recorded?

[Zelandakh]

I don't think this question has anything to do with claims or concessions. What happens if a player reports to the director, during the correction period, that there is a table scored as 7♥ bid and made by NS when this can't be because E holds ♥A? The players from that table are gone and can't be asked about it. Does the director let the impossible result stand as recorded?

This is precisely what we are discussing Bbradley. The original post that started this discussion was specifically an impossible claim because of a 100% guaranteed trump loser in a grand slam.