Persuasion

[pran]

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?

Yes, what else can he do if there is no way he can determine exactly what has happened?

 

His only alternative is to award an artificial adjusted score A- for both sides because both sides are guilty of having reported an impossible result?

 

After all a result has been properly reported.

[blackshoe]

That result is not impossible. Suppose there were an established revoke by the defenders? Granted the TD should know that, because he should have been called, but still...

 

I do not think it's appropriate to change a score unless you can establish what happened.

[RMB1]

Where is the infraction?

Where is this "reporting an impossible results" in the laws?

Is there any evidence that declarer cajoled or threatened opponents into accepting the result?

Is there any evidence that declarer had done anything but miscount trumps, or assume they were 3-2?

(If declarer knew opponents had a trump trick then he has violated 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.

Is there any obligation in the laws to not accept claims?

 

If the director investigates, all he can do is to tell both sides that 7♦= is "impossible" and ask if there is anything they wish to bring to his attention.

 

The suggestion that the TD should replace an agreed and properly entered score by an artificial adjustment is preposterous exceeding his authority.

 

[Removed DST issue - now resolved]

Edited November 1, 2010 by RMB1

[pran]

Where is the infraction?

Where is this "reporting an impossible results" in the laws?

Is there any evidence that declarer cajoled or threatened opponents into accepting the result?

Is there any evidence that declarer had done anything but miscount trumps, or assume they were 3-2?

(If declarer knew opponents had a trump trick then he has violated Law 79A2.)

 

Is there any obligation in the laws to not accept claims?

 

If the director investigates, all he can do is to tell both sides that 7♦= is "impossible" and ask if there is anything they wish to bring to his attention.

 

The suggestion that the TD should replace an agreed and properly entered score by an artificial adjustment is preposterous exceeding his authority.

 

Posted at 13.17 (GMT) but the board shows 14.17. Something does not know that daylight saving stopped last night.

 

I certainly hope that nobody understood me to seriously suggest awarding an artificial adjusted score (A-/A- or whatever), such an adjustment is of course illegal and I am fully aware of this fact.

 

However, if the director feels that he must adjust the score without knowing what really happened then what else can he do than assigning an artificial score? Toss a coin to select a contract and how many tricks he will award?

 

 

Now for an example on how the "correct" result on a board can be an impossible score even when no irregularity has occurred:

 

There has been a claim and opponents agreed to that claim without realizing that the claim was faulty. Somehow the director's attention is called to the "impossible" result after the correction period has expired. What is he to do? Of course he must just let the reported result stand.

[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?

 

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.

 

First, OP did not make it clear that there was an impossible result, although that became clear soon enough.

 

Second, much of the conversation has focused on whether or not there was a "concession" or an "irregularity" under the Laws as a result of the erroneously-accepted claim. I was asking what would happen if the four players were gone and therefore no one even knew that there had been a claim at the table, just that the reported result was impossible. If the answer is "impossible result stands", that's fine; I was asking a question, not suggesting an answer.

[RMB1]

... I was asking what would happen if the four players were gone and therefore no one even knew that there had been a claim at the table, just that the reported result was impossible. If the answer is "impossible result stands", that's fine; I was asking a question, not suggesting an answer.

I think an impossible result (properly entered on the traveller) should stand. There may have been a bum claim/concession (not per se an infraction) or a revoke (ruled on by the players). Who knows?

[Zelandakh]

I think an impossible result (properly entered on the traveller) should stand. There may have been a bum claim/concession (not per se an infraction) or a revoke (ruled on by the players). Who knows?

I do not believe it was suggested that the TD should adjust the score if the facts could not be established that a bad claim was made. Certainly I made this clear that that was my position in a very early post from this pair of threads.

 

Where is the infraction?

There are a couple of possible infractions that might be investigated. One is an accusation of cheating, that the defenders knowingly accepted the bad claim. This might be plausible if there were bad blood between the second-placed pair and the defenders for example. Another is if anyone discussed the hand with someone at the table then not reporting the incident is an infraction. Finally 79B gives the TD a right to change the number of tricks scored from an impossible claim even without an infraction occurring "if a subsequent disagreement arises". There is no mention about how such a disagreement might arise nor any restriction on who might raise such a disagreement.

[blackshoe]

I would read 79B's "if a disagreement arises" to mean disagreement between the contestants at the table. I note that "subsequent" is not in the law.

[Zelandakh]

I would read 79B's "if a disagreement arises" to mean disagreement between the contestants at the table. I note that "subsequent" is not in the law.

It is in the WBF law. It may not be in the ACBL law, I have not looked.

[blackshoe]

I would read 79B's "if a disagreement arises" to mean disagreement between the contestants at the table. I note that "subsequent" is not in the law.

 

Hypothetical situations are all very well, but the question was about a specific situation, not one of Zel's hypothetical ones.

[Zelandakh]

I would read 79B's "if a disagreement arises" to mean disagreement between the contestants at the table. I note that "subsequent" is not in the law.

 

Hypothetical situations are all very well, but the question was about a specific situation, not one of Zel's hypothetical ones.

 

"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." from your OP was directly lifted from a scenario I suggested. Thus I have been talking about that specific (hypothetical) situation. if you have accepted this and are now only talking about scenario 2 "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." then that is a different matter. As has been pointed out as soon as someone brings the impossible claim to the attention of the involved pair they are required to report it or an infraction has occurred. I am unsure which alternative specific, non-hypothetical scenario to which you refer.

 

Edit: And Law 79B might have that interpretation but it is not written in the rules that I can see.

[blackshoe]

Sigh. Okay, I was referring to your suggestion of various infractions that "might be investigated". One "might investigate" a lot of things, but that doesn't answer the question "what was the infraction?" I think people are assuming or suggesting that in the case of acquiescence in a claim of all the tricks, when claimer must lose one or more, either the acquiescence or the claim is an infraction. Neither is, unless we go hunting for reasons to make it so.

 

"Subsequent" is not in the ACBL version of the lawbook. Yes, it's in the WBF version.

 

Yes, it's an interpretation.

[Zelandakh]

Sigh. Okay, I was referring to your suggestion of various infractions that "might be investigated". One "might investigate" a lot of things, but that doesn't answer the question "what was the infraction?" I think people are assuming or suggesting that in the case of acquiescence in a claim of all the tricks, when claimer must lose one or more, either the acquiescence or the claim is an infraction. Neither is, unless we go hunting for reasons to make it so.

 

"Subsequent" is not in the ACBL version of the lawbook. Yes, it's in the WBF version.

 

Yes, it's an interpretation.

Absolutely. It is only an infraction if done "knowingly". The knowledge can come any time within the correction period but not later. I think we agree on this. :)

[blackshoe]

I think so, yes. B)