ACBL ruling

[A2003]

What is the ruling for incorrect claim?

At that stage, opponents claimed and accepted without looking at the cards.

At the end, if I play ♠, the contract can be set.

If incorrect claim is accepted, is there anyway to correct the score by TD.

Is the score stands or is any correction possible at later stage?

This was informed to TD during the tournament, to which I never got any answer.

[RMB1]

At that stage, opponents claimed and accepted without looking at the cards.

I do not understand, did both defenders accept the claim (without looking)?

 

At the end, if I play ♠, the contract can be set.

If incorrect claim is accepted, is there anyway to correct the score by TD.

Is the score stands or is any correction possible at later stage?

 

Online tournaments may have different rules, but the law for face-to-face bridge is that if you agree to a claim and later disagree, then you get any tricks it is likely that you would have won (had play continued); Law 69B.

 

The TD would have to determine if it is likely that you would play a ♠ and then you would get one trick. (Perhaps, if the TD determines that it is likely that you would play ♠Q, you would get two tricks.)

[barmar]

Since you couldn't find the killing defense when looking at all four hands, how likely is it you'd find it single dummy?

[Bbradley62]

Since you couldn't find the killing defense when looking at all four hands, how likely is it you'd find it single dummy?

+1

[A2003]

I do not understand, did both defenders accept the claim (without looking)?

 

Yes. We both accepted the claim without looking the rest of the cards, trusting the opponents claimed fair.

This was speed ball tourney.

Question? Is there any redress for on line tournament? What is the rule for ACBL tourney?

[blackshoe]

Absent a regulation extending the correction period, that period expires thirty minutes after the scores are posted. Since it has no doubt been much longer than that, no, there is no redress now.

 

The applicable law, as someone already said, is

69B: Within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C, a contestant may withdraw acquiescence in an opponent’s claim, but only if he has acquiesced in the loss of a trick his side has actually won, or in the loss of trick that could not, in the Director’s judgement, be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. The board is rescored with such trick awarded to the acquiescing side.

[barmar]

Note also the important words "by any normal play of the remaining cards" in the Law. So even if we were within the correction period, you would have to convince the TD that leading a spade is the only normal play at that point. "Normal" includes careless and inferior (much like accepting a claim without looking).

[RMB1]

The applicable law, as someone already said, is

69B: Within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C, a contestant may withdraw acquiescence in an opponent’s claim, but only if he has acquiesced in the loss of a trick his side has actually won, or in the loss of trick that could not, in the Director’s judgement, be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. The board is rescored with such trick awarded to the acquiescing side.

 

Strange. That's not what Law 69B says chez moi.

B. Director’s Decision

Agreement with a claim or concession (see A) may be withdrawn within the Correction Period established under Law 79C:

1. if a player agreed to the loss of a trick his side had, in fact, won; or
   
2. if a player has agreed to the loss of a trick that his side would likely have won had the play continued.
   

The board is rescored with such trick awarded to his side.

[blackshoe]

I quoted from the online laws.

[barmar]

AFAIK, no one actually uses the online laws. Were they even updated to maintain consistency with the 2007 Laws?

[RMB1]

I quoted from the online laws.

 

Ah. I guess I don't know what laws the OP was playing under.

 

The online laws on the WBF website (dated 2001) seem not to correspond to how bridge is played or ruled online (in 2012).

[blackshoe]

No, they weren't updated. There was some talk of doing so in one of the minutes of WBFLC meetings, I think, but there's been nothing forthcoming.

[ehhh]

I understand that the correction period depends on when in the tournament the problem arose - between hands, between rounds, or at the end of the session.

[blackshoe]

I don't know why that should be the case, but it would be a matter for the Conditions of Contest. The Laws say the correction period ends 30 minutes after the scores are posted. The f2f laws, anyway. I haven't looked it up in the "online" version, but I doubt it's different.

[lolopuffin]

I ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS review an accepted claim that a player believes was accepted in error and adjust it when appropriate. This is not at all uncommon. At speedball, we ask players to claim early and claim often. Therefore a review is automatic when requested before the tournament is closed and finalized. If a TD didn't respond, perhaps the request was made by private chat rather than a director! call. Private chats are very easy to miss in a busy tournament. No response? Call again :)

[E Laurvick]

I was puzzled by the Director's ruling tonight, and what's worse is that I can't find any way to contest it. I KNOW in an ACBL game, if declarer claims without stating a line of play, s/he cannot take any finesses and any doubtful tricks go to the opponents. When declarer claimed, he would have to take a finesse in a suit that hadn't been played yet, and he had no way of knowing if it would succeed. I rejected the claim and called the director. Play was frozen, of course. The director arrived, blew me off and accepted the claim. Down one doubled, should have been down two doubled.

 

Do we have any recourse, or is it just a waste of time to call the director in a case like this? All I did was hold up the game.

[E Laurvick]

I ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS review an accepted claim that a player believes was accepted in error and adjust it when appropriate. This is not at all uncommon. At speedball, we ask players to claim early and claim often. Therefore a review is automatic when requested before the tournament is closed and finalized. If a TD didn't respond, perhaps the request was made by private chat rather than a director! call. Private chats are very easy to miss in a busy tournament. No response? Call again :)

OK. Call who? Is there a phone number somewhere I haven't found yet? Is there an email address I can use. I sure can't find one on the site.

[barmar]

OK. Call who? Is there a phone number somewhere I haven't found yet? Is there an email address I can use. I sure can't find one on the site.

He meant send another message to the director if he doesn't respond to the first one.

[barmar]

I was puzzled by the Director's ruling tonight, and what's worse is that I can't find any way to contest it. I KNOW in an ACBL game, if declarer claims without stating a line of play, s/he cannot take any finesses and any doubtful tricks go to the opponents. When declarer claimed, he would have to take a finesse in a suit that hadn't been played yet, and he had no way of knowing if it would succeed. I rejected the claim and called the director. Play was frozen, of course. The director arrived, blew me off and accepted the claim. Down one doubled, should have been down two doubled.

 

Do we have any recourse, or is it just a waste of time to call the director in a case like this? All I did was hold up the game.

Was it a two-way finesse, so he could have taken it the wrong way? Or was taking the finesse the only normal way to play the hand? Maybe he had clues from the bidding and play about where the missing honor was.

 

If it was an ACBL tournament, you can write to acbl@bridgebase.com if you think the director didn't rule properly. If it was a free tourney, there's not much recourse -- you get what you pay for. We don't generally take away tourney host rights unless they act seriously rude or discriminatory; sloppy directing isn't enough.

[Vampyr]

Was it a two-way finesse, so he could have taken it the wrong way? Or was taking the finesse the only normal way to play the hand? Maybe he had clues from the bidding and play about where the missing honor was.

 

But in this case the declarer would have made a statement -- ie that he was taking the finesse and would be one down if it succeeded and two down if it failed.