gordontd Posted September 30, 2012 Report Share Posted September 30, 2012 I would guess "established" is being interpreted as beyond uncertainty by Pran. Are we restricted to the more narrow definition of "established" which involves playing to the next trick?Law 63 tells us how to know if a revoke has been established. In this case there is some uncertainty so we investigate; we don't assume without investigation that there was no revoke, and therefore decline to rule, when one side tells us there was a revoke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted September 30, 2012 Report Share Posted September 30, 2012 I would guess "established" is being interpreted as beyond uncertainty by Pran. Are we restricted to the more narrow definition of "established" which involves playing to the next trick?A revoke can never be established unless it was committed. The critical question here is not whether a revoke was established but whether at all there was a revoke in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted September 30, 2012 Report Share Posted September 30, 2012 They may well not, but they wouldn't decline it on the basis that it was out of time for Law 64A & 64B.What has L64 to do with this example? It was about L92 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordontd Posted September 30, 2012 Report Share Posted September 30, 2012 But how shall the Director know for a fact that there has been an established revoke? Law 64C never applies unless this fact is ascertained.He'll investigate and make a judgement. You seem to want the director not to bother investigating, on the grounds that it wasn't noticed at the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted September 30, 2012 Report Share Posted September 30, 2012 Law 63 tells us how to know if a revoke has been established. In this case there is some uncertainty so we investigate; we don't assume without investigation that there was no revoke, and therefore decline to rule, when one side tells us there was a revoke.O.K. Now, do the time limits which apply to an established revoke also apply to calling the TD's attention to a possible revoke which has not been investigated yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordontd Posted September 30, 2012 Report Share Posted September 30, 2012 O.K. Now, do the time limits which apply to an established revoke also apply to calling the TD's attention to a possible revoke which has not been investigated yet?The only time limit on 64C is that contained in 92B. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordontd Posted September 30, 2012 Report Share Posted September 30, 2012 What has L64 to do with this example? It was about L92Precisely. What had L64A & L64B got to do with it when it was about L64C? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted September 30, 2012 Report Share Posted September 30, 2012 And the assertion is that one was. So you have to decide whether or not it was, and if so use Law 64C. I can't think why you would turn to 64A & 64B and say "these conditions are not fulfilled, so I can't apply a different law whose condition are fulfilled". If you're not going to investigate on the grounds that the players don't agree what happened, do you similarly refuse to rule whenever there is a disagreement over the facts?You cannot use any part of Laws 62, 63 or 64 to investigate if there was a revoke. The ordinary way of such investigation is to reconstruct the play from inspection of the quitted cards, and the laws have specific rules for such inspection. Until the cards have been returned to the board this investigation hardly ever cause any problem. The more time has passed after completion of a board the more difficult will it be to ascertain precisely what happened and the more will the burden of uncertainty reflect on the interests of the side who claims that opponents have committed an irregularity. If a revoke is agreed upon then fine. If a revoke is obvious then also fine. But the Director must be extremely reluctant to rule that a side has revoked absent their consent when the allegation of a revoke is presented too late for ordinary investigation and the facts consequently cannot certainly be determined. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordontd Posted September 30, 2012 Report Share Posted September 30, 2012 A revoke can never be established unless it was committed. The critical question here is not whether a revoke was established but whether at all there was a revoke in the first place.Yes, so let's resolve that question to the best of our abilities, and the rest will fall into place. You seem to want to decide there was no revoke, without trying to find out if that was so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted September 30, 2012 Report Share Posted September 30, 2012 Precisely. What had L64A & L64B got to do with it when it was about L64C?I cannot remember making, and cannot now find any reference to L64 in the post to which you commented and which was explicitly about Law 92B? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted September 30, 2012 Report Share Posted September 30, 2012 Yes, so let's resolve that question to the best of our abilities, and the rest will fall into place. You seem to want to decide there was no revoke, without trying to find out if that was so.No, I do want to find out if a revoke is agreed upon or if a revoke obviously must have been committed. But I don't want to waste time on a futile investigation on an irregularity that should have been noticed and reported long time ago if it really was committed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordontd Posted September 30, 2012 Report Share Posted September 30, 2012 I cannot remember making, and cannot now find any reference to L64 in the post to which you commented and which was explicitly about Law 92B?That's my point - you referred us to a limitation made by L64A & L64B when we weren't talking about those laws, so I did exactly the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted September 30, 2012 Report Share Posted September 30, 2012 [the more will the burden of uncertainty reflect on the interests of the side who claims that opponents have committed an irregularity.I think you made this one up. I can't find any law that says it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordontd Posted September 30, 2012 Report Share Posted September 30, 2012 The more time has passed after completion of a board the more difficult will it be to ascertain precisely what happened and the more will the burden of uncertainty reflect on the interests of the side who claims that opponents have committed an irregularity.I agree with this, but it's less extreme than the position you've been taking during most of this conversation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted September 30, 2012 Report Share Posted September 30, 2012 There is no requirement to report a revoke by whatever time it is you think it has to be reported by (before the cards are mixed, before the next board is started, before the end of the round, whatever). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted September 30, 2012 Report Share Posted September 30, 2012 There is no requirement to report a revoke by whatever time it is you think it has to be reported by (before the cards are mixed, before the next board is started, before the end of the round, whatever).So why then do we have Laws 64B4 and 64B5 at all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted September 30, 2012 Report Share Posted September 30, 2012 I think you made this one up. I can't find any law that says it.Who has the burden of showing why a result that has been agreed upon should be changed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted September 30, 2012 Report Share Posted September 30, 2012 I agree with this, but it's less extreme than the position you've been taking during most of this conversation.In that case you read more in (some of) my posts than what I intend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordontd Posted September 30, 2012 Report Share Posted September 30, 2012 So why then do we have Laws 64B4 and 64B5 at all?They exist to tell us when rectification is given for revokes. L64C tells us how to adjust for damage when L64A & L64B don't apply, or when those rectifications are insufficient. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordontd Posted September 30, 2012 Report Share Posted September 30, 2012 In that case you read more in (some of) my posts than what I intend.In that case your posts don't adequately reflect your intentions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted September 30, 2012 Report Share Posted September 30, 2012 Who has the burden of showing why a result that has been agreed upon should be changed?The director. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted September 30, 2012 Report Share Posted September 30, 2012 Who has the burden of showing why a result that has been agreed upon should be changed?The director.Fair enough.And as Director I shall let the result that has been agreed upon stand unless the party requesting a change shows why such change should be made. An unsubstantiated allegation that there has been an irregularity will not be sufficient. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted September 30, 2012 Report Share Posted September 30, 2012 Fair enough.And as Director I shall let the result that has been agreed upon stand unless the party requesting a change shows why such change should be made. An unsubstantiated allegation that there has been an irregularity will not be sufficient.You as director are obligated to investigate the allegation and determine on the basis of the balance of probabilities in whatever evidence you are able to collect whether there has been an irregularity. If instead you simply say "sorry, your allegation alone is insufficient" then you are not doing your job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted September 30, 2012 Report Share Posted September 30, 2012 You as director are obligated to investigate the allegation and determine on the basis of the balance of probabilities in whatever evidence you are able to collect whether there has been an irregularity. If instead you simply say "sorry, your allegation alone is insufficient" then you are not doing your job.I wrote unsubstantiated allegation Are you saying that a player (after agreeing on a result) may request a full investigation by the Director just by saying: "There must have been a revoke" (or words to that effect) without giving any reason for saying this? Then please take a look at my problem example in post #48 and tell me how you would handle that (hypothetical) case, what investigations you would carry out and so on. An agreed upon result carries a rather heavy probability weight with me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 An agreed upon result carries a rather heavy probability weight with me.I understand that, I just think you give it too much weight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.