Claim and Acceptance in Error

[jandrew]

I don't know where I read this, or heard it.

Is it true :

 

In EBU land -

 

If a declarer claims tricks which he can not possibly make, and defenders accept in error, and the Director happens to notice (he was passing by or kibbing) - is the Director under an obligation to correct the result?

 

What about if the error is noticed after the table change?

[campboy]

The relevant law for the first question is 81C3, talking about the TD's duties:

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 don't think that covers this case, but it's not completely clear and there's no specific guidance in the White Book. There was no irregularity, provided declarer did not realise his mistake, and "error" IMO means things like entering the agreed score incorrectly, not mistakes like this.

 

As for the second part, defenders can withdraw their agreement (Law 69B)

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.

provided they are within the correction period (normally 30 minutes after the score has been made available for inspection).

[RMB1]

If a declarer claims tricks which he can not possibly make, and defenders accept in error, and the Director happens to notice (he was passing by or kibbing) - is the Director under an obligation to correct the result?

 

If either side knows that the tricks claimed can not be won, then there has been an infraction of Law 79A2 and the TD should interfere.

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.

 

What about if the error is noticed after the table change?

 

If either side notices after the end of the round then there is a law (Law 69B) which allows the number of tricks claimed to be corrected.

[nige1]

The relevant law for the first question is 81C3, talking about the TD's duties: I don't think that covers this case, but it's not completely clear and there's no specific guidance in the White Book. There was no irregularity, provided declarer did not realise his mistake, and "error" IMO means things like entering the agreed score incorrectly, not mistakes like this.

Duties of TD include "to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C."

If either side knows that the tricks claimed can not be won, then there has been an infraction of Law 79A2 and the TD should interfere.

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.

Traditionally, directors try to avoid an active "policing" role, preferring to turn a blind eye to incidents like this. IMO this breaks the law and undermines the game. Local regulations (e.g. the white book) can't exonerate such dereliction of duty. The TD should act when he notices declarer's larceny, even if the TD is unsure whether declarer is aware of what he's doing. IMO, claiming tricks that you can't win by legal means is an irregularity. Hence, IMO the TD must rectify it at some stage.

[campboy]

IMO, claiming tricks that you can't win by legal means is an irregularity.

That is not a matter of opinion. It simply is not an irregularity, provided declarer genuinely thought he would win that many tricks.

[barmar]

An appropriate matter for an opinion would be whether 79A2 should be changed to remove "knowingly". Doing it without knowing should be correctable, while doing it knowingly is cheating.

[blackshoe]

IMO, claiming tricks that you can't win by legal means is an irregularity.

Please explain how this is so. How is "proper procedure" violated? According to which law?

[nige1]

That is not a matter of opinion. It simply is not an irregularity, provided declarer genuinely thought he would win that many tricks.

An appropriate matter for an opinion would be whether 79A2 should be changed to remove "knowingly". Doing it without knowing should be correctable, while doing it knowingly is cheating.

IMO, Barmar is right. Unfortunately, the WBFLC might need a decade of so, to undertake a change of this magnitude. :(

Please explain how this is so. How is "proper procedure" violated? According to which law?

How about...

A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement as to the order in which cards will be played, of the line of play or defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed.

Anyway, only a sophist, desperate to avoid any additional work or hassle for directors, would argue that a false claim is legally or morally defensible.

[blackshoe]

Anyway, only a sophist, desperate to avoid any additional work or hassle for directors, would argue that a false claim is legally or morally defensible.

Are you calling me names, Nigel?

 

IAC, I made no such argument; I simply asked a question. Here's another: do we have evidence that a line of play statement was not made? And another: in what sense is the claim under discussion "false"? Do you assert that all claims which include tricks the claimer could not win are deliberate attempts to deceive?

[nige1]

Are you calling me names, Nigel?

No. Perish the thought :)

IAC, I made no such argument; I simply asked a question. Here's another: do we have evidence that a line of play statement was not made? And another: in what sense is the claim under discussion "false"? Do you assert that all claims which include tricks the claimer could not win are deliberate attempts to deceive?

"Invalid". "Untrue". "Unclear". A claim statement should clearly state "the order in which cards will be played, of the line of play or defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed.". Intent should be assessed only by TDs with appropriate mind-reading qualifications. As Barmar points out, a deliberate false claim is a separate issue (cheating).