A "notoriously bad ruling"

[blackshoe]

I think weejonnie is making a reference to an infamously bad ruling in a 1999 Vanderbilt KO match.

 

http://www.bridgeace.com/Deal_of_the_Day/2011-04-13%20Oh,%20Shit!.pdf

From that pdf: After the play was over, declarer’s partner suggested they call the Tournament Director, Stan Tench, to the table who ruled that the result would stand as played. Ten minutes later he was coerced into reversing his ruling, after Chief Tournament Director, Henry Cukoff became involved.

Is this an accurate description of what happened? Does anyone have more infomation?

[Vampyr]

Oh Lord. There was endless discussion of this at the time. Is there any good reason to rehash the matter now? It happened, it was bad, it was a long time ago, let's move on.

[RMB1]

Is this an accurate description of what happened? Does anyone have more infomation?

David expressed an opinion on his website at the time.

 

(I googled "David Stevenson" "Vanderbilt" and "*****" :))

 

I can type the word into google but not here, apparently.

Edited March 30, 2015 by RMB1

[gordontd]

There was a link to the original write-up on the other recent thread.

 

Edited because I don't think I initially said exactly what I meant!

Edited March 30, 2015 by gordontd

[blackshoe]

I'm not interested in "rehashing" anything. The two links to David's article and the original writeup in the bulletin at the time indicate that Rich Waugh's claim that declarer ruled one way and was later "coerced," presumably by Henry Cukoff, who was the DIC, to change it, does not accurately report what happened. That's all I wanted to know, so thanks, Robin and Gordon, for the links.

[Vampyr]

Rich Waugh's claim that declarer (director, I think?)ruled one way and was later "coerced," presumably by Henry Cukoff, who was the DIC, to change it, does not accurately report what happened.

 

The claim may be more accurate than the articles, in that apparently the director did not actually change his ruling, but he may have had one intention and been "coerced" by the director he consulted with.

[blackshoe]

The claim may be more accurate than the articles, in that apparently the director did not actually change his ruling, but he may have had one intention and been "coerced" by the director he consulted with.

According to the bulletin writeup, the DIC was one of three directors consulted. So it wasn't just Henry saying "I am the DIC, you will change your ruling". And he wouldn't have done that anyway.

[nige1]

Thank you Blackshoe, Barmar, GordonTD, and RMB1. Vampyr notes that that Rich Waugh's recollection differs from The official write-up but David Stevenson's assessment seems fair and logical.

 

A pity that the rules make special provision for errors that players claim to be "mechanical".

[barmar]

A pity that the rules make special provision for errors that players claim to be "mechanical".

Bridge is considered primarily a mental activity, but it necessarily takes place in the physical world. So some allowances are made for purely physical fumbles.