Request for a ruling

[mr1303]

I'm posting this one in the offline bridge section since I think it's only relevant to offline bridge, but maybe a rules thing so the L & R forum may be better.

 

In a match played privately (as the EBU does for various competitions), you're playing in the 3rd set of 4, where there's a hand where the opponents have UI which requires a ruling. You make a note of the hand and agree to speak to a director at the end of the set. The board as it happened was pushed (if this is relevant, which I think probably not).

 

At the end of the set, you score up and are about 50 IMPs up, and so decide it's not worth bothering a director, especially as you have a long drive home and are keen to get the match finished and done with ASAP, and so you tell your opponents accordingly.

 

In the 4th set, the opponents come out and swing heavily, and manage to overturn the deficit, and win by a few IMPs. Can you now demand a director call having previously rejected it?

[Vampyr]

In my experience these calls are almost always made at the end of a match. I don't think that any statement to the opponents constitutes waiving the right to a ruling, but just to be on the safe side it might be best to say you will see later rather than deciding not to get a ruling.

[gordontd]

The answer is to read the regulations!

 

22 Calling for a Ruling

Problems often arise in matches played privately when there is a dispute that

involves more than just the reading and application of the law. If you think an

irregularity has occurred which has damaged your side, you should proceed as

follows:

a Raise the matter (by, say, reserving your rights) at the time, preferably

before the board has finished, but certainly before you remove your

cards from the next board.

b Confirm your wish to have a ruling before your opponents have left the

table to score up that set of boards; if after scoring you withdraw your

request that would be an end of the matter.

A failure to take these steps puts you in the same position as a player in a

public competition who fails to call the Tournament Director at the

appropriate time.

You may still request a ruling as long as you do it within twenty minutes of the

end of the match. However, the longer the time lapse, the more difficult it is

to establish the facts and Directors, like Tournament Directors in public

competitions, may be less inclined to find damage which the player did not

appear to be aware of at the time. However, a player who could not have

known an irregularity had occurred will be in a stronger position than one

who could or should have noticed but did not mention it at the time.

 

I think the second bit of section b means you can't now ask for a ruling, although I can see that some might argue otherwise based on the final paragraph.

[RMB1]

..., although I can see that some might argue otherwise based on the final paragraph.

 

I would argue otherwise, based on that final paragraph. :(

[nige1]

I'm posting this one in the offline bridge section since I think it's only relevant to offline bridge, but maybe a rules thing so the L & R forum may be better. In a match played privately (as the EBU does for various competitions), you're playing in the 3rd set of 4, where there's a hand where the opponents have UI which requires a ruling. You make a note of the hand and agree to speak to a director at the end of the set. The board as it happened was pushed (if this is relevant, which I think probably not). At the end of the set, you score up and are about 50 IMPs up, and so decide it's not worth bothering a director, especially as you have a long drive home and are keen to get the match finished and done with ASAP, and so you tell your opponents accordingly.In the 4th set, the opponents come out and swing heavily, and manage to overturn the deficit, and win by a few IMPs. Can you now demand a director call having previously rejected it?

2 Calling for a Ruling

Problems often arise in matches played privately when there is a dispute that involves more than just the reading and application of the law.

If you think anirregularity has occurred which has damaged your side, you should proceed as follows:

a Raise the matter (by, say, reserving your rights) at the time, preferably before the board has finished, but certainly before you remove your cards from the next board.

b Confirm your wish to have a ruling before your opponents have left the table to score up that set of boards; if after scoring you withdraw your request that would be an end of the matter. A failure to take these steps puts you in the same position as a player in a public competition who fails to call the Tournament Director at the appropriate time.

You may still request a ruling as long as you do it within twenty minutes of the end of the match. However, the longer the time lapse, the more difficult it is to establish the facts and Directors, like Tournament Directors in public competitions, may be less inclined to find damage which the player did not appear to be aware of at the time. However, a player who could not have known an irregularity had occurred will be in a stronger position than one who could or should have noticed but did not mention it at the time.

IMO...

• This post should be in the Laws and rulings forum.
• The EBU regulations need simplification and clarification. They are seemingly self-contradictory. If the last paragraph refers only to alleged infractions discovered belatedly, that should be made explicit.

[Vampyr]

I would argue otherwise, bAsed on that final paragraph. :(

 

I would too, and it seems impossible to me that saying "let's not call" rather than "let's not call yet" can make a difference between whether you are entitled to ask for a ruling. If only because different people may differently remember what was actually said.

[Zelandakh]

I would argue otherwise, bAsed on that final paragraph. :(

Would this not be against the Laws? The TD needs to rectify an error or irregularity regardless of the manner (s)he becomes aware of it until the end of the correction period. It seems to me that this reads that a player can ask for a ruling but they are in a similar position to having not called the TD at the appropriate time in F2F play and that in turn might mean that they have waived their right to a favourable ruling - but the TD still needs to investigate!

[gordontd]

I would argue otherwise, based on that final paragraph. :(

If that is the case, I can't see what function is performed by the phrase "if after scoring you withdraw your request that would be an end of the matter". "End of the matter" seems fairly final to me.

[RMB1]

If that is the case, I can't see what function is performed by the phrase "if after scoring you withdraw your request that would be an end of the matter". "End of the matter" seems fairly final to me.

I am not sure of the function of the phrase: to me it suggests that to renew a request for a ruling is in some way unsporting/impolite rather than not allowed.

 

It is not clear to me that the OP confirmed his "wish to have a ruling before your opponents have left the table to score up that set of boards" and so his team may not have subsequently withdrawn that request and so the phrase in question is not triggered.

 

It is clear (to me) that if OP had asked for a ruling later they would be "in the same position as a player in a public competition who fails to call the Tournament Director at the appropriate time"; in a public competition, the correction period for a ruling from any stanza extends beyond the end of the match, and a request for a ruling within 20 minutes of the end of the match is "in time".

[Vampyr]

Also in matches played privately, it is customary to ring for a ruling at the end, since the disruption and time loss for a telephone ruling can be avoided if the ruling does not, in the end, matter.

[barmar]

IMO...[/size]

• This post should be in the Laws and rulings forum.

Agreed. I've moved it.

[lamford]

a request for a ruling within 20 minutes of the end of the match is "in time".

I agree. And the clause referred to by gordontd surely implies that if, after scoring at the end of the match, you win or lose anyway, then you can withdraw the request and that would be final. Sounds like the regulations were hastily drawn up.

[gordontd]

Clearly it is not sensible to withdraw your request for a ruling until you know it really isn't going to matter! At the Spring Fours (involving long knockout matches) there are often requests for rulings made during a match, but they are usually withdrawn if the team wins anyway or loses by too large a margin for it to matter.

[blackshoe]

Where in law is the principle that an appeal should not be made or should be withdrawn if the outcome of the appeal cannot affect the appellant's final standing in the event or, more generally, cannot affect the score on the board in question?

[gordontd]

There's no such principle, and I don't think I suggested there is. It is however common for players to decide to appeal only if it can affect their results. And my point was that such players do not usually withdraw their request just because they are a long way up at the end of a stanza, they correctly wait for the fat lady. Edited September 17, 2015 by gordontd

[Vampyr]

There's no such principle, and I don't think I suggested there is. It is however common for players to decide to appeal only if it can affect their results. And my point was that such players do not usually withdraw there request just because they are a long way up at the end of a stanza, they correctly wait for the fat lady.

 

But... Should one ill-considered remark really have the power to nullify a player's rights? It seems very harsh, and it seems to me that there can be be disagreement at the end of the match exactly what was said and what was meant?

[lamford]

But... Should one ill-considered remark really have the power to nullify a player's rights? It seems very harsh, and it seems to me that there can be be disagreement at the end of the match exactly what was said and what was meant?

I am not sure that the CoC should prevent the application of Law 92A, the right to appeal, nor to the right to obtain a ruling on any board before the expiration of the correction period. Law 92B seems to specify 30 minutes but it seems the RA has changed it to 20 minutes according to the link gordontd gave.

 

Also I do not think the phrase "decide it's not worth bothering a director" is equivalent to "withdrawing a request". It seems to be a decision not to make a request in the first place.

[gordontd]

But... Should one ill-considered remark really have the power to nullify a player's rights? It seems very harsh, and it seems to me that there can be be disagreement at the end of the match exactly what was said and what was meant?

I think it's probably a regulation that needs looking at again.

[sanst]

At the end of the set, you score up and are about 50 IMPs up, and so decide it's not worth bothering a director, especially as you have a long drive home and are keen to get the match finished and done with ASAP, and so you tell your opponents accordingly.

 

In the 4th set, the opponents come out and swing heavily, and manage to overturn the deficit, and win by a few IMPs. Can you now demand a director call having previously rejected it?

In such a situation I wouldn't dream of going back on my word. Once you've told your opponents that you let the matter rest, you should let it rest. That has nothing to do with rules and regulations, but, in my book, is a matter of common decency. A man a man, a word a word.

 

Joost

[blackshoe]

There's no such principle, and I don't think I suggested there is. It is however common for players to decide to appeal only if it can affect their results. And my point was that such players do not usually withdraw their request just because they are a long way up at the end of a stanza, they correctly wait for the fat lady.

You didn't, and I didn't say or imply that you did. I asked the question because I know that your second sentence is true, but I really don't understand why. There are other valid reasons to pursue an appeal - it is for example the only way for a player to get a correct ruling if the TD screwed up.

[Vampyr]

You didn't, and I didn't say or imply that you did. I asked the question because I know that your second sentence is true, but I really don't understand why. There are other valid reasons to pursue an appeal - it is for example the only way for a player to get a correct ruling if the TD screwed up.

 

I think that Gordon used sloppy language and by "appeal" meant request for a ruling.

 

Although an appeal can be made by telephone to a referee; that is how my local once-a-week club decided to handle appeals. It is a very practical solution for a club that has its premises for a limited time and where people need to be sure of catching the last tube or train.

[axman]

Would this not be against the Laws? The TD needs to rectify an error or irregularity regardless of the manner (s)he becomes aware of it until the end of the correction period. It seems to me that this reads that a player can ask for a ruling but they are in a similar position to having not called the TD at the appropriate time in F2F play and that in turn might mean that they have waived their right to a favourable ruling - but the TD still needs to investigate!

 

It is probably worthwhile to note that via the passage of time it is possible that a contemporaneous ruling may well be controlled by different law/regulation/facts than a ruling that is not contemporaneous. For instance, facts established at the time may be more believable than those at a later and more contentious moment.

[Zelandakh]

I think a contemporaneous ruling would be extremely difficult to arrange. Generally the infraction needs to take place before the ruling!

 

For what you actually mean, it has already been pointed out that it is not at all uncommon to delay obtaining a ruling to the end of the match. In some cases it might be that specific facts are more difficult to obtain later than had the TD been at the table. In that case the TD just needs to do the best they can, they cannot simply ignore the infraction for convenience. As I wrote in the quoted message, the similar is similar to a F2F situation where the TD has not been called at the appropriate time.

[helene_t]

Is it obvious whether "after scoring" means "after scoring the match" or "after scoring the sesion"?

[gordontd]

Is it obvious whether "after scoring" means "after scoring the match" or "after scoring the sesion"?

I think it's clear that it means after scoring that set, because the full sentence is "Confirm your wish to have a ruling before your opponents have left the table to score up that set of boards; if after scoring you withdraw your request that would be an end of the matter."