Ethics

[GHSteele]

I lost track of a card in my hand and revoked. Declarer was in 3NT running ♦AKQJ432 in dummy. When the 4 was led I discovered the 5 in my hand. I played it and won the trick. The director was not called at that point, but was at the end of the hand. I had not won the trick I revoked on, but won that trick and 2 more. The director ruled that declarer had made 5. I noted that had I not revoked declarer would have made 7. I asked the director to look at the hand and reconsider what had happened. He stood by his ruling.

 

Yes, declarer could have made only 5, normally. However there had been an opening lead into declarer's AQ.

 

I told declarer I would score it as making 7 (which, incidentally, led to losing by 2 IMPs). Was I right to not accept the director's ruling?

[gordontd]

The director's ruling was wrong - he should have adjusted in equity using Law 64C. But you are completely wrong to try to override the director in such a way and deserve a disciplinary case for doing so. If you disagree with a TD's ruling you should ask to appeal it.

[blackshoe]

Agree completely with Gordon. Note that you need not limit appeals to cases where you think you can gain something from the appeal. You can (I would say should) also appeal a ruling where you think the director made a mistake in your favor.

[Vampyr]

The director's ruling was wrong - he should have adjusted in equity using Law 64C. But you are completely wrong to try to override the director in such a way and deserve a disciplinary case for doing so. If you disagree with a TD's ruling you should ask to appeal it.

 

I should first have asked the TD to read me the relevant law.

[aguahombre]

FWIW, the TD was applying equity from the outset of play, rather than from the infraction. This frequent error comes from his ability to look at his hand record with the DD outcomes listed, and laziness, IMO. Edit: Actually it is easier than that. All the TD has to do is see how many tricks declarer would end up with if allowed to continue winning Diamonds (if the five was gone).

 

You knew the ruling was wrong; your opponents can easily be shown by you that the ruling was wrong. We all know that what you did was wrong. There is nothing in the rules which allow you to save all the time and effort of an appeal, which we all know would have resulted in making 7. I bet this has happened before, and nobody other than the parties at the table ever knew about it. Hint: don't bet against that.