[nickf]

Hi,

I was operating a VG from Sydney yesterday - at the beginning of the final quarter of a very close match, declarer drifted two down in a contract and claimed -1 at a point when the defense had won five tricks, I think with 3 tricks to play. In the melee both sides agreed to down 1.

I wasnt sure what to do, but left it at down two as per the record of play. Later on the TD came up to me and quietly mentioned that the BBO score was wrong on the board, and I mentioned to him what had happened but he no doubt correctly informed the result should stand as agreed, down 1.

As it turned out, the 2 imp swing was irrelevant at the end of the match but what if during the alloted score check period the defenders realised they had agreed to a dodgy claim - is the BBO record evidence? Or do the players have to agree to the reconstructed line among themselves?

nickf
sydney

[pran]

nickf, on Oct 30 2009, 11:00 AM, said:

Hi,

I was operating a VG from Sydney yesterday - at the beginning of the final quarter of a very close match, declarer drifted two down in a contract and claimed -1 at a point when the defense had won five tricks, I think with 3 tricks to play. In the melee both sides agreed to down 1.

I wasnt sure what to do, but left it at down two as per the record of play. Later on the TD came up to me and quietly mentioned that the BBO score was wrong on the board, and I mentioned to him what had happened but he no doubt correctly informed the result should stand as agreed, down 1.

As it turned out, the 2 imp swing was irrelevant at the end of the match but what if during the alloted score check period the defenders realised they had agreed to a dodgy claim - is the BBO record evidence? Or do the players have to agree to the  reconstructed line among themselves?

nickf
sydney

Law 71:
A concession must stand, once made, except that within the Correction Period established under Law 79C the Director shall cancel a concession:

1. if a player conceded a trick his side had, in fact, won; or

2. if a player has conceded a trick that could not be lost by any normal* play of the remaining cards.

The board is rescored with such trick awarded to his side.

So in my opinion the Director was wrong (unless the players had agreed that the BBO record was incorrect and that the result was indeed -1).

Regards Sven

[bluejak]

You were right to do nothing. It is not your job to approach the TD. When asked, of course you were right to explain what you had done.

However, once the TD had discovered it, he should have done something about it. Evidence is evidence: the TD does not have some evidence he may not use. The weight that he gives to any evidence is a judgement for the TD.

[nigel_k]

pran, on Oct 30 2009, 10:16 PM, said:

Law 71:
A concession must stand, once made, except that within the Correction Period established under Law 79C the Director shall cancel a concession:

1. if a player conceded a trick his side had, in fact, won; or

2. if a player has conceded a trick that could not be lost by any normal* play of the remaining cards.

The board is rescored with such trick awarded to his side.

So in my opinion the Director was wrong (unless the players had agreed that the BBO record was incorrect and that the result was indeed -1).

Regards Sven

When declarer makes a faulty claim and the defenders agree, I don't think that is a the same as a concession. Instead of law 71, you want law 69:

Agreement with a claim or concession (see A) may be withdrawn within the Correction Period established under Law 79C:

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.


The difference is 'would likely have won' instead of 'could not be lost by any normal* play'.

[mrdct]

nickf, on Oct 30 2009, 04:00 AM, said:

Hi,

I was operating a VG from Sydney yesterday - at the beginning of the final quarter of a very close match, declarer drifted two down in a contract and claimed -1 at a point when the defense had won five tricks, I think with 3 tricks to play. In the melee both sides agreed to down 1.

I wasnt sure what to do, but left it at down two as per the record of play. Later on the TD came up to me and quietly mentioned that the BBO score was wrong on the board, and I mentioned to him what had happened but he no doubt correctly informed the result should stand as agreed, down 1.

When operating you should always enter the claim as agreed by the players not as per the actual play of the hand. If necessary you may even need to do a few undos to roll back to point where a claim of -1 is possible.

[Hanoi5]

So the TD had to do something even though players never noticed?

If I'm walking by a table as TD and have a look at an irregularity going on, do I have to correct it? Am I not 'a kibitzer'?

[pran]

Sorry, I mixed up with a post where a defender conceded some of the remaining tricks.

My error.

regards Sven

[axman]

nickf, on Oct 30 2009, 04:00 AM, said:

Hi,

I was operating a VG from Sydney yesterday - at the beginning of the final quarter of a very close match, declarer drifted two down in a contract and claimed -1 at a point when the defense had won five tricks, I think with 3 tricks to play. In the melee both sides agreed to down 1.

I wasnt sure what to do, but left it at down two as per the record of play. Later on the TD came up to me and quietly mentioned that the BBO score was wrong on the board, and I mentioned to him what had happened but he no doubt correctly informed the result should stand as agreed, down 1.

As it turned out, the 2 imp swing was irrelevant at the end of the match but what if during the alloted score check period the defenders realised they had agreed to a dodgy claim - is the BBO record evidence? Or do the players have to agree to the reconstructed line among themselves?

nickf
sydney

Do I understand that declarer claimed 4 of the last three tricks, and, the defenders acquiesced?

Quick, quick. Who are these defenders? I've just bought a ticket to Australia .

[bluejak]

Hanoi5, on Nov 1 2009, 11:44 PM, said:

So the TD had to do something even though players never noticed?

If I'm walking by a table as TD and have a look at an irregularity going on, do I have to correct it? Am I not 'a kibitzer'?

No. If you are a Director then you are a Director and as such bound by Law 81C3. This is why competent TDs do not walk past tables and notice revokes.

[olliebol]

isnt it simply said you are not there operator in such cases?

[nickf]

bluejak, on Nov 2 2009, 11:45 AM, said:

This is why competent TDs do not walk past tables and notice revokes.

That's not quite what happened - the players were filling in result slips and the TD/ Scorer was inputting them into his computer so we could have live official scoring on the internet result site. He noticed a discrepency between his scores and the BBO score.

nickf
sydney

[pran]

nickf, on Nov 2 2009, 08:31 AM, said:

bluejak, on Nov 2 2009, 11:45 AM, said:

This is why competent TDs do not walk past tables and notice revokes.

That's not quite what happened - the players were filling in result slips and the TD/ Scorer was inputting them into his computer so we could have live official scoring on the internet result site. He noticed a discrepency between his scores and the BBO score.

nickf
sydney

And that discrepancy alert ought to be sufficient for the Director to investigate rather than without investigation assume that the BBO was in error.

But we do not know if the Director had already investigated and knew where the error had occurred.

regards Sven

[bluejak]

nickf, on Nov 2 2009, 07:31 AM, said:

bluejak, on Nov 2 2009, 11:45 AM, said:

This is why competent TDs do not walk past tables and notice revokes.

That's not quite what happened - the players were filling in result slips and the TD/ Scorer was inputting them into his computer so we could have live official scoring on the internet result site. He noticed a discrepency between his scores and the BBO score.

I was answering Hanoi5's post which said what to do when walking past a table.

In the case you cite the TD finds something out in the performance of his duties and is required to investigate as a matter of Law. Quite a different case.

[blackshoe]

In a rather famous case here (US v. Miller, 1939) the US Supreme Court declined to take "judicial notice" of an assertion by the defense, because no evidence was entered in support of the assertion. This was done even though several of the judges knew the assertion was correct. I suppose if they can do that, a TD can "not notice" an infraction at a table he happens to be walking by — even though "not noticing" is a direct violation of the "in any manner" provision of Law 81C3.

[pran]

About the Director walking around in the room:

We have in Norway no such "rule" that the Director should refrain from walking around in the room. On the contrary we often expect directors to do just that, especially with large fields when there are more than one director on duty.

But as a matter of fact: The Director is never expected to observe (for the purpose of noticing possible irregularities), he is expected to be available in the neighbourhood in case he is being called to a table.

I can for instance very well notice a player not following suit on a lead, and I wouldn't dream of checking out if that could be a revoke in progress without being summoned to the table for such purpose.

All this talk about Law 81C3: to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner is plain nonsense when it is used to imply a duty for the Director to become aware of an irregularity that occurs within his viewing distance. A competent director can see, and even observe without really becoming aware of an irregularity.

The exception is of course violations of Law 74 in such ways that the noise level at a table is raised noticeably.

Sven

[blackshoe]

pran, on Nov 2 2009, 04:44 PM, said:

A competent director can see, and even observe without really becoming aware of an irregularity.

Bull.

A director may see/observe/become aware of an irregularity and choose to do nothing, but he can damn sure not fail to become aware of an irregularity he sees with his own eyes, unless he's brain dead.

[pran]

blackshoe, on Nov 2 2009, 11:37 PM, said:

pran, on Nov 2 2009, 04:44 PM, said:

A competent director can see, and even observe without really becoming aware of an irregularity.

Bull.

A director may see/observe/become aware of an irregularity and choose to do nothing, but he can damn sure not fail to become aware of an irregularity he sees with his own eyes, unless he's brain dead.

Example of such an irregularity please.

The reason why a player does not follow suit is usually that he is void.

Rember that I am not speaking of someone carefully monitoring a table, I am speaking of someone walking around while more or less casually looking at tables.

Sven

[blackshoe]

And all I'm saying is that if you see something happen, you know it happened. Even if you decide to ignore it.

[mrdct]

nickf, on Nov 2 2009, 01:31 AM, said:

bluejak, on Nov 2 2009, 11:45 AM, said:

This is why competent TDs do not walk past tables and notice revokes.

That's not quite what happened - the players were filling in result slips and the TD/ Scorer was inputting them into his computer so we could have live official scoring on the internet result site. He noticed a discrepency between his scores and the BBO score.

Even more reason why it's important for BBO operators to enter the actual agreed result not the result that the operator believes to be correct. Had you entered the agreed result the director probably would never had noticed unless he happened to be watching BBO at the time (which in my experience directors are often doing btw).