[mamos]

B. Disagreement on Tricks Won

If a subsequent disagreement arises, the Director must be called, then:

1. The Director determines whether there has been a claim or concession and, if so, applies Law 69.

2. If 1 does not apply the Director rules what score is to be recorded. If the Director is not called before the round ends he rules in accordance with C below or Law 87, as applicable, but there shall be no obligation to increase a side’s score.

I've been doing some preparatory work for a Club Director Training Course and one item referred to in the course notes is Law 79B.

I'm completely mystified by the reference to Law 87, which appears to me to be a mistake of some kind. (I do have a theory, but would be interested to hear other opinions before offering it)

Any thoughts?

Mike

[Lanor Fow]

I really enjoyed your club course some years back.

I'm finding it difficult to understand the reference to law 87 myself. It may, I suppose, have been put in for situations where one person, holding a hand from a different board ruffs in when impossible/implausible and neither side notices the other has won; however, in any situation with a fouled board, one would assume that the director would go to the law on fouled board so the reference seems at best redundant.

Law 85 seems much more relevant and perhaps that is the law meant to be referenced. The fact that it seems one is meant to rule either a score error or law '87' suggests even more that the reference is incorrect as the possibilities seem more numerable than fouled board or score error (I'd argue again probably suggesting law 85 as being one of the few, if not the only law which would, with part C of 79, enumerate all possibilities)

[gordontd]

I wrote to the WBFLC about this law earlier in the year, as follows:

Quote

One of my TDs who has a particular attention to detail brought this up with me.

The situation is that a score is agreed and entered, and the players then move for the next round. One pair realises that they had agreed the wrong number of tricks and their opponents concede that is the case.

Law 79B tells us what to do if there had been a claim or concession, and in many cases that will have been so, and we have no further problem. However, in those cases where the hand was played out, I think there is a gap in the route we are shown by the Law. 79C does not apply because the error was not in computing or tabulating the result, it was in the agreement itself. 87 does not apply because we are not concerned with a fouled board.

In practice I’m sure we would all just correct the result, and in many (most?) cases there will have been a claim of some sort so we can justify our actions on that basis. However there doesn’t seem to be a clear legal basis for those actions in the example I give above.

[pran]

The same question has been posted on BLML (blml@rtflb.org) and answered/clarified (not by me) there.

If wanted I can copy the clarifying answer here