[hokum]

I'm studying an Australian congress-level director's exam, and this question seems quite involved:

"As a pair is moving to another table for the next round, a kibitzer advises them that an opponent revoked on the last hand. They call you. When you speak to all parties, it is agreed that the revoke occurred."

The issues seem to be:
"..a spectator at the table shall not draw attention to any aspect of the game" (76B5). Is it relevant that the kibitzer did not disturb their match?
Was the revoke noted after the end of the round? (645) The round ends when the director calls a move (8B1), which isn't specified.
And should the director override the kibitzer/end-of-round issues to restore equity? (12A1, 12B1, 64C)

Or do you walk away with your hands in the air because everybody was too sleepy to notice a revoke?

[pran]

hokum, on 2014-September-03, 01:53, said:

I'm studying an Australian congress-level director's exam, and this question seems quite involved:

"As a pair is moving to another table for the next round, a kibitzer advises them that an opponent revoked on the last hand. They call you. When you speak to all parties, it is agreed that the revoke occurred."

The issues seem to be:
"..a spectator at the table shall not draw attention to any aspect of the game" (76B5). Is it relevant that the kibitzer did not disturb their match?
Was the revoke noted after the end of the round? (645) The round ends when the director calls a move (8B1), which isn't specified.
And should the director override the kibitzer/end-of-round issues to restore equity? (12A1, 12B1, 64C)

Or do you walk away with your hands in the air because everybody was too sleepy to notice a revoke?

Law 64C is unconditional, only limited by Law 79C. The amount of ajustment is a matter of his judgement.

[hokum]

pran, on 2014-September-03, 02:12, said:

Law 64C is unconditional, only limited by Law 79C. The amount of ajustment is a matter of his judgement.

If I understand, you'd adjust the score? That's my instinct too, and the laws seem to allow it if I understand correctly.

An experienced congress director told me he would let the score stand because the spectator should have had no impact on the game and the round had finished. I felt like those were red herrings and the real issue was equity.

[campboy]

I agree with pran. But there are two possibilities:

1. Revoking side gained tricks by revoking. Then we adjust the score (64C, 81C3).
2. Revoking side did not gain, but their opponents missed out on the one- or two-trick transfer. Then it's too late to get that.

Perhaps the director you spoke to was thinking of the second case.

[hokum]

campboy, on 2014-September-03, 02:54, said:

I agree with pran. But there are two possibilities:

1. Revoking side gained tricks by revoking. Then we adjust the score (64C, 81C3).
2. Revoking side did not gain, but their opponents missed out on the one- or two-trick transfer. Then it's too late to get that.

Perhaps the director you spoke to was thinking of the second case.

That's very clear, I think I understand. Does this seem like a fair ruling:

First I discover whether the revoking side gained tricks by revoking. If so, I adjust the score to restore equity (64C), even though the round had potentially ended (8B1, 64B5) and a spectator should not have drawn attention to any aspect of the game (76B5): “Considering that you all agree the revoke took place, I will adjust the score to restore equity to [the non-offending side]” (12B1, 12C1A, 76B4-5, 76C2 “Determinations of ABF as Regulating Authority” cited, but the players not the spectator caused the irregularity, 81C3)

If the revoking side did not gain tricks by revoking, it becomes relevant whether the round has ended (64B5). If the director has not yet called the move for the next round (8B1), the appropriate transfer of tricks to the non-offending side (64A, 81C3) is allowable. If the round has ended, there is no adjustment to the score (64B5).

To the kibitzer: “In future, please refrain from commenting to players, as the laws are clear that spectators should not draw attention to any aspect of the game” (76B5, 76C1).

[Zelandakh]

hokum, on 2014-September-03, 02:45, said:

An experienced congress director told me he would let the score stand because the spectator should have had no impact on the game and the round had finished.

Your experienced congress director needs to re-read 81C3. Which part of "in any manner" is confusing?

[weejonnie]

Zelandakh, on 2014-September-04, 05:43, said:

Your experienced congress director needs to re-read 81C3. Which part of "in any manner" is confusing?

None of course (I was about to quote that). The rules for spectators are laid down in 76 - but there seems to be no penalty available. A Director can suspend a contestant but there is nothing general available - unless the Tournament Organisers have stated it in the ToE.

[blackshoe]

Quote

Law 76A1: Spectators in the playing area are subject to the control of the Director under the regulations for the tournament.

Quote

Law 76B5: A spectator at the table shall not draw attention to any aspect of the game.

The use of "shall not" in the latter law marks doing that as a serious matter. The director has broad powers to ensure the orderly progress of the game. Absent regulations regarding spectators, I would bar this spectator from the playing area for the during of the session, at least, and for the duration of the event if it's a multi-session event. I would still have to deal with the revoke. If there are regulations in place regarding spectators, I would do what they say. I don't know what ABF regulations are in this area.

[sfi]

Since they were moving for the next round, presumably the spectator did not do this at the table. If so, then 76B5 doesn't apply and it appears the kibitzer has not done anything out of order.

[blackshoe]

We do not know whether the round has ended, but if they're moving, it seems reasonable to assume it has, since either the round has ended, or they are illegally moving before the round has ended. If the round has ended, the director will have to see if 64C applies, since it's too late for the normal rectification (Law 64B5). As for the spectator, I would not say he's done nothing wrong. He was at the table when he noticed the revoke. He's supposed to keep his mouth shut, he didn't. The director has broad powers regarding whether the spectator gets to stay in the playing area. I think there's sufficient cause to ban him.

[barmar]

Is "at the table" really intended to restrict when and where the spectator may draw attention to something, or is it merely part of the description of the spectator (in contrast to a spectator watching on Vugraph)?

It would be clearer if it said something like "While at the table, a spectator may not...." But would this mean that the spectator could leave the table to talk to the director, and there tell him about an irregularity he noticed?

[sfi]

My understanding has always been that the spectator cannot influence the game while in progress. Once the match or round is done, the players no longer have a decision to make, hence the limitation to the restriction.

[blackshoe]

sfi, on 2014-September-06, 18:15, said:

My understanding has always been that the spectator cannot influence the game while in progress. Once the match or round is done, the players no longer have a decision to make, hence the limitation to the restriction.

Maybe, but I don't think we want spectators influencing the game at all.

[Zelandakh]

I think it would be more difficult if the spectator mentioned it directly to the TD "to be helpful". Now the TD still has to investigate but removing the spectator from the playing area would be pretty harsh.

[blackshoe]

If you're not going to do it now, you should explain to him why he should never say anything to anybody about what he sees at a table, and make it clear that if he does this again he will be barred permanently.

[akwoo]

blackshoe, on 2014-September-06, 22:40, said:

Maybe, but I don't think we want spectators influencing the game at all.

I disagree. I think we DO want spectators to influence the game in pointing out violations of the rules after the fact, but possibly when results can still be adjusted.

As a player, I would definitely want equity to be restored for irregularities pointed out by a spectator after the fact. This applies whether I am directly involved or not. I agree we don't want spectators influencing the play, but in this case the play is over.

Let's say a golf tournament is televised, and after the round someone notices that one of the golfers touched the ball accidentally and unknowingly in an illegal manner. The PGA (or applicable golf ruling body) would absolutely want to the TV viewer to call in, and, if the scorecard had been signed, the golfer would be disqualified. (I always thought golf rules are unnecessarily harsh on these matters, but they are what they are.)

[barmar]

I just remembered -- weren't Reese-Shapiro taken down by spectators who monitored them and then reported what they noticed to higher authorities? Do we think the Laws intended to prohibit this?

[blackshoe]

Cheating is one thing. Mistakes are quite another.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2014-September-07, 19:36, said:

Cheating is one thing. Mistakes are quite another.

But either kibitzers can report on what they saw or they can't. We don't have a separate set of laws for catching cheats.

Or maybe we consider that the Laws in general are not oriented towards dealing with intentional cheating, only irregularities by generally well-intentioned players. So measures taken to catch cheats are not specified or constrained by the Laws.

[schulken]

So now with BBO we have thousands of "spectators" watching on viewgraph. A side question is, will the viewgraph operator's software even allow him/her to revoke, as the player at the table has? Assuming it does, the cyber-sphere will light up with those who were paying attention.

L76A.2 allows for some flexibility in "acceptable conduct" for viewers. It seems that ignoring something that is obvious to many - and can easily be reconstructed electronically - isn't in the spirit of equity just because it is inconvenient to the TD. I think the analogy to golf is a good one, except that golfers are expected to self-report infractions but bridge players are not.