[Cascade]

 blackshoe, on 2010-October-30, 07:12, said:

It seems to me that the last few posts have descended into nonsense. First, there was no concession, there was a claim. Acquiescence in a claim is not a concession. "Disagreement" in the context of Law 79 means "disagreement between the contestants directly involved at the table".

This is not blml. We don't care how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or how many different ways someone can twist the words of the laws.

And now we descend into insulting members of another forum. This seems completely inappropriate here.

"twist the words of the laws" is exactly how I would describe David Stevenson's claim that

 bluejak, on 2010-October-29, 05:38, said:

But we do not decide things on how we would wish them to be, and the accepted interpretation of Law 92A is as I said, despite the fact that it could be read differently or interpreted differently.

Law 92A says:

L92A said:

A contestant or his captain may appeal for a review of any ruling made at
his table by the Director. Any such appeal, if deemed to lack merit, may be
the subject of a sanction imposed by regulation.

David further engages in this "twist the words of the laws" earlier when he wrote:

 bluejak, on 2010-October-28, 18:40, said:

I have always understood that you cannot ask for a ruling or appeal at another table. Presumably it is an interpretation of the wording of Law 92A.

You could always persuade a pair who were at the table to ask for a ruling or to appeal, I suppose.

Which subtlely adds "ruling" to his interpretation of L92A which deals only with "appeals" and "review of any ruling".

Law 81C3 clearly states the director's responsibility to rectify irregularities.

L81C3 said:

to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any
manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law
79C.

I would consider an invalid claim an irregularity.

As a player I do not have to ask for a "ruling" at another table I just need to make the director aware of the "irregularily" and the director has a responsibility to "rectify".

I don't really see how this could be more clear in the laws nor why David and others wish to "twist the words of the laws" in order not to "rectify" an "irregularity" at a table.

[blackshoe]

I think the members of blml waste their time on things on which time is not worth wasting. I said so. If that's insulting them, so be it.

I wasn't referring to David. I happen to agree with him wrt 92A.

An irregularity is a departure from correct procedure. The law defines correct procedure in claiming. It doesn't say anything procedurally about whether the claimer has to be right in his claim. So I think you're misusing "irregularity" if you say that a claim of all the tricks which was made in a procedurally correct manner is an irregularity.

Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say anything at all about anyone not wanting to avoid rectifying an irregularity. I don't think there's been an irregularity. Surely I'm allowed to disagree with you on that point?

[mjj29]

 blackshoe, on 2010-October-30, 15:35, said:

I think the members of blml waste their time on things on which time is not worth wasting. I said so. If that's insulting them, so be it.

I wasn't referring to David. I happen to agree with him wrt 92A.

An irregularity is a departure from correct procedure. The law defines correct procedure in claiming. It doesn't say anything procedurally about whether the claimer has to be right in his claim. So I think you're misusing "irregularity" if you say that a claim of all the tricks which was made in a procedurally correct manner is an irregularity.

Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say anything at all about anyone not wanting to avoid rectifying an irregularity. I don't think there's been an irregularity. Surely I'm allowed to disagree with you on that point?

If you have pointed out to either side involved that the claim was impossible and they've not called the director themselves then there has been a breach of 79A2, which _is_ an irregularity. That aside, even without that I don't see how 71 wouldn't apply anyway. It says nothing about how the director uncovers the "player conceded a trick which could not be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards", just that he "shall cancel the concession". I certainly don't think that informing the Director of manifest (or possible) errors is unethical, it would appear to me to merely be obeying law 72A "the chief objective is to obtain a higher score etc etc".

Finally, speaking as a director, I would much rather people pointed out to me suspect scores during the night rather than getting home with the travellers and trying to work out why 4S has made both ways or why pair 6 appears to have played the board three times...

[Bbradley62]

I don't think this question has anything to do with claims or concessions. What happens if a player reports to the director, during the correction period, that there is a table scored as 7♥ bid and made by NS when this can't be because E holds ♥A? The players from that table are gone and can't be asked about it. Does the director let the impossible result stand as recorded?

[Zelandakh]

 Bbradley62, on 2010-October-30, 19:06, said:

I don't think this question has anything to do with claims or concessions. What happens if a player reports to the director, during the correction period, that there is a table scored as 7♥ bid and made by NS when this can't be because E holds ♥A? The players from that table are gone and can't be asked about it. Does the director let the impossible result stand as recorded?

This is precisely what we are discussing Bbradley. The original post that started this discussion was specifically an impossible claim because of a 100% guaranteed trump loser in a grand slam.

[pran]

 Bbradley62, on 2010-October-30, 19:06, said:

I don't think this question has anything to do with claims or concessions. What happens if a player reports to the director, during the correction period, that there is a table scored as 7♥ bid and made by NS when this can't be because E holds ♥A? The players from that table are gone and can't be asked about it. Does the director let the impossible result stand as recorded?

Yes, what else can he do if there is no way he can determine exactly what has happened?

His only alternative is to award an artificial adjusted score A- for both sides because both sides are guilty of having reported an impossible result?

After all a result has been properly reported.

[blackshoe]

That result is not impossible. Suppose there were an established revoke by the defenders? Granted the TD should know that, because he should have been called, but still...

I do not think it's appropriate to change a score unless you can establish what happened.

[RMB1]

Where is the infraction?
Where is this "reporting an impossible results" in the laws?
Is there any evidence that declarer cajoled or threatened opponents into accepting the result?
Is there any evidence that declarer had done anything but miscount trumps, or assume they were 3-2?
(If declarer knew opponents had a trump trick then he has violated Law 79A2.)

Quote

A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that his side did not win or the concession of a trick that his opponents could not lose.

Is there any obligation in the laws to not accept claims?

If the director investigates, all he can do is to tell both sides that 7♦= is "impossible" and ask if there is anything they wish to bring to his attention.

The suggestion that the TD should replace an agreed and properly entered score by an artificial adjustment is preposterous exceeding his authority.

[Removed DST issue - now resolved]

This post has been edited by RMB1: 2010-November-01, 07:10

[pran]

 RMB1, on 2010-October-31, 07:17, said:

Where is the infraction?
Where is this "reporting an impossible results" in the laws?
Is there any evidence that declarer cajoled or threatened opponents into accepting the result?
Is there any evidence that declarer had done anything but miscount trumps, or assume they were 3-2?
(If declarer knew opponents had a trump trick then he has violated Law 79A2.)

Is there any obligation in the laws to not accept claims?

If the director investigates, all he can do is to tell both sides that 7♦= is "impossible" and ask if there is anything they wish to bring to his attention.

The suggestion that the TD should replace an agreed and properly entered score by an artificial adjustment is preposterous exceeding his authority.

Posted at 13.17 (GMT) but the board shows 14.17. Something does not know that daylight saving stopped last night.

I certainly hope that nobody understood me to seriously suggest awarding an artificial adjusted score (A-/A- or whatever), such an adjustment is of course illegal and I am fully aware of this fact.

However, if the director feels that he must adjust the score without knowing what really happened then what else can he do than assigning an artificial score? Toss a coin to select a contract and how many tricks he will award?


Now for an example on how the "correct" result on a board can be an impossible score even when no irregularity has occurred:

There has been a claim and opponents agreed to that claim without realizing that the claim was faulty. Somehow the director's attention is called to the "impossible" result after the correction period has expired. What is he to do? Of course he must just let the reported result stand.

[Bbradley62]

 Zelandakh, on 2010-October-31, 01:15, said:

 Bbradley62, on 2010-October-30, 19:06, said:

I don't think this question has anything to do with claims or concessions. What happens if a player reports to the director, during the correction period, that there is a table scored as 7♥ bid and made by NS when this can't be because E holds ♥A? The players from that table are gone and can't be asked about it. Does the director let the impossible result stand as recorded?

This is precisely what we are discussing Bbradley. The original post that started this discussion was specifically an impossible claim because of a 100% guaranteed trump loser in a grand slam.

First, OP did not make it clear that there was an impossible result, although that became clear soon enough.

Second, much of the conversation has focused on whether or not there was a "concession" or an "irregularity" under the Laws as a result of the erroneously-accepted claim. I was asking what would happen if the four players were gone and therefore no one even knew that there had been a claim at the table, just that the reported result was impossible. If the answer is "impossible result stands", that's fine; I was asking a question, not suggesting an answer.

[RMB1]

 Bbradley62, on 2010-October-31, 08:28, said:

... I was asking what would happen if the four players were gone and therefore no one even knew that there had been a claim at the table, just that the reported result was impossible. If the answer is "impossible result stands", that's fine; I was asking a question, not suggesting an answer.

I think an impossible result (properly entered on the traveller) should stand. There may have been a bum claim/concession (not per se an infraction) or a revoke (ruled on by the players). Who knows?

[Zelandakh]

 RMB1, on 2010-October-31, 11:09, said:

I think an impossible result (properly entered on the traveller) should stand. There may have been a bum claim/concession (not per se an infraction) or a revoke (ruled on by the players). Who knows?

I do not believe it was suggested that the TD should adjust the score if the facts could not be established that a bad claim was made. Certainly I made this clear that that was my position in a very early post from this pair of threads.

 RMB1, on 2010-October-31, 07:17, said:

Where is the infraction?

There are a couple of possible infractions that might be investigated. One is an accusation of cheating, that the defenders knowingly accepted the bad claim. This might be plausible if there were bad blood between the second-placed pair and the defenders for example. Another is if anyone discussed the hand with someone at the table then not reporting the incident is an infraction. Finally 79B gives the TD a right to change the number of tricks scored from an impossible claim even without an infraction occurring "if a subsequent disagreement arises". There is no mention about how such a disagreement might arise nor any restriction on who might raise such a disagreement.

[blackshoe]

I would read 79B's "if a disagreement arises" to mean disagreement between the contestants at the table. I note that "subsequent" is not in the law.

[Zelandakh]

 blackshoe, on 2010-November-01, 01:07, said:

I would read 79B's "if a disagreement arises" to mean disagreement between the contestants at the table. I note that "subsequent" is not in the law.

It is in the WBF law. It may not be in the ACBL law, I have not looked.

[blackshoe]

I would read 79B's "if a disagreement arises" to mean disagreement between the contestants at the table. I note that "subsequent" is not in the law.

Hypothetical situations are all very well, but the question was about a specific situation, not one of Zel's hypothetical ones.

[Zelandakh]

 blackshoe, on 2010-November-01, 01:10, said:

I would read 79B's "if a disagreement arises" to mean disagreement between the contestants at the table. I note that "subsequent" is not in the law.

Hypothetical situations are all very well, but the question was about a specific situation, not one of Zel's hypothetical ones.

"1. It has been suggested in another forum that it is perfectly legal, in a pairs game, for a pair not involved at the table to bring to the TD's attention a situation where one pair at the table acquiesced in a claim when they were entitled to one or more tricks." from your OP was directly lifted from a scenario I suggested. Thus I have been talking about that specific (hypothetical) situation. if you have accepted this and are now only talking about scenario 2 "2. It has been suggested that in the situation mentioned above it is perfectly legally for the uninvolved pair to attempt to persuade the involved pair to go to the TD and withdraw their acquiescence in the claim." then that is a different matter. As has been pointed out as soon as someone brings the impossible claim to the attention of the involved pair they are required to report it or an infraction has occurred. I am unsure which alternative specific, non-hypothetical scenario to which you refer.

Edit: And Law 79B might have that interpretation but it is not written in the rules that I can see.

[blackshoe]

Sigh. Okay, I was referring to your suggestion of various infractions that "might be investigated". One "might investigate" a lot of things, but that doesn't answer the question "what was the infraction?" I think people are assuming or suggesting that in the case of acquiescence in a claim of all the tricks, when claimer must lose one or more, either the acquiescence or the claim is an infraction. Neither is, unless we go hunting for reasons to make it so.

"Subsequent" is not in the ACBL version of the lawbook. Yes, it's in the WBF version.

Yes, it's an interpretation.

[Zelandakh]

 blackshoe, on 2010-November-01, 01:35, said:

Sigh. Okay, I was referring to your suggestion of various infractions that "might be investigated". One "might investigate" a lot of things, but that doesn't answer the question "what was the infraction?" I think people are assuming or suggesting that in the case of acquiescence in a claim of all the tricks, when claimer must lose one or more, either the acquiescence or the claim is an infraction. Neither is, unless we go hunting for reasons to make it so.

"Subsequent" is not in the ACBL version of the lawbook. Yes, it's in the WBF version.

Yes, it's an interpretation.

Absolutely. It is only an infraction if done "knowingly". The knowledge can come any time within the correction period but not later. I think we agree on this.

[blackshoe]

I think so, yes.