[kenrexford]

I was ticked, but I was not sure who to be more angry with -- the opponents or myself.

On a certain hand, deep finesse agreed that my actual contract of 2♠ should be set one trick. I actually received a lead that allowed me to make the contract, for a huge matchpoint score, but then I would have to assume certain facts about the opponents' cards that seemed strange. Instead, realizing the advantage gained, I decided to make a sort of safety play. Instead of playing for the, say, 50% line, I decided to cater to the, say, 40% line. That way, if the 50% line was working all along, I'd be back to average because of the lead received. However, if the 40% line was what was actually going on, then I would protect -100 instead of -200. At matchpoints, that seemed to make sense.

In other words, the normal line probably leads to -100. With my lead, the normal line now makes, but I can still get the normal -100 if I cater for the second-most-likely layout. If I do cater to that second most likely layout, I cost myself a trick against the normal line, but I had already received +1 by the defense, totalling a net of -100 and parl. If, however, the second-most-likely layout is reality, my alternative line, plus the free trick, nets me -100, which is huge at MP in comparison to the -200 that results, even with the free trick, if I do not cater to that alternative layout but that layout exists.

The one risk, however, in taking that alternative line is a small chance that a third layout exists, where I will go -200 even with the extra trick I received and only because I opted to head toward that alternative line.

I have no idea what the actual percentages were, but I decided to launch the alternative line, because it seemed somehow prudent.

Anyway, at a specific point in the play, I would find out if the freak layout was real if LHO, at trick 10, over-ruffed my trump 9 to set me two tricks. At trick 10, that exact event occurred. I was then able to claim, for down two. This was extremely frustrating.

Later, however, while having a drink at the bar or something and looking at the recap sheets, I noticed that the freak layout did not exist. In fact, it was nowhere near the freak layout. Rather, LHO, who had four cards remaining, had ruffed with his 10 despite having TWO cards in the suit that was played at that point.

I am convinced that LHO could not have made a mistake at this point and that, instead, this was deliberate. I am also convinced in retrospect that I probably could have figured this out even without looking to see his cards, but counting out the hand for that purpose is not a usual thing to do.

That one play cost several places in the results and was infuriating.

Is there anything that could have been done (and up to what point)? Or, is it prudent to make everyone show their hand after each claim, just in case, which seems extremely rude?

[han]

If you don't trust it you can of course just play it out so that you can see their cards...

The story is a bit vague I must say, how long since you left the bar?

[kenrexford]

han, on Dec 5 2008, 05:53 PM, said:

If you don't trust it you can of course just play it out so that you can see their cards...

The story is a bit vague I must say, how long since you left the bar?

It has been about two weeks since I left that bar, so I cannot remember the exact hand. The gist of it was that I was playing 2♠ in a 4-3 fit. The normal line would be to play for the 3-3 split. The safety play was to allow for the 4-2 split, which is only a problem if the layout is actually 3-3 but both opponents can ruff in on me. As it was, the layout of trumps was 3-3, but, although both opponents could not ruff in on me, both did.

[jdonn]

I think??? that if you see they revoked before the next session begins, and if it cost you tricks, it's not too late to ask the director to change your score. Of course the other pair may disagree and either side might appeal the decision, but I believe the director can legally change your score until the next session begins.

I have no rule to quote, it's just my vague memory of similar situations.

[FrancesHinden]

Whether it's too late or not to get an adjustment depends on the Correction Period, which is defined for the relevant event somewhere in the conditions of contest. Whether that's 2 days after play finishes, or 20 minutes, or anything else will depend on the event (in particular, it is often shorter if the event is a qualifying session for the next stage of something, because they have to have final results before the next stage).

If you are within the correction period, you still can't get the revoke penalty, but you can get a ruling back to equity.

However, even then, you will need to convince the director that there actually was a revoke. In practice this will be hard unless the opponents can be found, and are happy to go through the play with you, and agree on how the play went.

(It can happen - someone made a grand slam against me once with the aid of a revoke, we found out when we saw the hand records, they agreed what had happened and it was adjusted to one off. People not only don't always revoke on purpose, sometimes they don't even realise they've done it. I once made the classic mistake of ruffing a suit, and then returning it...)

[Cascade]

The default correction period expires 30 minutes after the results are made available.

[brianshark]

It's probably too late. I've once revoked and then returned the suit as well. People make silly mistakes. I think it's quite unlikely that this revoke was in any way deliberate.

[Fluffy]

Around here, the scoring sheets contain every result as well as the full deal handwritten, you can look there safely, even if not, everyone asks what do you have left and it doesn't seem rude at all.

[JoAnneM]

I think this is a gray area. The 30 minute rule applies to scoring errors, but I have never seen it enforced. I have seen directors at Regionals correct scores even the next morning. But I think claim and revoking charges are limited to the start of the next round, unless agreed to by all parties.

I also really doubt that person revoked on purpose. I once over ruffed declarer twice in one hand only to realize I had three of that suit. Honestly, I didn't do it on purpose, I even played the cards later and no one said a thing.

[blackshoe]

If it's a gray area, what makes it gray is what people do, not what the law says they should do.

Law 81C3 said:

The director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage. The director’s duties and powers normally include also the following:

[snip]

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

If people (i.e., directors) don't enforce the law, why are we letting them direct?

Note that a Tournament Organizer can, in the Conditions of Contest, specify a different correction period to that defined by default in Law 79C. I think before we censure directors for correcting scores "the next morning" or whatever, we should be sure what the correction period for the event in question actually is.

The claims laws specifically allow withdrawal of acquiescence to a claim or concession within the concession period. See Law 69B and 71.

I think it would be folly to assume a player violated the laws deliberately, absent strong evidence that he did. In essence, saying you believe a player did this is saying he's a cheat — and you'd better be able to back it up. If you don't have strong evidence (and Ken does not, IMO, in this case) then best just keep mum.

Just looked this up, in the ACBL's General Conditions of Contest:

Quote

1. The appeal period of or for a Director's ruling expires one half hour after the completion of a session or the starting time of the next session, whichever is earlier.

2. The correction period varies by type of event. See the General and Specific Conditions for the event.

For pairs events:

Quote

1. The score correction period for player errors expires at the completion of play of the session following the one in which the error occurred.

2. For director errors the correction period expires twenty four hours after the completion of the event or thirty minutes after completion of the last event of the tournament, whichever is earlier.

3. For qualifying events the score correction period for both player and director errors expires one hour before the announced starting time of the first final session.

4. The appeal period of or for a Director's ruling expires one half hour after the completion of a session or the starting time of the next session whichever is earlier.

[JoAnneM]

Well let me ask this. Tournaments are more and more now posting session results and and scores online. If you are attending a large tournament and spend the morning online checking all your scores and looking at the results and notice an error from two days ago for a two-session open pairs event do you think the direcotrs should correct it? What if it is a computer entry error?

[jdonn]

Despite all the law-quoting above, I have a number of times seen scores corrected after the dinner break (players have dinner plans after the session, come back early before the next session, check their scores, tell director, etc.) I once even had a correction made THE NEXT DAY, AFTER the start of a session of the same event even though the prior day's results affected the current day's matchups (that one in particular when the directors had made an input error.)

[xcurt]

Thoughts:

* You probably have no rights here.
* You really need to check your scores and the hand records immediately following the session.
* If it's still possible to correct the score, the right thing to do if you're the revoker is accede to a correction.
* I have no idea whether or not your opponent revoked deliberately but I could easily see how it was an accident. For example, he might have expected you to have a different hand and played the correct card for the line he thought you were taking.

[blackshoe]

JoAnneM, on Dec 13 2008, 09:48 PM, said:

Well let me ask this.  Tournaments are more and more now posting session results and and scores online.  If you are attending a large tournament and spend the morning online checking all your scores and looking at the results and notice an error from two days ago for a two-session open pairs event do you think the direcotrs should correct it?  What if it is a computer entry error?

Are you asking me?

I think the director should do whatever the laws and regulations in force for the event tell him to do. If they are unclear he should either consult with the TO, or make a decision and report the problem and his resolution to the TO. In either case the TO needs to make sure that next time there will be no ambiguity. I think that in general, particularly where the rules are clear, the TD should not do something they don't permit him to do, even if it "feels right" to him.

In many cases, if there is a computer entry error, the TD will have made it. It is natural, I think, to want to correct something like that. It certainly seems to be more fair to the players who lost out because of it. But if the rules say the correction period is over, then it's over. <shrug>

Josh: all I can say is that if the people who are supposed to be enforcing the rules aren't doing it, they ought to be fired. OTOH, if the rules are bad, change 'em. But don't change 'em just because (some) TDs don't want to do their job.

One last thought: as I said before, the conditions of contest may have specified a different end to the correction period than you (or I, or anybody else) might think is the case, so the fact that a change was made after the ACBLs general CoC (or the laws) say it should have been too late doesn't necessarily mean that it was.

[FrancesHinden]

JoAnneM, on Dec 14 2008, 01:48 AM, said:

Well let me ask this. Tournaments are more and more now posting session results and and scores online. If you are attending a large tournament and spend the morning online checking all your scores and looking at the results and notice an error from two days ago for a two-session open pairs event do you think the direcotrs should correct it? What if it is a computer entry error?

You do exactly what the rules say you should do.

I've missed out on a trophy and prize for winning an event due to a scoring error not noticed until the correction period was over (that is, the score was entered correctly on the traveller but entered into the computer incorrectly by the scorer).

The results were posted online after the correction period was over. If we had wanted to, we could have stayed at the end of the event and waited for the frequencies to be posted, and then checked them all. We didn't, we went home instead.

[MFA]

FrancesHinden, on Dec 15 2008, 05:19 AM, said:

JoAnneM, on Dec 14 2008, 01:48 AM, said:

Well let me ask this.  Tournaments are more and more now posting session results and and scores online.  If you are attending a large tournament and spend the morning online checking all your scores and looking at the results and notice an error from two days ago for a two-session open pairs event do you think the direcotrs should correct it?  What if it is a computer entry error?

You do exactly what the rules say you should do.

I've missed out on a trophy and prize for winning an event due to a scoring error not noticed until the correction period was over (that is, the score was entered correctly on the traveller but entered into the computer incorrectly by the scorer).

The results were posted online after the correction period was over. If we had wanted to, we could have stayed at the end of the event and waited for the frequencies to be posted, and then checked them all. We didn't, we went home instead.

Right.

At our national pairs championships we use bridgemate. After the final session everybody can collect a private scores print, if they wish, and distributions are easily available.

We had a situation last year with a misscoring for the bronze medals winners. They had entered wrong directions and +620 (for a top) instead of -620. A correction of this would cost the medals.
Nobody has any reason to expect that it was not an accident, or that the players had found out later and chosen to say nothing.

Our disappointed 4th place heroes carefully went through their own scores at the playing scene, but it was not until the next day, when the scores were posted on the internet that they found (and had any chance to do so) the mistake of the other pair. At that time everybody was back home after the weekend tournament.

What should be done? Follow the rules, sure, but what should the rules be?

[shintaro]

Do you not still post a copy of the final results / frequencies when you use Bridgemates;

Pity over here in Blighty we have our very own checking system for wrong scores called 'JIM'

[MFA]

shintaro, on Dec 15 2008, 10:45 AM, said:

Do you not still post a copy of the final results / frequencies when you use Bridgemates;

Pity over here in Blighty we have our very own checking system for wrong scores called 'JIM'

Right, frequencies/board are posted but doesn't attract much attention because of the private scores.
Surely it is a little surprising that this error wasn't caught before but other errors might be much harder to spot just from the raw score. On the internet, one can see the contract also, which makes it easier.

[shintaro]

So frequencies are posted therefore No problem YOU stay and check that YOUR scores are correct ; that is what the set time period for checking is all about.

If you dont check or cannot be bothered staying to check; then you get what you deserve surely.

With Bridgemates you have 2 chances the first being when the score is entered and then passed to East for checking, which is when wrong Input SHOULD be found; If you press OK by mistake you have the TD who can then Change the score for you or cancel the Score so that it can be input correctly;

Lastly you can Check the Frequencies

To me it is a no brainer

[JoAnneM]

Even when the daily bulletins are printed at NABC's there is the disclaimer that the scores posted are not final, due to possible errors. It just seems incredible to me that an incorrect score would be allowed to stand, no matter when it was discovered. And I can't imagine a DIC wanting to run a tournament that issued points based on incorrect scoring.