ggwhiz, on Dec 16 2008, 06:31 PM, said:
I had a VERY similar situation albeit at a club game where a "C" declarer revoked against a "B" pair and I was called after the cards had been mixed and the next hand was underway.
The C pair could not confirm the facts and would not due to the loud and obnoxious DIRECTOR call. I had a retired National Director playing who told me that I could not correct the score without such agreement unless the hand record clearly showed that the contract could not have been made without a revoke.
I have no doubt the revoke happened but they made 4 spades doubled and deep finesse made 5! I also have no sympathy.
Despite the formal corrections period etc. at a higher level, confirmation of the facts from both pairs seems necessary.
The question of obnoxious director calls is separate from the question of ruling on the reason for the call. Players should cooperate with the TD's investigation of the facts, even when the opponents are obnoxious.
The director is required to rectify any irregularity of which he becomes aware before the correction period expires. There is, however, no rectification for a revoke to which attention is not drawn after a member of the NOS calls on the following board, If "the next hand was underway" means this criterion was met, there is no rectification (but see Law 64C regarding equity).
The current laws do not support the retired national director's opinion. I have no idea if the laws in force at the time did.
As to confirmation of the facts, see laws 84 and 85. These laws apply at all levels of the game.
In the particular example case, if you as the TD had no doubt the revoke happened, and if you as the TD believe that equity to the NOS required a score adjustment, and if the situation was brought to your attention before the end of the correction period, then you should have adjusted the score (Law 64C) even if Law 64B4 says that no rectification should be made, and even if somebody (no matter who) opines otherwise*. Again, that's the current law. Note that the attitude of the NOS is not a consideration in determining equity.
*David Stevenson recently told a tale (on rgb, I think) about a ruling involving Edgar Kaplan, who was a player in the case. Kaplan told the table TD that his (the TD's) interpretation of the law was wrong. Kaplan knew this, of course, because he
wrote it. The table TD referred the case to the DIC (one Bill Schoder, aka Kojak). Kojak told Kaplan that he, Kojak, was the DIC, not Kaplan, and that the DIC's opinion would prevail. Which it did, Kojak agreeing with the table TD's interpretation. Later, Kaplan (and the WBFLC) changed the law, but that didn't matter to the table ruling at the time.
Help
.