[RMB1]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-March-17, 14:46, said:

I don't understand how you decided both sides are offending for the reason stated.
There seems to be no evidence to show which side was offending in causing East/South to have the wrong number of cards. There seems to be no idea how it actually happened.

Sorry. The TD who took the ruling told me both sides were at fault. I got the impression (from what the TD told me) that the 12/14 belonged to one side, so that team was (clearly) at fault for muddling the cards when returning them to the board.

[gnasher]

Chris L, on 2011-March-17, 12:59, said:

We are using "passed" in two different senses; I thought Gnasher was referring to the "call" not in fact made by East before he counted his cards on the second occasion the board was played.

So you thought that I didn't know what the auction was, misstated the rules, reached a conclusion that had no logical connection to the paragraph that preceded it, and have rather poor English?

[blackshoe]

Might I suggest that it would be a good idea if somebody had a law book at these matches? Perhaps a change in the CoC would be advisable. Or perhaps one captain or the other ought to just bring one.

[Chris L]

gnasher, on 2011-March-17, 18:38, said:

So you thought that I didn't know what the auction was, misstated the rules, reached a conclusion that had no logical connection to the paragraph that preceded it, and have rather poor English?

No - I read your reply rather too quickly and misunderstood it.

Give my regards to Shireen

[Chris L]

blackshoe, on 2011-March-17, 19:25, said:

Might I suggest that it would be a good idea if somebody had a law book at these matches? Perhaps a change in the CoC would be advisable. Or perhaps one captain or the other ought to just bring one.

Absolutely; I always carry one (and the Orange Book) when I am captain. I wasn't captain on Wednesday night; as we were playing in our captain's house, I made the (mistaken) assumption that he would have one and didn't bother to take my copy.

On this particular occasion, I don't think the presence of a law book would have prevented the taking of the law into their own hands by the players concerned, though it might have meant that we wouldn't have needed to trouble the panel TD at almost 11pm.

[blackshoe]

I'm sure the TDs who volunteer to be on the call list are aware that they might be called late in the evening. If that were a problem for them, presumably they wouldn't volunteer.

As I understand the laws and regulations wrt these team matches played at home (I did play in a few, back in the early '90s) absent a TD the captains involved decide on a ruling, not the other players on the team. OTOH, I suppose captains are capable of "taking the law into their own hands" just as much as non-captains.

The players agreed to a ruling ("cancel the board"). Were both teams on board, or was one team or the other reluctant to rule this way? It sounds an awful lot to me like the visiting team were happy to cancel the board, until they found out they'd lost the match without it. If that's the case, I would allow that ruling to stand, per Law 10B. I would advise both teams in future to (1) ensure a law book is available and (2) call a consulting TD immediately when the ruling is not obvious.

[gnasher]

Some idiot said:

So you thought that I ... have rather poor English?

Hmm.

[Chris L]

blackshoe, on 2011-March-18, 06:31, said:

I'm sure the TDs who volunteer to be on the call list are aware that they might be called late in the evening. If that were a problem for them, presumably they wouldn't volunteer.

As I understand the laws and regulations wrt these team matches played at home (I did play in a few, back in the early '90s) absent a TD the captains involved decide on a ruling, not the other players on the team. OTOH, I suppose captains are capable of "taking the law into their own hands" just as much as non-captains.

The players agreed to a ruling ("cancel the board"). Were both teams on board, or was one team or the other reluctant to rule this way? It sounds an awful lot to me like the visiting team were happy to cancel the board, until they found out they'd lost the match without it. If that's the case, I would allow that ruling to stand, per Law 10B. I would advise both teams in future to (1) ensure a law book is available and (2) call a consulting TD immediately when the ruling is not obvious.

To the best of my knowledge, all four players in the room where the board was due to be played the second time agreed that it should be cancelled - whether one or more of them were more or less happy about that I don't know; I can only assume that all four thought that was the only option available - so there was no question in their minds of the captains having to agree a ruling (which is indeed what the conditions of contest provide). There was no further discussion about it as we joined our team-mates in that room to score up. After we had scored up and arrived at a win by 6 IMPs we thought that was the end of the matter until one of the oppo suggested that it wasn't.

[FrancesHinden]

blackshoe, on 2011-March-18, 06:31, said:

I'm sure the TDs who volunteer to be on the call list are aware that they might be called late in the evening. If that were a problem for them, presumably they wouldn't volunteer.

As I understand the laws and regulations wrt these team matches played at home (I did play in a few, back in the early '90s) absent a TD the captains involved decide on a ruling, not the other players on the team. OTOH, I suppose captains are capable of "taking the law into their own hands" just as much as non-captains.

The players agreed to a ruling ("cancel the board"). Were both teams on board, or was one team or the other reluctant to rule this way? It sounds an awful lot to me like the visiting team were happy to cancel the board, until they found out they'd lost the match without it. If that's the case, I would allow that ruling to stand, per Law 10B. I would advise both teams in future to (1) ensure a law book is available and (2) call a consulting TD immediately when the ruling is not obvious.

Having a law book available is obviously a good idea and (given that most venues are either a bridge club or a house with internet access) hardly difficult. But as you know it doesn't help if four players at the table decide to make up their own ruling.

[blackshoe]

True, that. Which is why I would rule under Law 10B. Not to mention

Quote

Law 10A: The director alone has the right to determine rectifications when applicable. Players do not have the right to determine (or waive – see Law 81C5) rectifications on their own initiative.

As I remember the CoC, I would interpret them to modify this to allow the captains (but not the players) to serve as director for purposes of this law, provided they can agree on the ruling.

[jallerton]

Relevant extracts from the NICKO Conditions of Contest are:

Quote

19. Rulings of the first instance in matches played privately
It can be exceedingly difficult to settle satisfactorily a question which requires a Director‟s ruling – as distinct from a reading and application of the law – in a match which is played privately. There should normally be two distinct conditions fulfilled before any such matter is deemed to have a basis on which to proceed:
(a) The player who suggests that an irregularity may have occurred which could have damaged his side should normally have raised the question (as for example by reserving his rights) before the board is quitted; to avoid questions of doubt, the appropriate period for doing so should be deemed to terminate when he removes his cards from their slot at the commencement of the following board (unless the significant information does not come to light until afterwards; and see also section © above).
(b) He should confirm his wish to have a ruling before the players go to compare scores for that set of boards. (If after scoring the set he withdraws his request for a ruling it will not subsequently be renewable.)
20. When a ruling of the first instance is required
If a ruling of the first instance is required, the procedures outlined below should be followed:
(a) Captains agree upon an outcome.
(b) Captains contact a principal member of the EBU panel of Tournament Directors as listed in section 21.
© Captains agree upon a suitable arbiter.
(d) Captains contact any other EBU Tournament Director (as listed in the EBU diary), or a member of the panel of Referees (see 23 below), or a member of the Laws and Ethics Committee. If contacting a member of the panel of Referees for a ruling of first instance, it must be made clear to the Referee that this is a request for a ruling of the first instance rather than an appeal against such a ruling.
(e) Captains submit the case in writing to the EBU as described below.

[Chris L]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-March-18, 15:00, said:

Having a law book available is obviously a good idea and (given that most venues are either a bridge club or a house with internet access) hardly difficult. But as you know it doesn't help if four players at the table decide to make up their own ruling.

Quite. One of the four players at the table was our captain. I think their captain was playing in my room - had he also been in the room, the "captains [might have agreed] on a ruling" without realising it.

[Vampyr]

From extract quoted above:

Quote

The player who suggests that an irregularity may have occurred which could have damaged his side should normally have raised the question (as for example by reserving his rights) before the board is quitted; to avoid questions of doubt

What doubt is introduced if a player does not "reserve his rights"?

[jallerton]

There is a distinct advantage if the players can agree the facts as soon as possible. It is harder for a player to dispute an alleged hesitation which occurred twenty seconds ago than one which occurred twenty boards ago.

[bluejak]

blackshoe, on 2011-March-18, 06:31, said:

I'm sure the TDs who volunteer to be on the call list are aware that they might be called late in the evening. If that were a problem for them, presumably they wouldn't volunteer.

Two of us are listed as taking calls until late on, in my case until 1.30 am. I cannot remember in the other case though it may be the same time. Of course some players are a little worried at calling a TD late, but surely there is no difficulty with calling the two of us pretty late.

Vampyr, on 2011-March-19, 18:11, said:

What doubt is introduced if a player does not "reserve his rights"?

I do not think the doubt is any different from reservation of rights in general, ie basically a statement that something has occurred, which the other side either agreers with or calls the TD. Of course with a match played privately it might be more difficult when they do not agree, but the basic approach is surely right: if they do agree there will be no later argument over whether the incident occurred. If you do not reserve your rights but later claim something occurred you have put yourself in a difficult position if there is doubt and will often be correctly ruled against.

[RMB1]

bluejak, on 2011-March-20, 21:38, said:

Two of us are listed as taking calls until late on, in my case until 1.30 am. I cannot remember in the other case though it may be the same time. Of course some players are a little worried at calling a TD late, but surely there is no difficulty with calling the two of us pretty late.

I was consulted by phone three times that evening. The first one was at tea time. The second was in the middle of the evening and I must have sounded groggy because he apologised for ringing so late. The last was this ruling, which kicked off after the match had finished. I was rung two hours after the previous ruling but this was someone who rings me regularly and there was no apology before ploughing into the facts of the case.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on 2011-March-20, 21:38, said:

I do not think the doubt is any different from reservation of rights in general, ie basically a statement that something has occurred, which the other side either agreers with or calls the TD.

My problem is that I have never actually known what "reserving one's rights" means. Does it mean establishing the facts? If so, then of course I agree that the facts should be established at the time of the irregularity. (If so, "establishing the facts" might have been a better way to put it. I wonder how this phrase has been translated into other languages).

[bluejak]

"Reserving your rights" means that you reserve your right to call the TD at the end of the hand for a perceived potential infraction as then you will have some idea whether damage could have resulted. If the opponents accept that without calling the TD it means they have agreed there was such a potential infraction. Nearly all experienced players do it, often with a minimum of comment, even in the ACBL where such a practice used to be illegal. [It may still be so: I have mislaid my American Law book.]

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on 2011-March-21, 13:18, said:

Nearly all experienced players do it, often with a minimum of comment,

Do they? I have never seen it at the table. There have been several occasions when I or my partner have said something along the lines of "agreed hesitation" when bidding after partner's slow action, and my opponents have never once said "in that case I shall reserve my rights". Perhaps the players I play against are not that experienced.

[bluejak]

You seem to have this strange idea - which I have heard from others too, to be fair - that you have to use the term. In a lot of cases, amongst better players the vast majority I should think, no-one says "reserving rights" because they do not need to. If I was playing against you and Paul made a slow double I might raise an eyebrow, or say "Slow?". He might say "Sure". Now rights have been reserved.