[bluejak]

blackshoe, on 2012-September-25, 17:31, said:

All right, that's fair enough. So the AC comes along and says "nope, that wasn't a revoke". Now what? It seems this judgement by the AC is legal. If it isn't, why isn't it? If it is legal... Maybe it's enough to say "no AC would ever do that," but it sure doesn't seem enough to me.

If an AC makes a stupid decision, they make a stupid decision. Trying to make a Law to stop ACs making stupid decisions in one specific case when they can make them in all sorts of other cases seems pointless, and anyway, that is not what the Law says.

Whether something happened or not is a matter of fact not Law.

[Zelandakh]

Whether something happened or not is also very often a matter of opinion. It is just a matter of which viewpoint you are looking at it from.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2012-September-26, 02:01, said:

Neither the TD nor the AC should be able to contradict the definition of a revoke. However, the AC can say "the TD made a mistake when he determined that the alleged revoker had a card of the suit led".

In other words, the definition of a revoke is a matter of law. Whether the actual circumstances fit the definition is a matter of fact or judgement, not law.

Yes. My point, in my last post, was that the AC can say that only if they find new evidence that so indicates. And that evidence should be provided in the AC ruling. Otherwise, we're down to one of my local TDs' (in)famous sayings: "I can make any ruling I want!"

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2012-September-26, 11:14, said:

Yes. My point, in my last post, was that the AC can say that only if they find new evidence that so indicates.

Can't they disagree with the director's interpretation of the evidence?

[bluejak]

barmar, on 2012-September-27, 13:30, said:

Can't they disagree with the director's interpretation of the evidence?

Certainly.

[pran]

barmar, on 2012-September-27, 13:30, said:

Can't they disagree with the director's interpretation of the evidence?

bluejak, on 2012-September-27, 14:48, said:

Certainly.

Forgive me, but this discussion seems really boring.

If the Director establishes as a fact (for instance from inspecting the played cards) that a player did not follow suit at one trick and indeed held a card in the suit at a later trick then what interpretation of this evidence can be interesting or even relevant, subject to possible disagreement by an AC?

[aguahombre]

pran, on 2012-September-27, 15:19, said:

Forgive me, but this discussion seems really boring, and let me add to the boredom.

FYP

[bluejak]

pran, on 2012-September-27, 15:19, said:

Forgive me, but this discussion seems really boring.

If the Director establishes as a fact (for instance from inspecting the played cards) that a player did not follow suit at one trick and indeed held a card in the suit at a later trick then what interpretation of this evidence can be interesting or even relevant, subject to possible disagreement by an AC?

No idea. What a strange question.

[pran]

bluejak, on 2012-September-27, 18:28, said:

No idea. What a strange question.

Well, as I have understood Blackshoe he pointed to the (curious) situation that when the Director has established facts (i.e. that a revoke has been committed) so that only the matter of law applicable to the facts remains you seem to state that an AC may still overrule the Director's ruling on the ground that this is about the interpretation of the evidence?

Had you instead agreed with Blackshoe that it is about finding contradictory evidence I would have agreed, but then there would of course not have been any discussion.

[barmar]

pran, on 2012-September-27, 15:19, said:

Forgive me, but this discussion seems really boring.

If the Director establishes as a fact (for instance from inspecting the played cards) that a player did not follow suit at one trick and indeed held a card in the suit at a later trick then what interpretation of this evidence can be interesting or even relevant, subject to possible disagreement by an AC?

Because things are not always so cut and dried.

There are certainly times when the facts can be determined conclusively, and I wouldn't expect an AC to overrule the TD. But consider the situation in this appeal -- the hands were mixed before the TD was called, and the two sides didn't agree on the order of tricks, so he had to reproduce the likely play of the hand. He's using circumstantial evidence and inference to determine the "facts".

[pran]

barmar, on 2012-September-28, 16:54, said:

Because things are not always so cut and dried.

There are certainly times when the facts can be determined conclusively, and I wouldn't expect an AC to overrule the TD. But consider the situation in this appeal -- the hands were mixed before the TD was called, and the two sides didn't agree on the order of tricks, so he had to reproduce the likely play of the hand. He's using circumstantial evidence and inference to determine the "facts".

Blackshoe's contested comment was about an AC's rights to "interprete" (cut and dried) facts rather than being bound by TD's application of the laws on established facts.

To the actual thread:

If players have (legally) agreed on a result (see Law 79) and then, after the time limit specified in Law 64B3/4 disagree over a revoke allegation I shall consider a TD judgement based on probabilities insufficient foundation for overriding the result originally agreed upon by the players.

Only if the existence of a revoke is established as a fact (beyond reasonable doubt) do I think that Law 64C should be applicable in this case.

This is the only way Laws 64B3 and 64B4 can have any meaningful place in the laws.

(Note that I am not giving any opinion on the specific OP case.)

[blackshoe]

"Beyond reasonable doubt" is a more stringent requirement than the law requires. See Laws 84 and 85.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2012-September-29, 01:50, said:

"Beyond reasonable doubt" is a more stringent requirement than the law requires. See Laws 84 and 85.

Fair enough. But see also Law 71 which could be relevant to the extent that we consider agreement on opponents' won tricks analogous to conceded tricks.

The condition in Law 71.2 is certainly more stringent than just a matter of weighting probabilities.

Some of the laws, e.g. Laws 64B4 and 64B5, are there apparently for the purpose of protecting the Director from excessive work because of negligent players. They should only be overridden by Law 64C when facts (not assumptions) can easily and definitely be established.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2012-September-29, 02:23, said:

Fair enough. But see also Law 71 which could be relevant to the extent that we consider agreement on opponents' won tricks analogous to conceded tricks.

The condition in Law 71.2 is certainly more stringent than just a matter of weighting probabilities.

Some of the laws, e.g. Laws 64B4 and 64B5, are there apparently for the purpose of protecting the Director from excessive work because of negligent players. They should only be overridden by Law 64C when facts (not assumptions) can easily and definitely be established.

The extent to which I consider agreement on opponents' won tricks analogous to conceded tricks is zero.

I think it is dangerous to based TD thinking on assumptions about the purpose of a law. Just read the law and apply it. In the case of 64B4 and B5, either the facts are agreed by both sides at the table, and Law 84 tells the TD to apply Law 64C, or the facts are not agreed, and Law 85 tells the TD to base his view on the balance of probabilities, and only if he cannot determine the facts to his satisfaction may he "make a ruling that will allow play to continue". The problem in your example case is that play will continue whatever the TD does. The question is how the board will be scored. If the fact that can't be determined is whether there was a revoke, then his ruling will either be "adjustment per Law 64C*" or "no infraction". I suppose either is technically legal, but in any case the criterion is "balance of probabilities" and nothing more. It is not up to the TD to say "the balance of probabilities is that the revoke happened, but that's not good enough".

* The "adjustment" may be no adjustment at all, as it depends on whether the NOS were damaged.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2012-September-29, 07:49, said:

The extent to which I consider agreement on opponents' won tricks analogous to conceded tricks is zero.

I think it is dangerous to based TD thinking on assumptions about the purpose of a law. Just read the law and apply it. In the case of 64B4 and B5, either the facts are agreed by both sides at the table, and Law 84 tells the TD to apply Law 64C, or the facts are not agreed, and Law 85 tells the TD to base his view on the balance of probabilities, and only if he cannot determine the facts to his satisfaction may he "make a ruling that will allow play to continue". The problem in your example case is that play will continue whatever the TD does. The question is how the board will be scored. If the fact that can't be determined is whether there was a revoke, then his ruling will either be "adjustment per Law 64C*" or "no infraction". I suppose either is technically legal, but in any case the criterion is "balance of probabilities" and nothing more. It is not up to the TD to say "the balance of probabilities is that the revoke happened, but that's not good enough".

* The "adjustment" may be no adjustment at all, as it depends on whether the NOS were damaged.

Law 85B can never apply in a case involving Law 64B4 or 64B5 for the simple reason that with either one of these two laws applicable play has already been completed.

As for Law 85A there will always be one indisputable fact: A result has been agreed upon by both sides. And as for Law 64C to become applicable after that it must be for the side that claims a revoke being committed by opponents to show sufficient evidence of this, and also to show an acceptable reason why they did not call attention to this alleged revoke in time. (This is where I see a relevant association with Law 71.)

[blackshoe]

I'm going to address just one point right now. You mention calling attention to a revoke "in time". What do you mean? What law puts a time limit on calling attention to a revoke, and what is that limit?

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2012-September-29, 09:55, said:

I'm going to address just one point right now. You mention calling attention to a revoke "in time". What do you mean? What law puts a time limit on calling attention to a revoke, and what is that limit?

See Laws 64B4 and 64B5

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2012-September-29, 11:28, said:

See Laws 64B4 and 64B5

Quote

Law 64B: There is no rectification as in A above following an established revoke:
[snip]
4. if attention was first drawn to the revoke after a member of the non-offending side has made a call on the subsequent deal.
5. if attention was first drawn to the revoke after the round has ended.

This puts a time limit on application of Law 64A of the first call by a non-offending member of a call on the subsequent deal or the end of the round, whichever comes first. However

Quote

Law 64C: When, after any established revoke, including those not subject to rectification, the Director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this law for the damage caused, he shall assign an adjusted score.

Nothing in this or any other law imposes the restrictions you stated earlier ("for Law 64C to become applicable after that it must be for the side that claims a revoke being committed by opponents to show sufficient evidence of this, and also to show an acceptable reason why they did not call attention to this alleged revoke in time.") In particular, the second part of that is nonsense, unless a simple "I didn't realize there was a revoke until after the hand was played" is acceptable to you. And the only time limit on application of 64C is the end of the correction period as specified in Law 79C or amended by regulation. Also, the legal onus regarding evidence is on the director to collect it, not on players to present it.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2012-September-29, 13:00, said:

This puts a time limit on application of Law 64A of the first call by a non-offending member of a call on the subsequent deal or the end of the round, whichever comes first. However

Nothing in this or any other law imposes the restrictions you stated earlier ("for Law 64C to become applicable after that it must be for the side that claims a revoke being committed by opponents to show sufficient evidence of this, and also to show an acceptable reason why they did not call attention to this alleged revoke in time.") In particular, the second part of that is nonsense, unless a simple "I didn't realize there was a revoke until after the hand was played" is acceptable to you. And the only time limit on application of 64C is the end of the correction period as specified in Law 79C or amended by regulation. Also, the legal onus regarding evidence is on the director to collect it, not on players to present it.

This is exactly the reaction I expected. But:

Law 79C said:

1. An error in computing or tabulating the agreed-upon score, whether made by a player or scorer, may be corrected until the expiration of the period specified by the Tournament Organizer. Unless the Tournament Organizer specifies a later* time, this Correction Period expires 30 minutes after the official score has been made available for inspection.

2. Regulations may provide for circumstances in which a scoring error may be corrected after expiry of the Correction Period if the Director and the Tournament Organizer are both satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the record is wrong.

* An earlier time may be specified when required by the special nature of a contest.

Law 79C primarily applies to scoring errors, but our discussion is not about a scoring error - it is about deciding whether there has been an irregularity during the play. There are specific and very relevant references to Law 79C from Laws 69B and 71 affecting the procedures prescribed in these laws. Law 64 contains no similar reference, thus indicating that Law 64 is self-contained with respect of procedures.

Law 64C applies when it is a fact that a revoke has been committed and become established, we have to go elsewhere when there is disagreement about the existence of the revoke.

When the question whether or not a revoke was committed must be decided under Law 85 (judging probabilities because of disagreements and lack of facts) the TD (and AC) should either be bound by the time limits in Laws 64B4/5 or by no time limit at all.

The latter is of course ridiculous, thus I have reached my opinion that in the case of revokes to which attention has been called after the limits specified in Laws 64B4/5 the application of Law 64C is limited to such cases where there is no doubt at all about the revoke.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2012-September-30, 02:39, said:

This is exactly the reaction I expected. But:

Law 79C primarily applies to scoring errors, but our discussion is not about a scoring error - it is about deciding whether there has been an irregularity during the play. There are specific and very relevant references to Law 79C from Laws 69B and 71 affecting the procedures prescribed in these laws. Law 64 contains no similar reference, thus indicating that Law 64 is self-contained with respect of procedures.

Law 64C applies when it is a fact that a revoke has been committed and become established, we have to go elsewhere when there is disagreement about the existence of the revoke.

When the question whether or not a revoke was committed must be decided under Law 85 (judging probabilities because of disagreements and lack of facts) the TD (and AC) should either be bound by the time limits in Laws 64B4/5 or by no time limit at all.

The latter is of course ridiculous, thus I have reached my opinion that in the case of revokes to which attention has been called after the limits specified in Laws 64B4/5 the application of Law 64C is limited to such cases where there is no doubt at all about the revoke.

Quote

Law 92B: The right to request or appeal a Director’s ruling expires 30 minutes after the official score has been made available for inspection unless the Tournament Organizer has specified a different time period.

I do not think your argument holds water.