[blackshoe]

mycroft, on 2025-March-23, 10:18, said:

…the director goes off to rule.

No. The director goes off to think about the ruling. Then he comes back to both pairs (wherever they are by now) and gives the ruling. At least if he's doing it right (I often don't find out about a ruling at my table (or at others*, but that's not my business) until the director posts a revised "final" result online).

*Two days ago I "lost" a fraction of a gold point because of a revised final, presumably due to some ruling not at my table. As close to LM as I am (about 2 monkey points), that's annoying, even though in the great scheme of things I really don't care about LM.

[jillybean]

blackshoe, on 2025-March-23, 14:05, said:

*Two days ago I "lost" a fraction of a gold point because of a revised final, presumably due to some ruling not at my table. As close to LM as I am (about 2 monkey points), that's annoying, even though in the great scheme of things I really don't care about LM.

They've got you, and countless others, hooked.

[blackshoe]

Yeah. Turns out that apparently there was a director call (for a revoke) at my table, and the score ended up entered with the "wrong" side as declarer. I remember there was a call about a revoke, but I don't remember who revoked, and I certainly don't remember entering an incorrect score. Maybe I'm too senile for this game.

[mycroft]

blackshoe, on 2025-March-23, 14:05, said:

No. The director goes off to think about the ruling. Then he comes back to both pairs (wherever they are by now) and gives the ruling. At least if he's doing it right[.]

I would disagree, but we're definitely deep into the semantic weeds here (*).

I take the facts from the table and go and *make* the ruling. Whether that involves thinking, discussing, polling, checking scores to see if there actually is damage, coming back to get more facts that were missed... whatever.

Then, when the ruling is decided upon, I then go to both pairs (by preference, the pair getting the inferior score first) and *deliver* the ruling.

(*) I trimmed your complaint, which I've seen later was "score input error fixed". Yeah, we don't normally tell people about that if it's proven/obvious until the next time we see them. Maybe that's not best, but a quick look and "yeah, we did defend on that board, not declare. Okay." usually suffices for the ruled-against side. I do wish I had a way of making clear "REVISED" like we write on the recaps at tournaments after scoring errors are fixed. I'm not ignoring the issue in general; you are correct that not informing players of *rulings* that change the score is poor directing (and not informing about *rulings* that don't change the score is inferior).