Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
What's the ruling?
46 views
Skip to first unread message
Dave D
Jan 30, 2012, 7:46:22 PM1/30/12
to
You won't believe this, but it did happen, honestly!
We were playing the very last board of the evening, and my partner was
declarer. Midway through the hand (trick 6 I think) one of our opponents,
an elderly lady, saw that her driver had finished her board and was putting
on her coat. This lady (our opponent) announced that she wouldn't be able
to finish the hand, as her lift was waiting. She then stood up and played
one final card from her hand. Luckily, at that point my partner claimed the
rest (we made 3NT+1 vul).
If my partner hadn't have claimed,
A) Could I as dummy have called the TD?
B) What would the ruling have been?
Thanks all.
--
Dave D
We were playing the very last board of the evening, and my partner was
declarer. Midway through the hand (trick 6 I think) one of our opponents,
an elderly lady, saw that her driver had finished her board and was putting
on her coat. This lady (our opponent) announced that she wouldn't be able
to finish the hand, as her lift was waiting. She then stood up and played
one final card from her hand. Luckily, at that point my partner claimed the
rest (we made 3NT+1 vul).
If my partner hadn't have claimed,
A) Could I as dummy have called the TD?
B) What would the ruling have been?
Thanks all.
--
Dave D
Adam Beneschan
Jan 30, 2012, 10:44:06 PM1/30/12
to
irregularity; and I'd say that a player getting up and leaving has
drawn enough attention to herself that this condition should be
fulfilled.
> B) What would the ruling have been?
Law 4 says you're supposed to play with the same player throughout a
session except in the case of substitutions authorized by the
Director. So this would be up to the Director, but since filling in
would require going through the entire play up to that point, I'm
guessing a Director would probably just award average-plus to you and
average-minus to the opponents. But I'm not a Director, and those on
this group who do direct will probably have some better ideas.
I also think that the player who left should be hauled before an
ethics committee of some sort. When you enter an event you commit to
playing in the entire event (allowing for rotating players in a team
event), and leaving early without a bona fide emergency is simply not
acceptable. OK, so maybe this player just needs to be gently informed
that that's unacceptable, instead of being brought before the
Sanhedrin. But this really is unacceptable behavior.
-- Adam
Travis Crump
Jan 31, 2012, 12:27:14 AM1/31/12
to
the other person to finish? In all likelihood the director is just
going to convince the person to finish. If not, I think it can be
considered a claim under 68A: "A contestant also claims when he suggests
that play be curtailed" and the result can be adjudicated under law 70
if it isn't clear. Since no number of tricks have been specified, I'm
not sure leaver's partner can challenge it under 68B2.
Travis
Dave Flower
Jan 31, 2012, 5:46:59 AM1/31/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
As there was no damage done, I would just let the result stand, and
suggest that the Director have a quiet word with the lady in question.
For repeated such infractions I would consider a procedural penalty.
Would posters think differently in the hypothetical case that the
opposing pair (ie the 3NT bidders) had been unduly slow, and had been
previously warned fo0r slow play ?
Dave Flower
axm...@hotmail.com
Jan 31, 2012, 7:35:38 AM1/31/12
to
lady subsequently contributed a card, as well as declarer claiming-
are mute.
L71 provides that the director is the only factor concerning the
canceling of a concession. As such, the lost player would not need
to he present to open the can of worms.
derek
Jan 31, 2012, 9:52:05 AM1/31/12
to
On Jan 31, 1:27 am, Travis Crump <pretz...@techhouse.org> wrote:
> I think it can be
> considered a claim under 68A: "A contestant also claims when he suggests
> that play be curtailed" and the result can be adjudicated under law 70
> if it isn't clear. Since no number of tricks have been specified, I'm
> not sure leaver's partner can challenge it under 68B2.
I think that's the right ruling.
> I think it can be
> considered a claim under 68A: "A contestant also claims when he suggests
> that play be curtailed" and the result can be adjudicated under law 70
> if it isn't clear. Since no number of tricks have been specified, I'm
> not sure leaver's partner can challenge it under 68B2.
derek
Jan 31, 2012, 9:56:26 AM1/31/12
to
On Jan 31, 6:46 am, Dave Flower <DavJFlo...@BTINTERNET.COM> wrote:
> As there was no damage done, I would just let the result stand, and
> suggest that the Director have a quiet word with the lady in question.
I suspect we're just dealing with a LOL who got flustered seeing her
> As there was no damage done, I would just let the result stand, and
> suggest that the Director have a quiet word with the lady in question.
driver apparently ready to head out the door, but somebody still needs
to talk to her.
> Would posters think differently in the hypothetical case that the
> opposing pair (ie the 3NT bidders) had been unduly slow, and had been
> previously warned fo0r slow play ?
perhaps the declaring side should be given a procedural penalty but
that's independent of whether the lady leaving the table before the
hand is over should be penalized.
Adam Beneschan
Jan 31, 2012, 10:33:53 AM1/31/12
to
On Jan 31, 2:46 am, Dave Flower <DavJFlo...@BTINTERNET.COM> wrote:
> On Jan 31, 5:27 am, Travis Crump <pretz...@techhouse.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 01/30/2012 07:46 PM, Dave D wrote:
>
> > > You won't believe this, but it did happen, honestly!
>
> > > We were playing the very last board of the evening, and my partner was
> > > declarer. Midway through the hand (trick 6 I think) one of our opponents,
> > > an elderly lady, saw that her driver had finished her board and was putting
> > > on her coat. This lady (our opponent) announced that she wouldn't be able
> > > to finish the hand, as her lift was waiting. She then stood up and played
> > > one final card from her hand. Luckily, at that point my partner claimed the
> > > rest (we made 3NT+1 vul).
>
> > > If my partner hadn't have claimed,
>
> > > A) Could I as dummy have called the TD?
>
> > > B) What would the ruling have been?
>
> > > Thanks all.
>
> On Jan 31, 5:27 am, Travis Crump <pretz...@techhouse.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 01/30/2012 07:46 PM, Dave D wrote:
>
> > > You won't believe this, but it did happen, honestly!
>
> > > We were playing the very last board of the evening, and my partner was
> > > declarer. Midway through the hand (trick 6 I think) one of our opponents,
> > > an elderly lady, saw that her driver had finished her board and was putting
> > > on her coat. This lady (our opponent) announced that she wouldn't be able
> > > to finish the hand, as her lift was waiting. She then stood up and played
> > > one final card from her hand. Luckily, at that point my partner claimed the
> > > rest (we made 3NT+1 vul).
>
> > > If my partner hadn't have claimed,
>
> > > A) Could I as dummy have called the TD?
>
> > > B) What would the ruling have been?
>
> > > Thanks all.
>
> As there was no damage done, I would just let the result stand
On the actual hand, this seems right; but the OP was asking us what
would have happened if partner *hadn't* claimed and the opponent had
left, in which case there's no result.
-- Adam
blackshoe
Jan 31, 2012, 10:37:04 AM1/31/12
to
It's not a claim by the lady who was leaving, it was a concession of the remaining tricks. Her partner can object, in which case play is supposed to continue (68B2). If it can't continue because she's already gone by the time the director gets involved, I would look at the remaining cards and decide how the play might have gone*. If I can catch these two before they get out the door, I'd ask the driver if she's willing to wait a few minutes for the board to be finished, and I would explain to the other one that you don't just jump up and leave in the middle of a hand. She could herself have asked her driver to wait, for example.
*Since the declarer claimed right away, I'd treat it as a claim by declarer.
*Since the declarer claimed right away, I'd treat it as a claim by declarer.
Dave D
Jan 31, 2012, 12:31:04 PM1/31/12
to
hand is finished, that there is an automatic claim of zero of the
remainder tricks? (irrespective of any winners that their side might
have) or if they have an ace, for example, can they claim one and
concede the rest?
--
Dave D
Barry Margolin
Jan 31, 2012, 12:38:30 PM1/31/12
to
In article <jg98gn$ql7$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
The law doesn't say that suggesting that play be curtailed is a
concession, it says it's a claim. A claim is supposed to be accompanied
with a statement of the number of tricks you expect to make, and how
you'll take them. This is frequently omitted in cases where it's
obvious, but the statement is considered implicit in those cases.
In the case where a player simply leaves, it would be up to the director
to determine what the result would be. There's nothing in the Laws that
says that it's an automatic concession.
--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA
concession, it says it's a claim. A claim is supposed to be accompanied
with a statement of the number of tricks you expect to make, and how
you'll take them. This is frequently omitted in cases where it's
obvious, but the statement is considered implicit in those cases.
In the case where a player simply leaves, it would be up to the director
to determine what the result would be. There's nothing in the Laws that
says that it's an automatic concession.
--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA
Adam Beneschan
Jan 31, 2012, 12:44:14 PM1/31/12
to
On Jan 30, 7:44 pm, Adam Beneschan <a...@irvine.com> wrote:
> > B) What would the ruling have been?
>
> I don't think the Laws say anything specific about this situation.
> Law 4 says you're supposed to play with the same player throughout a
> session except in the case of substitutions authorized by the
> Director. So this would be up to the Director, but since filling in
> would require going through the entire play up to that point, I'm
> guessing a Director would probably just award average-plus to you and
> average-minus to the opponents.
I think that I erred in this last. Before awarding A+/A-, the
> > B) What would the ruling have been?
>
> I don't think the Laws say anything specific about this situation.
> Law 4 says you're supposed to play with the same player throughout a
> session except in the case of substitutions authorized by the
> Director. So this would be up to the Director, but since filling in
> would require going through the entire play up to that point, I'm
> guessing a Director would probably just award average-plus to you and
> average-minus to the opponents.
director should try to determine what the probable outcomes would have
been if play had continued (Law 12C1). In this actual case, it looks
like your partner had the rest of the tricks, so the result should
have been that the Director awards your side the rest of the tricks
even if your partner doesn't claim.
On a different hand, if an opponent leaves early, the Director would
have to look at how the play had gone up to that point and figured out
what the likely results would have been, and then assign a score based
on that, or award A+/A- if that proves to be too difficult (12C1(d)).
-- Adam
Adam Beneschan
Jan 31, 2012, 12:48:06 PM1/31/12
to
left, and possibly assumed that the rest of them would figure out some
way to continue playing, maybe with the Director playing out the rest
of the hand. Anyway, I think that applying this law is a stretch.
There's a difference between saying "The hand's over, let's score it
up" and "The hand's not over but I'm leaving anyway", and I doubt that
Law 68 was intended to apply to the latter case.
-- Adam
Dave D
Jan 31, 2012, 12:49:35 PM1/31/12
to
--
Dave D
Dave D
Jan 31, 2012, 12:50:48 PM1/31/12
to
--
Dave D
Stu Goodgold
Jan 31, 2012, 2:05:54 PM1/31/12
to
I agree. How is this legally (not ethically) different from a defender who puts his cards face down on the table in the middle of a hand, has a heart attack, and get carried off to the hospital? The only concession related to this player is the gift shop at the hospital.
-Stu Goodgold
San Jose, CA
-Stu Goodgold
San Jose, CA
GilesH
Jan 31, 2012, 2:43:30 PM1/31/12
to
:)
derek
Jan 31, 2012, 4:04:36 PM1/31/12
to
to apply to exactly this sort of case.
derek
Jan 31, 2012, 4:05:06 PM1/31/12
to
statement of claim). It may not stand, but that's the immediate
effect. If declarer does that, then the declaring side is only
entitled to the tricks that they could not have lost. If a defender
does it, then his partner can object, and in any case you can't
concede tricks you can't possibly lose.
derek
Jan 31, 2012, 4:19:48 PM1/31/12
to
On Jan 31, 3:05 pm, Stu Goodgold <st...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I agree. How is this legally (not ethically) different from a defender who puts his cards face down on the table in the middle of a hand, has a heart attack, and get carried off to the hospital? The only concession related to this player is the gift shop at the hospital.
Legally, getting up and leaving before the hand is over is a violation
> I agree. How is this legally (not ethically) different from a defender who puts his cards face down on the table in the middle of a hand, has a heart attack, and get carried off to the hospital? The only concession related to this player is the gift shop at the hospital.
of the proprieties (either 74C6 or C8). Having a heart attack is
certainly not a violation of 74C8, though I suppose you could make a
case for 74C6.
Björn Westling
Jan 31, 2012, 4:07:08 PM1/31/12
to
On 31 Jan, 20:05, Stu Goodgold <st...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I agree. How is this legally (not ethically) different from a defender who puts his cards face down on the table in the middle of a hand, has a heart attack, and get carried off to the hospital? The only concession related to this player is the gift shop at the hospital.
This has actually happened a couple of times during the years. In
> I agree. How is this legally (not ethically) different from a defender who puts his cards face down on the table in the middle of a hand, has a heart attack, and get carried off to the hospital? The only concession related to this player is the gift shop at the hospital.
these cases the board was scrapped, and both pairs got A+.
However, in this case the player voluntarily decides not to play out
the board, so it should be legally different.
Adam Beneschan
Jan 31, 2012, 4:21:37 PM1/31/12
to
On Jan 31, 1:04 pm, derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
> > I don't. I don't think she suggested that play be curtailed--she just
> > left, and possibly assumed that the rest of them would figure out some
> > way to continue playing, maybe with the Director playing out the rest
> > of the hand. Anyway, I think that applying this law is a stretch.
> > There's a difference between saying "The hand's over, let's score it
> > up" and "The hand's not over but I'm leaving anyway", and I doubt that
> > Law 68 was intended to apply to the latter case.
>
> You're partly right. It's not 68A, it _is_ 68B. 68B seems intended
> to apply to exactly this sort of case.
Still disagree. I think 68B is intended to apply to a case where a
>
> > I don't. I don't think she suggested that play be curtailed--she just
> > left, and possibly assumed that the rest of them would figure out some
> > way to continue playing, maybe with the Director playing out the rest
> > of the hand. Anyway, I think that applying this law is a stretch.
> > There's a difference between saying "The hand's over, let's score it
> > up" and "The hand's not over but I'm leaving anyway", and I doubt that
> > Law 68 was intended to apply to the latter case.
>
> You're partly right. It's not 68A, it _is_ 68B. 68B seems intended
> to apply to exactly this sort of case.
player throws his cards face down on the table, or puts them back in
the board; when players do that, it's a statement that "the hand is
over". But I think that someone who just takes off to go home is not
making any sort of statement, and 68B should not apply to it. What
Stu said applies here; someone who lays their cards down because
they're having a heart attack is *not* abandoning their hand in this
sense nor conceding the rest of the tricks. What's going on is
something different. I don't believe any of the claim or concession
laws are relevant to the OP's case.
-- Adam
Mark Brader
Jan 31, 2012, 4:42:47 PM1/31/12
to
Adam Beneschan:
or concession. If declarer (or the remaining defender) says he was
about to claim or concede, then Law 12C1 applies and the director
can award an assigned adjusted score based on that claim. Otherwise
normal play is impossible, so Laws 12A2 and 12C2 apply and it has to
be an artificial adjusted score -- average-plus for the declarings
side and average-minus for the offenders.
After that, I think a procedural penalty under Law 90A against the
offending pair, or at least a warning "don't ever do that again or
you'll get a PP", would be appropriate.
--
Mark Brader | "As long as they can annoy people into buying their
Toronto | software ... Microsoft faces the tradeoff of spending
m...@vex.net | their money on compact code or your money on hardware.
| It's not a hard choice." --Jonathan Goldberg
My text in this article is in the public domain.
> Still disagree. I think 68B is intended to apply to a case where a
> player throws his cards face down on the table, or puts them back in
> the board; when players do that, it's a statement that "the hand is
> over". But I think that someone who just takes off to go home is not
> making any sort of statement, and 68B should not apply to it. What
> Stu said applies here; someone who lays their cards down because
> they're having a heart attack is *not* abandoning their hand in this
> sense nor conceding the rest of the tricks. What's going on is
> something different. I don't believe any of the claim or concession
> laws are relevant to the OP's case.
I'm with Adam. This is is a violation of Law 74C8, not a claim
> player throws his cards face down on the table, or puts them back in
> the board; when players do that, it's a statement that "the hand is
> over". But I think that someone who just takes off to go home is not
> making any sort of statement, and 68B should not apply to it. What
> Stu said applies here; someone who lays their cards down because
> they're having a heart attack is *not* abandoning their hand in this
> sense nor conceding the rest of the tricks. What's going on is
> something different. I don't believe any of the claim or concession
> laws are relevant to the OP's case.
or concession. If declarer (or the remaining defender) says he was
about to claim or concede, then Law 12C1 applies and the director
can award an assigned adjusted score based on that claim. Otherwise
normal play is impossible, so Laws 12A2 and 12C2 apply and it has to
be an artificial adjusted score -- average-plus for the declarings
side and average-minus for the offenders.
After that, I think a procedural penalty under Law 90A against the
offending pair, or at least a warning "don't ever do that again or
you'll get a PP", would be appropriate.
--
Mark Brader | "As long as they can annoy people into buying their
Toronto | software ... Microsoft faces the tradeoff of spending
m...@vex.net | their money on compact code or your money on hardware.
| It's not a hard choice." --Jonathan Goldberg
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Peter Smulders
Feb 1, 2012, 8:15:17 AM2/1/12
to
Adam Beneschan schreef op 31 jan 2012:
Agreed. If this was a friendly club game I would ask any old bystander to finish
off the hand (it happens all the time at BBO:-). As an alternative the Director
could try to figure out how the play would have gone if the player had not left.
The applicable Law probably is 84D:
The Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non-offending side. He
seeks to restore equity. If in his judgement it is probable that a nonoffending
side has been damaged by an irregularity for which these laws provide no
rectification he adjusts the score (see Law 12).
off the hand (it happens all the time at BBO:-). As an alternative the Director
could try to figure out how the play would have gone if the player had not left.
The applicable Law probably is 84D:
The Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non-offending side. He
seeks to restore equity. If in his judgement it is probable that a nonoffending
side has been damaged by an irregularity for which these laws provide no
rectification he adjusts the score (see Law 12).
derek
Feb 1, 2012, 9:10:10 AM2/1/12
to
that's exactly why I disagreed with Stu. otoh, someone who puts her
hand down and says her drive is leaving, certainly is. I simply can't
imagine not applying 68B.
Interestingly, we had a 68B case last night. My wife, having a lousy
game and wanting to get home, threw in her hand on the last board,
just as I was about to ruin declarer's night with the last trump. I
said she can't concede, dummy got upset, and we called the director.
He wasn't sure what the appropriate law was, and asked me why she
couldn't concede. I got to point out 68B. Dummy still went off
complaining that an injustice had occurred even though in the end the
director let them have a trick they couldn't have got. Letting them
have an extra trick cost us a percentage point (2.5 matchpoints), so
perhaps it was an injustice, but not to our opponents.
dak...@aol.com
Feb 1, 2012, 9:51:55 AM2/1/12
to
Is this similar to my club? A few players add to the allotted (ACBL)
time 30-40 minutes regularly. If someone left for a beauty/dentist/
dinner
appointment, I'd be sorely tempted to slow play adjust ALL those slow
players.
This club game doesn't permit you to delay the end of contest. Three
hours
+ 45 28*7 +14 minutes for 7x4 boards should be enforced just out of
politeness to
those with other things to do this afternoon.
time 30-40 minutes regularly. If someone left for a beauty/dentist/
dinner
appointment, I'd be sorely tempted to slow play adjust ALL those slow
players.
This club game doesn't permit you to delay the end of contest. Three
hours
+ 45 28*7 +14 minutes for 7x4 boards should be enforced just out of
politeness to
those with other things to do this afternoon.
Stu Goodgold
Feb 1, 2012, 2:23:14 PM2/1/12
to
On Wednesday, February 1, 2012 6:10:10 AM UTC-8, derek wrote:
In the OP case it may just be she put her hand down and left the table to catch the driver, remind her they were riding together, and then return to the table.
As for putting down one's hand face down on the table, I do that fairly often. Sometimes I may be eating a snack, opening a can, or just stretching while declarer takes his time. This may happen during the play or during the auction. There are times when I bid while my hand is stacked face down on the table. No one has ever challenged my actions as abandonment.
> On Jan 31, 5:21 pm, Adam Beneschan <a....@irvine.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 31, 1:04 pm, derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> >
> > Still disagree. I think 68B is intended to apply to a case where a
> > player throws his cards face down on the table, or puts them back in
> > the board; when players do that, it's a statement that "the hand is
> > over". But I think that someone who just takes off to go home is not
> > making any sort of statement, and 68B should not apply to it. What
> > Stu said applies here; someone who lays their cards down because
> > they're having a heart attack is *not* abandoning their hand in this
> > sense nor conceding the rest of the tricks. What's going on is
> > something different. I don't believe any of the claim or concession
> > laws are relevant to the OP's case.
>
> Of course someone who has a heart attack is not abandoning his hand -
> that's exactly why I disagreed with Stu. otoh, someone who puts her
> hand down and says her drive is leaving, certainly is. I simply can't
> imagine not applying 68B.
>
Actually, I would expect someone who is having a heart attack is indeed abandoning their hand. Only the most die-hard (pun intended) bridge players would want to finish the hand in this situation.
> > On Jan 31, 1:04 pm, derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> >
> > Still disagree. I think 68B is intended to apply to a case where a
> > player throws his cards face down on the table, or puts them back in
> > the board; when players do that, it's a statement that "the hand is
> > over". But I think that someone who just takes off to go home is not
> > making any sort of statement, and 68B should not apply to it. What
> > Stu said applies here; someone who lays their cards down because
> > they're having a heart attack is *not* abandoning their hand in this
> > sense nor conceding the rest of the tricks. What's going on is
> > something different. I don't believe any of the claim or concession
> > laws are relevant to the OP's case.
>
> Of course someone who has a heart attack is not abandoning his hand -
> that's exactly why I disagreed with Stu. otoh, someone who puts her
> hand down and says her drive is leaving, certainly is. I simply can't
> imagine not applying 68B.
>
In the OP case it may just be she put her hand down and left the table to catch the driver, remind her they were riding together, and then return to the table.
As for putting down one's hand face down on the table, I do that fairly often. Sometimes I may be eating a snack, opening a can, or just stretching while declarer takes his time. This may happen during the play or during the auction. There are times when I bid while my hand is stacked face down on the table. No one has ever challenged my actions as abandonment.
Barry Margolin
Feb 1, 2012, 2:44:28 PM2/1/12
to
In article
<31026501.251.1328124194041.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prnc5>,
said "This lady (our opponent) announced that she wouldn't be able
<31026501.251.1328124194041.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prnc5>,
Stu Goodgold <st...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 1, 2012 6:10:10 AM UTC-8, derek wrote:
> > On Jan 31, 5:21 pm, Adam Beneschan <a....@irvine.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 31, 1:04 pm, derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> > >
> > > Still disagree. I think 68B is intended to apply to a case where a
> > > player throws his cards face down on the table, or puts them back in
> > > the board; when players do that, it's a statement that "the hand is
> > > over". But I think that someone who just takes off to go home is not
> > > making any sort of statement, and 68B should not apply to it. What
> > > Stu said applies here; someone who lays their cards down because
> > > they're having a heart attack is *not* abandoning their hand in this
> > > sense nor conceding the rest of the tricks. What's going on is
> > > something different. I don't believe any of the claim or concession
> > > laws are relevant to the OP's case.
> >
> > Of course someone who has a heart attack is not abandoning his hand -
> > that's exactly why I disagreed with Stu. otoh, someone who puts her
> > hand down and says her drive is leaving, certainly is. I simply can't
> > imagine not applying 68B.
> >
> Actually, I would expect someone who is having a heart attack is indeed
> abandoning their hand. Only the most die-hard (pun intended) bridge players
> would want to finish the hand in this situation.
>
> In the OP case it may just be she put her hand down and left the table to
> catch the driver, remind her they were riding together, and then return to
> the table.
The OP never said anything about putting her hand down on the table. He
> On Wednesday, February 1, 2012 6:10:10 AM UTC-8, derek wrote:
> > On Jan 31, 5:21 pm, Adam Beneschan <a....@irvine.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 31, 1:04 pm, derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> > >
> > > Still disagree. I think 68B is intended to apply to a case where a
> > > player throws his cards face down on the table, or puts them back in
> > > the board; when players do that, it's a statement that "the hand is
> > > over". But I think that someone who just takes off to go home is not
> > > making any sort of statement, and 68B should not apply to it. What
> > > Stu said applies here; someone who lays their cards down because
> > > they're having a heart attack is *not* abandoning their hand in this
> > > sense nor conceding the rest of the tricks. What's going on is
> > > something different. I don't believe any of the claim or concession
> > > laws are relevant to the OP's case.
> >
> > Of course someone who has a heart attack is not abandoning his hand -
> > that's exactly why I disagreed with Stu. otoh, someone who puts her
> > hand down and says her drive is leaving, certainly is. I simply can't
> > imagine not applying 68B.
> >
> Actually, I would expect someone who is having a heart attack is indeed
> abandoning their hand. Only the most die-hard (pun intended) bridge players
> would want to finish the hand in this situation.
>
> In the OP case it may just be she put her hand down and left the table to
> catch the driver, remind her they were riding together, and then return to
> the table.
said "This lady (our opponent) announced that she wouldn't be able
to finish the hand, as her lift was waiting."
Adam Beneschan
Feb 1, 2012, 3:15:45 PM2/1/12
to
On Feb 1, 11:23 am, Stu Goodgold <st...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> As for putting down one's hand face down on the table, I do that fairly often.
Yeah, I don't think putting down your hand is a sign of abandonment.
>
> As for putting down one's hand face down on the table, I do that fairly often.
You have to make it look like you're throwing it away. I think it
depends on the wrist action.
Seriously, I don't know specifically what a player has to do to
"abandon" his hand; I just know it when I see it. Unless I don't.
-- Adam
Barry Margolin
Feb 1, 2012, 3:30:37 PM2/1/12
to
In article
<0257a3b0-477f-4fb7...@sk8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
I think it's the whole process:
Saying, "You idiot!", followed by throwing your hand down on the table,
and storming away from the table.
<0257a3b0-477f-4fb7...@sk8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
Saying, "You idiot!", followed by throwing your hand down on the table,
and storming away from the table.
derek
Feb 1, 2012, 4:09:55 PM2/1/12
to
On Feb 1, 3:23 pm, Stu Goodgold <st...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 1, 2012 6:10:10 AM UTC-8, derek wrote:
> > On Jan 31, 5:21 pm, Adam Beneschan <a....@irvine.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 31, 1:04 pm, derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
> > > Still disagree. I think 68B is intended to apply to a case where a
> > > player throws his cards face down on the table, or puts them back in
> > > the board; when players do that, it's a statement that "the hand is
> > > over". But I think that someone who just takes off to go home is not
> > > making any sort of statement, and 68B should not apply to it. What
> > > Stu said applies here; someone who lays their cards down because
> > > they're having a heart attack is *not* abandoning their hand in this
> > > sense nor conceding the rest of the tricks. What's going on is
> > > something different. I don't believe any of the claim or concession
> > > laws are relevant to the OP's case.
>
> > Of course someone who has a heart attack is not abandoning his hand -
> > that's exactly why I disagreed with Stu. otoh, someone who puts her
> > hand down and says her drive is leaving, certainly is. I simply can't
> > imagine not applying 68B.
>
> Actually, I would expect someone who is having a heart attack is indeed abandoning their hand. Only the most die-hard (pun intended) bridge players would want to finish the hand in this situation.
I still disagree - "abandon" implies intent.
> On Wednesday, February 1, 2012 6:10:10 AM UTC-8, derek wrote:
> > On Jan 31, 5:21 pm, Adam Beneschan <a....@irvine.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 31, 1:04 pm, derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
> > > Still disagree. I think 68B is intended to apply to a case where a
> > > player throws his cards face down on the table, or puts them back in
> > > the board; when players do that, it's a statement that "the hand is
> > > over". But I think that someone who just takes off to go home is not
> > > making any sort of statement, and 68B should not apply to it. What
> > > Stu said applies here; someone who lays their cards down because
> > > they're having a heart attack is *not* abandoning their hand in this
> > > sense nor conceding the rest of the tricks. What's going on is
> > > something different. I don't believe any of the claim or concession
> > > laws are relevant to the OP's case.
>
> > Of course someone who has a heart attack is not abandoning his hand -
> > that's exactly why I disagreed with Stu. otoh, someone who puts her
> > hand down and says her drive is leaving, certainly is. I simply can't
> > imagine not applying 68B.
>
> Actually, I would expect someone who is having a heart attack is indeed abandoning their hand. Only the most die-hard (pun intended) bridge players would want to finish the hand in this situation.
> In the OP case it may just be she put her hand down and left the table to catch the driver, remind her they were riding together, and then return to the table.
were told, and the question was what would you do if someone _did_
abandon their hand in such a way.
> As for putting down one's hand face down on the table, I do that fairly often. Sometimes I may be eating a snack, opening a can, or just stretching while declarer takes his time. This may happen during the play or during the auction. There are times when I bid while my hand is stacked face down on the table. No one has ever challenged my actions as abandonment.
blackshoe
Feb 1, 2012, 6:34:14 PM2/1/12
to
On Wednesday, February 1, 2012 2:23:14 PM UTC-5, Stu Goodgold wrote:
> In the OP case it may just be she put her hand down and left the table to catch the driver, remind her they were riding together, and then return to the table.
If that were the case, she would have said that's what she was doing when she stood up. Instead, the OP reported, "This lady (our opponent) announced that she wouldn't be able
> In the OP case it may just be she put her hand down and left the table to catch the driver, remind her they were riding together, and then return to the table.
to finish the hand, as her lift was waiting." Sure as Hell sounds like abandoning her hand to me.
David Stevenson
Feb 2, 2012, 8:20:36 AM2/2/12
to
Dave D wrote
>You won't believe this, but it did happen, honestly!
>
>We were playing the very last board of the evening, and my partner was
>declarer. Midway through the hand (trick 6 I think) one of our opponents,
>an elderly lady, saw that her driver had finished her board and was putting
>on her coat. This lady (our opponent) announced that she wouldn't be able
>to finish the hand, as her lift was waiting. She then stood up and played
>one final card from her hand. Luckily, at that point my partner claimed the
>rest (we made 3NT+1 vul).
>
>If my partner hadn't have claimed,
>
>A) Could I as dummy have called the TD?
You are not allowed to draw attention to an irregularity. It is
>You won't believe this, but it did happen, honestly!
>
>We were playing the very last board of the evening, and my partner was
>declarer. Midway through the hand (trick 6 I think) one of our opponents,
>an elderly lady, saw that her driver had finished her board and was putting
>on her coat. This lady (our opponent) announced that she wouldn't be able
>to finish the hand, as her lift was waiting. She then stood up and played
>one final card from her hand. Luckily, at that point my partner claimed the
>rest (we made 3NT+1 vul).
>
>If my partner hadn't have claimed,
>
>A) Could I as dummy have called the TD?
arguable whether someone else has done so, but possibly. In practical
terms, of course you may, though legally you need one of the other two
to say something.
>B) What would the ruling have been?
thinks it suitable. I think it suitable myself, and would give her a
small PP and tell her not to do it again.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955
<webj...@googlemail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412
bluejak666 on Skype Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
David Stevenson
Feb 2, 2012, 8:25:54 AM2/2/12
to
Dave Flower wrote
>Would posters think differently in the hypothetical case that the
>opposing pair (ie the 3NT bidders) had been unduly slow, and had been
>previously warned fo0r slow play ?
*Nothing* gives her the right to walk out. If she wants to call the
TD and say she has no time left, her driver is waiting, and the fault is
slowness by the other pair, fine, and the TD will rule. But walking out
is a Disciplinary offence: in an EBU event I would expect a three moth
ban. Since this is a club a small penalty and a severe warning will do.
>Would posters think differently in the hypothetical case that the
>opposing pair (ie the 3NT bidders) had been unduly slow, and had been
>previously warned fo0r slow play ?
*Nothing* gives her the right to walk out. If she wants to call the
TD and say she has no time left, her driver is waiting, and the fault is
slowness by the other pair, fine, and the TD will rule. But walking out
is a Disciplinary offence: in an EBU event I would expect a three moth
ban. Since this is a club a small penalty and a severe warning will do.
David Stevenson
Feb 2, 2012, 8:27:43 AM2/2/12
to
Dave D wrote
Not in my view. It was not a claim, it was not a concession, she just
walked out during the event and that is a serious breach of playing
conditions in any event.
walked out during the event and that is a serious breach of playing
conditions in any event.
David Stevenson
Feb 2, 2012, 8:30:18 AM2/2/12
to
Stu Goodgold wrote
The legal difference is that she did not deliberately break the rules
by having a heart attack, and having a heart attack is not a
disciplinary offence. Leaving during an event by choice without
permission from the TD is a disciplinary offence.
by having a heart attack, and having a heart attack is not a
disciplinary offence. Leaving during an event by choice without
permission from the TD is a disciplinary offence.
David Stevenson
Feb 2, 2012, 8:31:15 AM2/2/12
to
Mark Brader wrote
>After that, I think a procedural penalty under Law 90A against the
>offending pair, or at least a warning "don't ever do that again or
>you'll get a PP", would be appropriate.
DP not PP, in my view.
>offending pair, or at least a warning "don't ever do that again or
>you'll get a PP", would be appropriate.
David Stevenson
Feb 2, 2012, 8:34:38 AM2/2/12
to
David Stevenson wrote
>Dave D wrote
>>You won't believe this, but it did happen, honestly!
>>
>>We were playing the very last board of the evening, and my partner was
>>declarer. Midway through the hand (trick 6 I think) one of our opponents,
>>an elderly lady, saw that her driver had finished her board and was putting
>>on her coat. This lady (our opponent) announced that she wouldn't be able
>>to finish the hand, as her lift was waiting. She then stood up and played
>>one final card from her hand. Luckily, at that point my partner claimed the
>>rest (we made 3NT+1 vul).
>>
>>If my partner hadn't have claimed,
>>
>>A) Could I as dummy have called the TD?
>
> You are not allowed to draw attention to an irregularity. It is
>arguable whether someone else has done so, but possibly. In practical
>terms, of course you may, though legally you need one of the other two
>to say something.
>
>>B) What would the ruling have been?
>
> Average Plus to you, Average Minus to her, plus a penalty if the TD
>thinks it suitable. I think it suitable myself, and would give her a
>small PP and tell her not to do it again.
On a rethink, a small DP not PP.
>>You won't believe this, but it did happen, honestly!
>>
>>We were playing the very last board of the evening, and my partner was
>>declarer. Midway through the hand (trick 6 I think) one of our opponents,
>>an elderly lady, saw that her driver had finished her board and was putting
>>on her coat. This lady (our opponent) announced that she wouldn't be able
>>to finish the hand, as her lift was waiting. She then stood up and played
>>one final card from her hand. Luckily, at that point my partner claimed the
>>rest (we made 3NT+1 vul).
>>
>>If my partner hadn't have claimed,
>>
>>A) Could I as dummy have called the TD?
>
> You are not allowed to draw attention to an irregularity. It is
>arguable whether someone else has done so, but possibly. In practical
>terms, of course you may, though legally you need one of the other two
>to say something.
>
>>B) What would the ruling have been?
>
> Average Plus to you, Average Minus to her, plus a penalty if the TD
>thinks it suitable. I think it suitable myself, and would give her a
>small PP and tell her not to do it again.
Adam Beneschan
Feb 2, 2012, 11:02:28 AM2/2/12
to
On Feb 2, 5:20 am, David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Average Plus to you, Average Minus to her
That was my first thought, too, but later I thought that the TD should
>
> Average Plus to you, Average Minus to her
try to award an assigned adjusted score if possible. It seems like
this may not be feasible in all cases--say someone walks away after
Trick 2 when there are still a lot of twists and turns possible in the
play--but in a simpler case it ought to be possible. My concern here
was that if a pair bids excellently to a making game that no one else
in the room bids, earning themselves a top, they could be robbed of
40% of the matchpoints they earned if an opponent pulls a stunt like
this (or becomes ill, although if an opponent became too ill to play
at my table, losing a few matchpoints would be the least of my
concerns).
What do you think? Would it go against the Laws for the TD to apply
12C1, and if so, why?
-- Adam
Mark Brader
Feb 2, 2012, 11:22:28 AM2/2/12
to
David Stevenson:
> ...in an EBU event I would expect a three moth ban.
That'll give 'em butterflies! :-)
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "... people are *always* doing stuff ...
m...@vex.net that I wish were typos" --Marcy Thompson
> ...in an EBU event I would expect a three moth ban.
That'll give 'em butterflies! :-)
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "... people are *always* doing stuff ...
m...@vex.net that I wish were typos" --Marcy Thompson
Dave D
Feb 2, 2012, 1:16:47 PM2/2/12
to
On 02/02/2012 13:20, David Stevenson wrote:
>> A) Could I as dummy have called the TD?
>
> You are not allowed to draw attention to an irregularity. It is
> arguable whether someone else has done so, but possibly. In practical
> terms, of course you may, though legally you need one of the other two
> to say something.
That's interesting. In this case, the defender's partner didn't say
>> A) Could I as dummy have called the TD?
>
> You are not allowed to draw attention to an irregularity. It is
> arguable whether someone else has done so, but possibly. In practical
> terms, of course you may, though legally you need one of the other two
> to say something.
anything. My partner, the declarer, has poor hearing so wasn't aware of
what was actually said. And I'm sitting there as dummy unable to do
anything because none of the other three had officially brought it to my
attention. I love it! :)
--
Dave D
Stu Goodgold
Feb 2, 2012, 4:04:18 PM2/2/12
to
Since I have been corrected on the actually wording of the OP, didn't the lady who left the scene say she could not finish the hand? Isn't that a case of one of the defenders calling attention to an irregularity?
Mark Brader
Feb 2, 2012, 8:53:49 PM2/2/12
to
Dave Doran:
to your attention.
I'm reminded of the situation where one defender doesn't realize he won
the trick. Say declarer (South) leads a small card from dummy and ducks
in hand, so the trick goes something like 5-6-2-3. East fails to look
at declarer's card and turns his played card pointing to N-S; the others
correctly turn them pointing to E-W. South and West, thinking about the
future tricks and waiting for East's lead, don't notice that East has the
card turned wrong. North notices and realizes's what happened, but isn't
allowed to say anything. Deadlock.
(At least the Laws now allow West to tell East "The last trick is ours".
That might cause East to look at his own played card and figure it out.
I don't think they allow West to say "You won the trick", though. Only
South can do that, once he realizes what's happened. In practice, of
course, if nothing happens for long enough time someone will eventually
speak, allowed or not.)
--
Mark Brader "This may represent a minor inconvenience ...
Toronto I say 'minor' because I'm not doing the work."
m...@vex.net -- Topher Eliot
> That's interesting. In this case, the defender's partner didn't say
> anything. My partner, the declarer, has poor hearing so wasn't aware of
> what was actually said. And I'm sitting there as dummy unable to do
> anything because none of the other three had officially brought it to my
> attention. I love it! :)
I'd argue that saying "I can't finish the hand" has called the irregularity
> anything. My partner, the declarer, has poor hearing so wasn't aware of
> what was actually said. And I'm sitting there as dummy unable to do
> anything because none of the other three had officially brought it to my
> attention. I love it! :)
to your attention.
I'm reminded of the situation where one defender doesn't realize he won
the trick. Say declarer (South) leads a small card from dummy and ducks
in hand, so the trick goes something like 5-6-2-3. East fails to look
at declarer's card and turns his played card pointing to N-S; the others
correctly turn them pointing to E-W. South and West, thinking about the
future tricks and waiting for East's lead, don't notice that East has the
card turned wrong. North notices and realizes's what happened, but isn't
allowed to say anything. Deadlock.
(At least the Laws now allow West to tell East "The last trick is ours".
That might cause East to look at his own played card and figure it out.
I don't think they allow West to say "You won the trick", though. Only
South can do that, once he realizes what's happened. In practice, of
course, if nothing happens for long enough time someone will eventually
speak, allowed or not.)
--
Mark Brader "This may represent a minor inconvenience ...
Toronto I say 'minor' because I'm not doing the work."
m...@vex.net -- Topher Eliot
Dave D
Feb 3, 2012, 4:29:50 AM2/3/12
to
On 03/02/2012 01:53, Mark Brader wrote:
> Dave Doran:
>> That's interesting. In this case, the defender's partner didn't say
>> anything. My partner, the declarer, has poor hearing so wasn't aware of
>> what was actually said. And I'm sitting there as dummy unable to do
>> anything because none of the other three had officially brought it to my
>> attention. I love it! :)
>
> I'd argue that saying "I can't finish the hand" has called the irregularity
> to your attention.
I think I agree with you.
> Dave Doran:
>> That's interesting. In this case, the defender's partner didn't say
>> anything. My partner, the declarer, has poor hearing so wasn't aware of
>> what was actually said. And I'm sitting there as dummy unable to do
>> anything because none of the other three had officially brought it to my
>> attention. I love it! :)
>
> I'd argue that saying "I can't finish the hand" has called the irregularity
> to your attention.
> I'm reminded of the situation where one defender doesn't realize he won
> the trick. Say declarer (South) leads a small card from dummy and ducks
> in hand, so the trick goes something like 5-6-2-3. East fails to look
> at declarer's card and turns his played card pointing to N-S; the others
> correctly turn them pointing to E-W. South and West, thinking about the
> future tricks and waiting for East's lead, don't notice that East has the
> card turned wrong. North notices and realizes's what happened, but isn't
> allowed to say anything. Deadlock.
the card pointing in the wrong direction:
Law 65 [Arrangement of Tricks] B3 - Declarer may require that a card pointed
incorrectly is pointed as above. Dummy or either defender may draw
attention to
a card pointed incorrectly, but for these players the right expires when
a lead
is made to the following trick. If done later Law 16B may apply.
--
Dave D
Bertel Lund Hansen
Feb 3, 2012, 8:10:29 AM2/3/12
to
Dave D skrev:
> I believe that dummy (North) is allowed to point out to East that he has
> the card pointing in the wrong direction:
All three players are allowed to do that. Only North can require
that the card be turned correctly.
--
Bertel, Denmark
http://bridge.lundhansen.dk/
> I believe that dummy (North) is allowed to point out to East that he has
> the card pointing in the wrong direction:
that the card be turned correctly.
--
Bertel, Denmark
http://bridge.lundhansen.dk/
David Stevenson
Feb 3, 2012, 8:44:21 AM2/3/12
to
Adam Beneschan wrote
C. Awarding an Adjusted Score
2. (a) When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained [and see
C1(d)] the Director awards an artificial adjusted score according
to responsibility for the irregularity: average minus (at most 40% of
the available matchpoints in pairs) to a contestant directly at fault,
average (50% in pairs) to a contestant only partly at fault, and
average plus (at least 60% in pairs) to a contestant in no way at fault.
Can a result be obtained? No? Then L12C2A applies.
B. Objectives of Score Adjustment
2. The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the
rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or
advantageous to either side.
Is it unfair and harsh? Quite possibly, but L12B2 does not allow you
to adjust */because* the legal remedy seems inadequate.
Of course the offending side should never gain: the DP should be
sufficient to make sure this will not happen.
2. (a) When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained [and see
C1(d)] the Director awards an artificial adjusted score according
to responsibility for the irregularity: average minus (at most 40% of
the available matchpoints in pairs) to a contestant directly at fault,
average (50% in pairs) to a contestant only partly at fault, and
average plus (at least 60% in pairs) to a contestant in no way at fault.
Can a result be obtained? No? Then L12C2A applies.
B. Objectives of Score Adjustment
2. The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the
rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or
advantageous to either side.
Is it unfair and harsh? Quite possibly, but L12B2 does not allow you
to adjust */because* the legal remedy seems inadequate.
Of course the offending side should never gain: the DP should be
sufficient to make sure this will not happen.
axm...@hotmail.com
Feb 3, 2012, 10:08:00 AM2/3/12
to
a concession of all the remaining tricks thereby attaining a result.
There having been a concession, play has ceased and the person that
was dummy is no longer prevented by law from drawing attention to
something or from calling the TD.
regards
axman
Jon Siegel
Feb 3, 2012, 10:49:33 AM2/3/12
to
> bluejak666 on Skype Bridgepage:http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
But what about Law 68B -- "A player concedes all the remaining tricks
when he abandons his hand"? If walking out of the event doesn't
constitute abandoning the hand, I don't know what does!
derek
Feb 3, 2012, 10:53:58 AM2/3/12
to
On Feb 3, 11:08 am, "axma...@hotmail.com" <axma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> When the player said she was leaving, she abandoned her hand. That is
> a concession of all the remaining tricks thereby attaining a result.
> There having been a concession, play has ceased and the person that
> was dummy is no longer prevented by law from drawing attention to
> something or from calling the TD.
>
While I've already agreed she's abandoned her hand, the rest doesn't
> When the player said she was leaving, she abandoned her hand. That is
> a concession of all the remaining tricks thereby attaining a result.
> There having been a concession, play has ceased and the person that
> was dummy is no longer prevented by law from drawing attention to
> something or from calling the TD.
>
quite follow. it requires at least an implicit acceptance from her
partner for play to cease - if partner disagrees with the concession,
play resumes. So technically dummy has no right to call the TD until
both defenders acquiesce in the claim. In practice, I'd be happy if
_anybody_ called me at this point. In all likelihood, nobody's going
to call until somebody is really upset.
Barry Margolin
Feb 3, 2012, 11:26:17 AM2/3/12
to
In article <4f2bdcbe$0$293$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>,
But even though dummy can't require that the card be fixed, there
doesn't seem to be a prohibition against repeating to point out the
error until someone leads to the next trick. Eventually the opponent
should get the idea, correct the card, and lead.
Bertel Lund Hansen <kanon...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
> Dave D skrev:
>
> > I believe that dummy (North) is allowed to point out to East that he has
> > the card pointing in the wrong direction:
>
> All three players are allowed to do that. Only North can require
> that the card be turned correctly.
No, only declarer (South) can do that.
> Dave D skrev:
>
> > I believe that dummy (North) is allowed to point out to East that he has
> > the card pointing in the wrong direction:
>
> All three players are allowed to do that. Only North can require
> that the card be turned correctly.
But even though dummy can't require that the card be fixed, there
doesn't seem to be a prohibition against repeating to point out the
error until someone leads to the next trick. Eventually the opponent
should get the idea, correct the card, and lead.
Adam Beneschan
Feb 3, 2012, 2:36:17 PM2/3/12
to
On Jan 31, 11:05 am, Stu Goodgold <st...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I agree. How is this legally (not ethically) different from a defender who puts his cards face down on the table in
> the middle of a hand, has a heart attack, and get carried off to the hospital? The only concession related to
> this player is the gift shop at the hospital.
By the way, this isn't related to bridge--but if someone at the table
> I agree. How is this legally (not ethically) different from a defender who puts his cards face down on the table in
> the middle of a hand, has a heart attack, and get carried off to the hospital? The only concession related to
> this player is the gift shop at the hospital.
does have a heart attack, I hope someone else at the table has seen
this, or something like it:
http://ahsc.arizona.edu/node/730
Bottom line: some of the CPR techniques we've been taught are wrong
for heart attack victims. I know this is off topic but I'm sharing it
in case it becomes needed. I do hope that none of you ever finds this
information useful.
-- Adam
Mark Brader
Feb 3, 2012, 2:58:56 PM2/3/12
to
Dave Doran:
--
Mark Brader "You can't [compare] computer memory and recall
Toronto with human memory and recall. It's comparing
m...@vex.net apples and bicycles." -- Ed Knowles
> I believe that dummy (North) is allowed to point out to East that he has
> the card pointing in the wrong direction:
Oops, quite right. Apologies for the error.
> the card pointing in the wrong direction:
--
Mark Brader "You can't [compare] computer memory and recall
Toronto with human memory and recall. It's comparing
m...@vex.net apples and bicycles." -- Ed Knowles
Steve Willner
Feb 12, 2012, 3:12:10 PM2/12/12
to
On 2012-02-02 8:30 AM, David Stevenson wrote:
> Leaving during an event by choice without permission from the TD is a
> disciplinary offence.
I agree with this part and also that a genuine emergency (having a heart
> Leaving during an event by choice without permission from the TD is a
> disciplinary offence.
attack for example) is not a disciplinary offense. An offense merits a
penalty, but we're still left to decide a score on the board.
My view is that abandoning one's hand, whether voluntarily or not, is a
concession. Law 68B1 says so, after all. After that, 68B2 allows
partner's "immediate" objection to cancel the concession. If that
doesn't happen, the Director rules under Laws 70A and 71, so the
conceding side will win any tricks that are "automatic" but not any that
are in doubt. This is not an adjusted score situation, so there's no
possibility of a weighted score.
If the departing player's partner does immediately object to the
concession, the board is still in play but can't be finished normally.
I think we are in L12A, and now it does make a difference whether the
abandonment was intentional or not. (My initial thought was that it
wouldn't matter, but I see I was wrong.) If it was intentional, it was
an infraction, and we're in L12A1. Essentially, the Director works out
how subsequent play would have gone and assigns a score accordingly; it
can be weighted in jurisdictions that allow weighted scores. This will
be much the same as a concession ruling but perhaps slightly less
favorable to the non-offending side.
If the inability to continue play was involuntary, there's no
"violation," so 12A1 can't apply. The only thing I can see left is
12A2, which gives avg+ to both sides, neither being at fault. I don't
like this one little bit -- I'd much rather see an assigned adjusted
score -- but I don't see any alternative.
--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@nhcc.net
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
0 new messages