Request for ruling in a Double Knockout teams match.
Art Hoffman
if an irregularity occurs without a director present, "It is the
responsibility of both team captains to agree on a temporary score for the
disputed board (typically favoring the non-offending side if an irregularity
or infraction occurs), subject to appeal."
While it doesn't matter in the final result, in a double knockout teams
match yesterday, with no director present, the following occurred.
With 4 tricks remaining here is the layout in a spade contract.
dummy
--
--
KQ
KJ
West East
-- --
Kx AQ
xx --
-- Qx
declarer
xx
xx
--
--
West leads HK, the CJ is discarded from dummy, East overtakes with HA and
declarer ruffs with Sx. Declarer then claims stating that dummy is good
while he folds his cards. Everyone else folds also. But, before hands are
pulled from the next board, East asks the declarer what his remaining cards
were. Declarer admits that he had 2 hearts and a spade (trump).
I am interested, academically, what the ruling would have been.
richlp
You mean, aside from disqualifying South from further competition and
reporting his behavior for a conduct and ethics hearing?????
Can't comment on exactly which laws apply (which I assume is what you
are asking about) but, for me, all roads lead to EW getting their 2
tricks (Revoke penalty or recinding acceptance of the claim)
Andrew
The revoke has been caught in time since the next hand has not begun.
Assuming that the irregularity is judged to be unintentional, the
normal revoke penalty applies.
Since the revoke is established by the subsequent claim:
* The offense trick is transfered to the defenders
* one additional trick is transfered to the defenders for a total of
two tricks.
Since this penalty restores equity, no additional tricks are
transfered to the defenders. Had declarer had one trump and three
losers in his hand, an additional trick would be transfered to restore
equity.
Andrew
Robin Barker
> On Jan 21, 9:17 am, "Art Hoffman" <ar...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Since the revoke is established by the subsequent claim:
> * The offense trick is transfered to the defenders
> * one additional trick is transfered to the defenders for a total of
> two tricks.
>
The claim established the revoke. The claim is contested.
Declarer has two heart and a trump.
If declarer plays a heart to trick 11, and discards DQ, then he makes
two tricks.
But if declarer plays a spade to trick 11, then he has a guess as to
which minor K to keep at trick 12. Nothing tells him which defender
will win the heart or which defender has which minor so it is normal
(in the sense of Law 70) to get this wrong. The heart loses at trick
12 and CQ makes the last trick.
I would rule that declarer wins one of the last three tricks following
the faulty claim and, following the application of the revoke penaly,
declarer makes none of the last four tricks.
I would issue a disciplinary penalty (20% of a top in EBU) for
claiming dummy was good with no entry to dummy while not showing his
hand.
Robin
Derek Broughton
Declarer loses two or three tricks. He has to give up the revoke trick, a
heart (a trick that can't be conceded by E/W), and maybe a penalty for
winning a subsequent trick - I can't figure out whether that is automatic.
And a stern admonition about claiming tricks you don't have...
--
derek
Stu G
I concur that declarer should lose 4 tricks: one for the revoke at
trick 10, plus another when winning the spade on trick 11 (having won
a trick with the previous revoking card), then a heart and a club at
tricks 12 and 13.
I would not give a procedure penalty unless I though declarer
deliberately did not show his hand because he knew he had revoked.
Amyone who revokes, which is almost always unintentional, is quite
likely to be flustered, make a bad claim, and not realize it.
What bothers me is where the director was. Per Law 80B2a), the
Tournament Organizer appoints a director. "If there is no appointed
Director, the players should designate a person to perform his
functions.". It sound as though no players were designated director
here.
-Stu Goodgold
San Jose, CA
Andrew
>
> > Since the revoke is established by the subsequent claim:
> > * The offense trick is transfered to the defenders
> > * one additional trick is transfered to the defenders for a total of
> > two tricks.
>
> This ruling ignores the wrong claim.
>
> The claim established the revoke. The claim is contested.
> Declarer has two heart and a trump.
> If declarer plays a heart to trick 11, and discards DQ, then he makes
> two tricks.
> But if declarer plays a spade to trick 11, then he has a guess as to
> which minor K to keep at trick 12. Nothing tells him which defender
> will win the heart or which defender has which minor so it is normal
> (in the sense of Law 70) to get this wrong. The heart loses at trick
> 12 and CQ makes the last trick.
>
> I would rule that declarer wins one of the last three tricks following
> the faulty claim and, following the application of the revoke penaly,
> declarer makes none of the last four tricks.
You are right--I forgot that by asking to see the hand the opponents
are contesting the claim as well. Declarer claimed 4 tricks when
entitled to two. Revoke penalty applied after adjusting the claim
gives him 0 of last four tricks.
> I would issue a disciplinary penalty (20% of a top in EBU) for
> claiming dummy was good with no entry to dummy while not showing his
> hand.
Not sure what 20% of a top is in an IMP-scored event. 3 IMPs? If so it
seems mild if you believe the action was intentional.
Andrew
Art Hoffman
"Stu G" <st...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:4caf389c-feb3-4714...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
(snip)
What bothers me is where the director was. Per Law 80B2a), the
Tournament Organizer appoints a director. "If there is no appointed
Director, the players should designate a person to perform his
functions.". It sound as though no players were designated director
here.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Conditions of Contest also provide that if a ruling is needed, phone
numbers of three directors to call are provided. Inasmuch as only the 8
players from both teams were present, generally no outside director is
appointed for the game. Where appropriate, the captains fulfill the
director role. In this case, both captains were present at the table (West
and declarer). The captains decided to agree on the facts of what happened
and assign a score to the board and seek a ruling later if it mattered.
E/W's team won 2 IMPs on the board. At most the board would have been a
push without the revoke. The match result was +9 for the E/W team. So,
there was no follow-up with a director.
As I wrote in the OP, I have only academic interest in the correct ruling.
Robin Barker
>
> Not sure what 20% of a top is in an IMP-scored event. 3 IMPs?
> If so it seems mild if you believe the action was intentional.
20% of a top would be twice the standard amount, so would be 6 IMPs.
I think saying "dummy is good" was intentional.
Perhap declarer did not realise he was in hand. Tough!
Robin
Mark Brader
Art Hoffman:
> While it doesn't matter in the final result, in a double knockout teams
> match yesterday, with no director present, the following occurred.
>
> With 4 tricks remaining here is the layout in a spade contract.
>
> dummy
> --
> --
> KQ
> KJ
> West East
> -- --
> Kx AQ
> xx --
> -- Qx
> declarer
> xx
> xx
> --
> --
>
> West leads HK, the CJ is discarded from dummy, East overtakes with HA and
> declarer ruffs with Sx. Declarer then claims stating that dummy is good
> while he folds his cards. Everyone else folds also. But, before hands are
> pulled from the next board, East asks the declarer what his remaining cards
> were. Declarer admits that he had 2 hearts and a spade (trump).
>
> I am interested, academically, what the ruling would have been.
Okay, first, the claim establishes the revoke, so the revoke can't
be corrected. And the claim was disputed in time, so it needs to be
adjudicated. Specifically, it must be evaluated on a basis of South
holding 2 hearts and 1 spade while East and West have only one heart
each remaining.
South can't really get to the dummy, so his claim statement is
inapplicable. We must evaluate it as if he had been required to
play on, and then had taken whichever rational line of play would
lead to the fewest tricks for his side. I think it's fair to
assume he would have noticed that he can't get to the dummy as
soon as he was about to lead to the next trick, so his lead is
not constrained.
Unfortunately, from the information given we don't know enough of
what he knows about the hand to be able to say what is rational.
For example, if South knows that the remaining hearts are splitting
1-1, then at the time of the claim he knows he could get 2 of the
last 3 tricks by leading a heart first, and it would be irrational
to play the trump first. In that case the ruling is that he gets
2 of the last 3 tricks, plus the revoke trick, then loses 2 tricks
for the revoke penalty, giving South 1 of the last 4 tricks.
On the other hand, if South might imagine that East has both of the
remaining hearts and a diamond, and if West's x of hearts (which
South supposes is with East) is larger than South's top heart, then
it is rational for South to play the trump first, hoping for a wrong
discard, and then lead a heart, discarding dummy's king of clubs
and a diamond on the two tricks. Since this line will not work,
South gets 1 trick less on the claim, ending up with 0 of the last
4 tricks after the revoke penalty.
I think.
--
Mark Brader | "...the scholarly instructor whisked his pupils through the
Toronto | entire universe in five months. Of course, the universe
m...@vex.net | was much smaller in those days." --John Franch
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Richard Pavlicek
> Our Conditions of Contest for the Double Knockout teams event provide that if an irregularity occurs without a director
> present, "It is the responsibility of both team captains to agree on a temporary score for the disputed board (typically
> favoring the non-offending side if an irregularity or infraction occurs), subject to appeal."
>
> While it doesn't matter in the final result, in a double knockout teams match yesterday, with no director present, the
> following occurred.
>
> With 4 tricks remaining here is the layout in a spade contract.
>
> Dummy
> --
> --
> KQ
> KJ
> West East
> -- --
> Kx AQ
> xx --
> -- Qx
> Declarer
> xx
> xx
> --
> --
>
> West leads HK, the CJ is discarded from dummy, East overtakes with HA and declarer ruffs with Sx. Declarer then claims
> stating that dummy is good while he folds his cards. Everyone else folds also. But, before hands are pulled from the next
> board, East asks the declarer what his remaining cards were. Declarer admits that he had 2 hearts and a spade (trump).
>
> I am interested, academically, what the ruling would have been.
In that case, I wish to thank the Academy of Arts (Hoffmans)
for this opportunity to respond.
Declarer's mistake was simply his answer to East's question
about his remaining cards. What always works for me: "We're
running late so ask me after the next board."
What revoke?
-RP
Chris
After the game ends and your opponents compare results with their
teammates, and you discover the flat tire(s) on your car:
"So who's running late now?" :)
Christopher Monsour
Art Hoffman
"Richard Pavlicek" <ric...@rpbridge.net> wrote in message
news:hjargk$okg$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
was a private match with no time limit.
You'll need to come up with a different line.
Derek Broughton
> What bothers me is where the director was. Per Law 80B2a), the
> Tournament Organizer appoints a director. "If there is no appointed
> Director, the players should designate a person to perform his
> functions.". It sound as though no players were designated director
> here.
Of course not. While this sort of competition doesn't seem common in the
US, it's common in many parts of Europe. Two teams arrange a convenient
place and time to play together (or, I suppose, you could even arrange two
convenient places), and turn in their results when finished. Iirc, the case
that caused such a stir with a top pro in Norway was like that.
Nevertheless, most units could find a director at the end of the phone...
--
derek
Chris
When I played in such a competition in the US years ago, we typically
arranged to play at a club when they were running a pairs game and we
shared that director with the pairs game.
My very limited experience with chess competitions in the US suggests
that in chess team leagues (with, e.g., a round robin format) manage
to have a "director" (not sure the official title in chess) on hand by
playing all the matches for a particular month on a "league night" at
a common site.
Christopher Monsour
Frances
I find it odd (or surprising, if you like) that you think it
preferable to play a teams match at a local club at the same time as
the normal pairs game, just so that you can have a director present.
How many director calls do you usually have in a head-to-head teams
match?
Certainly I've played matches a local clubs, either at the same time
as their usual game or hiring the club separately, but personally,
given the choice between
a) Playing at a free private venue with plenty of space and no
distractions, and
b) Paying to play at a venue with 14 tables of duplicate pairs going
on at the same time, with a time restriction on when you can start or
finish, and probably having to pay for soft drinks and refreshments
Then the former seems far preferable. People who TD local club
duplicates are often not qualified, or at least not in the top rank of
TDs (it's frequently an unpaid job so I'm not complaining), so if I'm
playing some late round of an important teams event I would prefer a
more qualified ruling to be available.
In England, the EBU provides a list of phone numbers of TDs who are
happy to give rulings (even textbook rulings if the players don't feel
comfortable themselevs), together with a list of referees who can hear
appeals. I would say that on average we need to phone for a ruling
perhaps one match in 200(?) (I can think of 4 in nearly 20 years of
playing this type of event, and one of them was only because the
opponents didn't understand the revoke law), and that the Lawbook is
needed slightly more often for things such as a lead out of turn.
David Stevenson
>You mean, aside from disqualifying South from further competition and
>reporting his behavior for a conduct and ethics hearing?????
Yes, something like that.
>Can't comment on exactly which laws apply (which I assume is what you
>are asking about) but, for me, all roads lead to EW getting their 2
>tricks (Revoke penalty or recinding acceptance of the claim)
Try all four tricks for both.
=================================================================
Richard Pavlicek wrote
>In that case, I wish to thank the Academy of Arts (Hoffmans)
>for this opportunity to respond.
>
>Declarer's mistake was simply his answer to East's question
>about his remaining cards. What always works for me: "We're
>running late so ask me after the next board."
>
>What revoke?
Oi loikes that .....
:))))))))))))))
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682
<webj...@googlemail.com> bluejak on OKB
Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
David Stevenson
>Our Conditions of Contest for the Double Knockout teams event provide
>that if an irregularity occurs without a director present, "It is the
>responsibility of both team captains to agree on a temporary score for
>the disputed board (typically favoring the non-offending side if an
>irregularity or infraction occurs), subject to appeal."
Why on earth do you not get a telephone ruling from a competent TD?
Declarer revokes by ruffing, then claims, folding his cards? I kick
him out of the event and send a report to his national authority.
The actual hand is simple enough: at the time of the claim he
establishes the revoke, so his claim is disallowed: he loses two tricks,
followed by two penalty tricks for the revoke, so the defence get the
last four tricks.
David Stevenson
>> I would issue a disciplinary penalty (20% of a top in EBU) for
>> claiming dummy was good with no entry to dummy while not showing his
>> hand.
>
>Not sure what 20% of a top is in an IMP-scored event. 3 IMPs? If so it
>seems mild if you believe the action was intentional.
6 imps.
Robin was quoting EBU rules, which state that a standard DP is twice a
standard PP. A standard PP is 3 imps, 10% of a top, 0.5 VP, and various
other things at funny forms of scoring [see the EBU White book 2010,
currently with proofreaders, due to be finished by me on Feb 28th, and
published online only on 1st April].
Art Hoffman
"David Stevenson" <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:E4imuYhc...@blakjak.demon.co.uk...
> Art Hoffman wrote
>>Our Conditions of Contest for the Double Knockout teams event provide that
>>if an irregularity occurs without a director present, "It is the
>>responsibility of both team captains to agree on a temporary score for the
>>disputed board (typically favoring the non-offending side if an
>>irregularity or infraction occurs), subject to appeal."
>
> Why on earth do you not get a telephone ruling from a competent TD?
The Conditions of Contest also provide the following:
"9. Director calls.
If the team captains cannot resolve an irregularity, the following
individuals may be available for a ruling: Bill XXXX (###-###-1095 or
###-###-8922) or Ruth XXXX (###-###-0088 or ###-###-4445). In their absence
any non-playing certified club director may rule."
As Coordinator I can only specify the Conditions. Presumably the Captains
in this instance decided to agree on a temporary score rather than to
attempt to reach a director at the time.
Isn't it possible that the declarer was transfixed by the dummy's winning
cards
and that he made an honest mistake? It seems to me that what you'd do is
somewhat gargantuan.