[mgoetze]

The TD is called to the table at the end of play. South was declarer. North and West still have their quitted tricks out, both indicate that that South took 10 tricks. Dummy apparently volunteered "down one?", South objecting that he had made 4♥, whereupon E/W said that the contract was not 4♥, but rather 5♥. Asked to state the auction, South volunteers 3♠-p-p-4♥-p-p-p, and noone else at the table remembers.

Question one: Do you find 4♥= or 5♥-1 more plausible?

Question two: If the TD deems both results equally plausible, what score should he assign?

[semeai]

I would want more facts. What are the hands?

First I would want to show the players their hands and try to reconstruct the bidding by asking them what they bid in turn. If that doesn't lead anywhere, looking at the hands without their help may be useful. It sounds like a short auction.

I fear south pulled out the 5H card and thought he'd pulled out the 4H card, and then all passed. A jump to 5H sounds memorable, though. I would ask the other three if any of them remember a jump to 5H.

[aguahombre]

Does dummy remember why he said, "down one?"

Did E/W just jump on dummy's bandwagon and assume 5H, since dummy said "down one?"

Someone must remember something. Did the TD ask each person anything out of earshot of the others? It would be difficult for TD to ascertain the facts if he didn't make a competent try, but we don't know that from what is given.

Does Germany allow splits?

[mgoetze]

I'm sorry, more facts won't be forthcoming, I wasn't at the table. Mostly interested in question two. Splits allowed.

[aguahombre]

Split at teams, wash at MP? A split at matchpoints might really mean zero for one side or the other.

[mgoetze]

aguahombre, on 2011-August-22, 14:04, said:

Split at teams, wash at MP? A split at matchpoints might really mean zero for one side or the other.

Wash as in 50%/50%, or round average for both? Do the laws allow that, or do they only allow AVE+/AVE+ or AVE-/AVE-?

[blackshoe]

The laws allow any combination of A+, A, A-. Depends on who's at fault, and by how much. But I don't think an ArtAS is appropriate here.

On the preponderance of the evidence presented, the contract was 4♥, and was just made. I'd score it that way.

[aguahombre]

dunno....Maybe Black or Blue knows, and knows whether your jurisdiction is different than others. Oops, Black came through.

[iviehoff]

It is customary here to write down the contract at the end of the auction, though I can't find any general national regulation that mandates it. There may be local rules. But unless there is some such rule, no one has done anything wrong, so there are no grounds for an adjusted score. So no weighted or split score.

There appears to be no law on disputes over what the contract is. The closest we can find is Law 79B, which deals with disputes over number of tricks won. The director is told to rule what the number of tricks should be. For guidance on making that ruling he should consult Law 87, which deals generally with rulings on disputed facts. This does not provide for weighting or splitting the score merely because the facts are disputed, rather it requires the TD to make his mind up and make a ruling.

So I think the TD must look at the evidence, and make up his mind. If he chooses to toss a coin in helping him do that, perhaps he should do it out of sight.

[Zelandakh]

iviehoff, on 2011-August-23, 04:41, said:

It is customary here to write down the contract at the end of the auction, though I can't find any general national regulation that mandates it.

I have always wondered why the bidding card(s) for the final contract is(are) not left out during the play. This would have solved the problem here nicely.

[axman]

Zelandakh, on 2011-August-23, 05:16, said:

I have always wondered why the bidding card(s) for the final contract is(are) not left out during the play. This would have solved the problem here nicely.

There was a time when there were no bidding cards to be left out.

THe long and short of it is that the memory of the players can be sufficient and ought to be sufficient. Best practice is for the contract to be recorded on the official score prior to the OL with some sort of nod of concurrence by the players.

Further, bidding cards take up considerable real estate and to leave even the final contract on the table can cause irregularities and infractions such as when players mistake a BC for a Play such that they then POOT.

[Zelandakh]

axman, on 2011-August-23, 05:33, said:

THe long and short of it is that the memory of the players can be sufficient and ought to be sufficient.

Perhaps I am mistaken but I was under the impression that any player could ask what the contract is at their turn to play. If the bidding card is kept either in the middle of the table or in the corner by dummy then I cannot see how it can possibly be mistaken for a played card.

[iviehoff]

Zelandakh, on 2011-August-23, 05:47, said:

Perhaps I am mistaken but I was under the impression that any player could ask what the contract is at their turn to play. If the bidding card is kept either in the middle of the table or in the corner by dummy then I cannot see how it can possibly be mistaken for a played card.

At 41C, any player is entitled "to be informed" as to the contract, but the procedure for informing him is not clear. One might say that maybe this merely entitles him to look at his own record of what the contract is, as an exception to the general ban on aide-memoires.

In the EBU, it is a requirement to clear away the bidding cards immediately after the opening lead is faced. It is unlikely that a bidding card could be confused with a playing card. But if they left out during play, they can then be confused with a first round bid on the next hand, which is a very dangerous situation. It is useful to have a regulation that requires them to be cleared away well in advance, so that we can say that someone who leaves such a card lying around so late that it is confused with the next auction is clearly in the wrong.

[cloa513]

axman, on 2011-August-23, 05:33, said:

There was a time when there were no bidding cards to be left out.

THe long and short of it is that the memory of the players can be sufficient and ought to be sufficient. Best practice is for the contract to be recorded on the official score prior to the OL with some sort of nod of concurrence by the players.

Further, bidding cards take up considerable real estate and to leave even the final contract on the table can cause irregularities and infractions such as when players mistake a BC for a Play such that they then POOT.

So did they they write bids? Who does verbal bidding?

[pran]

cloa513, on 2011-August-23, 07:08, said:

axman, on 2011-August-23, 05:33, said:

There was a time when there were no bidding cards to be left out.

THe long and short of it is that the memory of the players can be sufficient and ought to be sufficient. Best practice is for the contract to be recorded on the official score prior to the OL with some sort of nod of concurrence by the players.

Further, bidding cards take up considerable real estate and to leave even the final contract on the table can cause irregularities and infractions such as when players mistake a BC for a Play such that they then POOT.

So did they they write bids? Who does verbal bidding?

"There was a time when" everybody did!

[bluejak]

"Splits" are allowed under any jurisdiction, being a matter of Law. Perhaps the comment meant "weights".



There is, I am afraid, a failure to understand the TD's role in this thread. When asked to determine facts, the TD determines facts to the best of his ability, and may not give a split or weighted ruling because he cannot determine facts. For example, if ruling on a hesitation case he decides whether there was or was not a hesitation: he does not give "splits" or "weights" on the basis that perhaps there was a hesitation, perhaps there was not.

So, in this case, he judges what the contract was based on all the evidence proffered, evidence including what is said and what is written, whether it is self-serving or not. He is allowed to use the evidence of the hands and basic commonsense. Eventually he makes a judgement of the final contract and so rules.

[mgoetze]

bluejak, on 2011-August-23, 08:06, said:

So, in this case, he judges what the contract was based on all the evidence proffered, evidence including what is said and what is written, whether it is self-serving or not. He is allowed to use the evidence of the hands and basic commonsense. Eventually he makes a judgement of the final contract and so rules.

So AVE/AVE can never be a legal ruling in this sort of case?

[blackshoe]

No. An adjusted score is appropriate when the laws call for it ("if X happens, the TD shall adjust the score") or when, in the TD's judgement, the laws do not provide indemnity for a particular type of offense, or normal play of the board is not possible, or there has been an incorrect rectification of an irregularity. Here, none of these conditions apply. Even when one or the other condition does apply, in most cases an assigned adjusted score rather than an artificial one (e.g., Ave/Avg) would be appropriate.

The law on disputed facts is 85, 87 is about fouled boards.