[aguahombre]

 blackshoe, on 2012-September-30, 07:45, said:

I do not think your argument holds water.

Gordon (UK) and you (ACBL) agree that Pran's contention is not valid. As an interested follower of this thread who has never thought about Pran's reasoning before, it seems to be a quite reasonable conclusion from the wording of the sections he cited. It also would work to allow fact-finding on disputed revokes when the events are more fresh in people's minds.

Please explain where Pran is in error via different interpretation of his citations or some other useful source, if you feel so inclined.

[gordontd]

Pran writes:

Quote

the application of Law 64C is limited to such cases where there is no doubt at all about the revoke.

Law 64C itself begins:

Quote

When, after any established revoke, including those not subject to
rectification,

My emphasis. Nothing here about exceptions for uncertainty.

So I think we are only bound by L92B as quoted by blackshoe.

[pran]

Law 92B said:

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.

 blackshoe, on 2012-September-30, 07:45, said:

I do not think your argument holds water.

I never contest any player's right to request a ruling from me in my capacity as Director, but I reserve the right to dismiss such request on the ground that it comes too late for the particular Law that should be applicable.

In fact, when thinking about it, I have over the years dismissed many requests for just that reason.

[gordontd]

 pran, on 2012-September-30, 09:12, said:

I never contest any player's right to request a ruling from me in my capacity as Director, but I reserve the right to dismiss such request on the ground that it comes too late for the particular Law that should be applicable.

In fact, when thinking about it, I have over the years dismissed many requests for just that reason.

When you do so, I think you should point them to the relevant law (64C) not to laws that don't apply (64A/64B).

[pran]

 gordontd, on 2012-September-30, 09:11, said:

Pran writes:


Law 64C itself begins:

My emphasis. Nothing here about exceptions for uncertainty.

So I think we are only bound by L92B as quoted by blackshoe.

But how shall the Director know for a fact that there has been an established revoke?

Law 64C never applies unless this fact is ascertained.

[pran]

 gordontd, on 2012-September-30, 09:14, said:

When you do so, I think you should point them to the relevant law (64C) not to laws that don't apply (64A/64B).

Law 64C is never applicable unless an established revoke has been committed.

[aguahombre]

I would guess "established" is being interpreted as beyond uncertainty by Pran. Are we restricted to the more narrow definition of "established" which involves playing to the next trick?

[pran]

About the use of Law 92B:

At the end of an 8-board round a player approaches the Director with the following request:

In trick three of the first board my LHO lost a card on the floor. He took it back to his hand with the comment that fortunately his partner could not have seen its face. (I noticed that it was xxx). Then at trick ten his partner avoided a squeeze, and I am convinced it was because he knew that LHO held this card. So now I request an adjustment on that board because my RHO must have made use of unauthorized information.

If the Director analyses the board he finds some significant (but not absolute) probability that RHO indeed made his defence from knowledge of the card in question. RHO denies (if questioned) any possibility for him to having seen the face of the card in question before it was played in the regular way.

Is there any director that would adjust the result on this board? (Law 92B is of course applicable.)

[gordontd]

 pran, on 2012-September-30, 09:18, said:

Law 64C is never applicable unless an established revoke has been committed.

And the assertion is that one was. So you have to decide whether or not it was, and if so use Law 64C. I can't think why you would turn to 64A & 64B and say "these conditions are not fulfilled, so I can't apply a different law whose condition are fulfilled".

If you're not going to investigate on the grounds that the players don't agree what happened, do you similarly refuse to rule whenever there is a disagreement over the facts?

[gordontd]

 pran, on 2012-September-30, 09:40, said:

About the use of Law 92B:

At the end of an 8-board round a player approaches the Director with the following request:

In trick three of the first board my LHO lost a card on the floor. He took it back to his hand with the comment that fortunately his partner could not have seen its face. (I noticed that it was xxx). Then at trick ten his partner avoided a squeeze, and I am convinced it was because he knew that LHO held this card. So now I request an adjustment on that board because my RHO must have made use of unauthorized information.

If the Director analyses the board he finds some significant (but not absolute) probability that RHO indeed made his defence from knowledge of the card in question. RHO denies (if questioned) any possibility for him to having seen the face of the card in question before it was played in the regular way.

Is there any director that would adjust the result on this board? (Law 92B is of course applicable.)

They may well not, but they wouldn't decline it on the basis that it was out of time for Law 64A & 64B.

[gordontd]

 aguahombre, on 2012-September-30, 09:20, said:

I would guess "established" is being interpreted as beyond uncertainty by Pran. Are we restricted to the more narrow definition of "established" which involves playing to the next trick?

Law 63 tells us how to know if a revoke has been established. In this case there is some uncertainty so we investigate; we don't assume without investigation that there was no revoke, and therefore decline to rule, when one side tells us there was a revoke.

[pran]

 aguahombre, on 2012-September-30, 09:20, said:

I would guess "established" is being interpreted as beyond uncertainty by Pran. Are we restricted to the more narrow definition of "established" which involves playing to the next trick?

A revoke can never be established unless it was committed.

The critical question here is not whether a revoke was established but whether at all there was a revoke in the first place.

[pran]

 gordontd, on 2012-September-30, 09:45, said:

They may well not, but they wouldn't decline it on the basis that it was out of time for Law 64A & 64B.

What has L64 to do with this example? It was about L92

[gordontd]

 pran, on 2012-September-30, 09:16, said:

But how shall the Director know for a fact that there has been an established revoke?

Law 64C never applies unless this fact is ascertained.

He'll investigate and make a judgement. You seem to want the director not to bother investigating, on the grounds that it wasn't noticed at the time.

[aguahombre]

 gordontd, on 2012-September-30, 09:50, said:

Law 63 tells us how to know if a revoke has been established. In this case there is some uncertainty so we investigate; we don't assume without investigation that there was no revoke, and therefore decline to rule, when one side tells us there was a revoke.

O.K. Now, do the time limits which apply to an established revoke also apply to calling the TD's attention to a possible revoke which has not been investigated yet?

[gordontd]

 aguahombre, on 2012-September-30, 09:58, said:

O.K. Now, do the time limits which apply to an established revoke also apply to calling the TD's attention to a possible revoke which has not been investigated yet?

The only time limit on 64C is that contained in 92B.

[gordontd]

 pran, on 2012-September-30, 09:52, said:

What has L64 to do with this example? It was about L92

Precisely. What had L64A & L64B got to do with it when it was about L64C?

[pran]

 gordontd, on 2012-September-30, 09:43, said:

And the assertion is that one was. So you have to decide whether or not it was, and if so use Law 64C. I can't think why you would turn to 64A & 64B and say "these conditions are not fulfilled, so I can't apply a different law whose condition are fulfilled".

If you're not going to investigate on the grounds that the players don't agree what happened, do you similarly refuse to rule whenever there is a disagreement over the facts?

You cannot use any part of Laws 62, 63 or 64 to investigate if there was a revoke.

The ordinary way of such investigation is to reconstruct the play from inspection of the quitted cards, and the laws have specific rules for such inspection. Until the cards have been returned to the board this investigation hardly ever cause any problem.

The more time has passed after completion of a board the more difficult will it be to ascertain precisely what happened and the more will the burden of uncertainty reflect on the interests of the side who claims that opponents have committed an irregularity.

If a revoke is agreed upon then fine. If a revoke is obvious then also fine. But the Director must be extremely reluctant to rule that a side has revoked absent their consent when the allegation of a revoke is presented too late for ordinary investigation and the facts consequently cannot certainly be determined.

[gordontd]

 pran, on 2012-September-30, 09:51, said:

A revoke can never be established unless it was committed.

The critical question here is not whether a revoke was established but whether at all there was a revoke in the first place.

Yes, so let's resolve that question to the best of our abilities, and the rest will fall into place. You seem to want to decide there was no revoke, without trying to find out if that was so.

[pran]

 gordontd, on 2012-September-30, 10:09, said:

Precisely. What had L64A & L64B got to do with it when it was about L64C?

I cannot remember making, and cannot now find any reference to L64 in the post to which you commented and which was explicitly about Law 92B?