[jillybean]

21 table game, my co-director is away.
Last round, I am called to a table and find declarer has 5 cards left, 8 card quitted on table. Dummy and opponents have 4 cards in hand, 9 card quitted.
Last 2 tricks are examined and determined to be correct, I am then called away for a medical emergency at another table.

I never get back to the table, the players finished the hand and scored the board.

I'm still looking for the relevant Law.

[blackshoe]

Probably Law 67, and there is a defective trick somewhere in the quitted tricks. It seems like that declarer either didn't play to a trick, or played to one and then put his played card back in his hand.

The players have violated Law 10A. You could, I suppose, invoke Law 10B ("The Director may allow or cancel any enforcement or waiver of a rectification made by the players without his instructions"). Or you could just let their resolution -- and score -- for the board stand. If you do that though, you should at least tell them that making their own rulings is against the rules, regardless of the circumstances. You might even issue both sides a PP. I know, that's "just not done". Maybe it should be done more often.

[jillybean]

Thanks.
I did let the resolution and score stand.
This is an unsanctioned game so while we do try to follow the Laws we won't be using PPs. I think it works well,both as a gentle introduction to duplicate and the Laws and as a training ground for want to be Directors.

[mycroft]

I as much want to be followed and respected as the next director, but it's a game, folks - in particular, it's a game where (in this case) a large part of the draw of the game is that it's not run like a sectional, where "every little crossing of the line is penalized, and the better players claim you're c-wording if you're not perfect".

Sure, this is why I don't leave the table until the problem is solved, forcing others (including my table, if I'm a playing director) to wait their turn. But "medical emergency" overrides "correct game". And if the players decide to solve it their way under those conditions, accept it and move on. Frankly, that's better than the alternative of everybody rubbernecking the accident! Maybe mention that it still would have been better to wait and get it right, but "best result possible, not best possible result" applies to directors where Mrs. Guggenheim plays just as much as to her partners.

And yes, that's *me* saying this...

[jillybean]

mycroft, on 2024-November-21, 11:13, said:

run like a sectional, where "every little crossing of the line is penalized, and the better players claim you're c-wording if you're not perfect".

Penalties?

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2024-November-21, 12:59, said:

Penalties?

Penalties work well where the player should have known they were due, otherwise only if obligatory IMO.

PS. I wanted to message you but your box is full

[mycroft]

Jilly, you know and I know what *actually happens*, but these are the people who have got "DIE-REC-TOR"ed out of the sanctioned game. And are very willing to tell their friends how horrible and rules-lawyery and nasty all those players are in the sanctioned clubs. That's why they're here, where it's a "friendly game" and "everyone's just here to enjoy themselves".

[jillybean]

pescetom, on 2024-November-21, 16:14, said:

Penalties work well where the player should have known they were due, otherwise only if obligatory IMO.

PS. I wanted to message you but your box is full

Anyone playing for more than a year should know...

Re; in box. You've exposed my lack of housekeeping. ok now

[jillybean]

mycroft, on 2024-November-21, 18:02, said:

Jilly, you know and I know what *actually happens*, but these are the people who have got "DIE-REC-TOR"ed out of the sanctioned game. And are very willing to tell their friends how horrible and rules-lawyery and nasty all those players are in the sanctioned clubs. That's why they're here, where it's a "friendly game" and "everyone's just here to enjoy themselves".

I disagree, but this isn't the forum right medium.

[McBruce]

I absolutely do not understand this idea of the 'friendly game' and the notion that in such a game the Laws are less important.

It seems to me that once the Laws are less important, the chance of a distinctly unfriendly game increases considerably. Even among friendly players.

The onus is on the Director to keep the game friendly while ensuring that players are aware that the rules are still important. Most players, especially in a game deemed to be a "friendly game," will not know about their rights and obligations and will strive to avoid having the Director called for fear that it will look like an accusation of some kind. It's up to the Director to keep things friendly when there is a call. One good habit to get into, especially in a "friendly game", is simply to thank the players for calling. Sometimes having this pre-recorded announcement even gives you a few seconds to help work out from the on-table evidence what the problem is.

In situations like this, the players often work out by themselves what the solution is, agree, and score it up. There's little reason for the Director to haul out the board and get them to recreate it if they agree. Theoretically it is wrong that they've worked it out as the Director attended a larger emergency, but the cardplay was complete and there's no disagreement about what happened. Forgetting to play a card to a trick can't result in a revoke later as playing two cards to a trick might, so there's less of a chance for an adjustment to be necessary.

Far more common and worth the trouble for educating are "friendly game" notions like:

• someone revoked six tricks ago and with three tricks still to play we have exposed 14 played cards to find out exactly what happened
  
• the next player after an insufficient bid wants to bid over it before the Director gets to decide whether it was unintended rather than insufficient
  
• anyone can have a penalty card, including dummy or even declarer, and no Director is needed

I see all of these quite often, and not just in "friendly games." I have seen these at sectional tournaments. As far as I can tell, the problem is with experienced players just as often as newcomers: they make a director-less ruling at their table and the newcomers see it and assume it's OK, missing key details. Even the experienced players are sometimes surprised to find that the Laws no longer have their favorite phrase: "a card he could have played to the revoke trick" and we now resolve all that by simply asking the non-offenders if there is a possibility that the book penalty is insufficient and no revoke might lead to an even better result.

An example from a game near to yours quite recently:

---

East played in 4♠ and the score was recorded in the BridgeMates as making six on the lead of the 8♦. The declarer and spouse, formerly one of the slowest pairs at the club, now play with two rather good players which is an excellent solution to the slow-play problem. On this deal, West came to me after agreeing the result, to discuss the incident instead of calling me to the table. After all, it's a "friendly game", right?

As you can see from the diagram, twelve tricks is a surprising result. Near the end dummy had lazily assumed a play before declarer had called for a card and as a result, the opponents got a trick when the rest of the tricks were easily cross-ruffed. Like Michael Palin in The Golden Age Of Ballooning episode pretending to be the King of France*, I admit freely that I don't know the Laws by number but I know the gist of the one which applies (45D) and I know something else: when they come to the Director's table to talk to you, there is usually something amiss and you better ask some questions to unearth it. I asked about the details of what had happened and the player gave generalized responses like "it was an obvious play to ruff" and "it doesn't matter since it's a 'friendly game' though" and finally I thought we should go over to the table and talk to all four people about what had happened. Again when I asked which cards were involved in the ending I got nothing specific, and when I asked what had been said by declarer to correct the error, the answers were "I would have made the rest" or "it's an obvious play."

At this point, about a third of the way through the game, I told them "I need to see the hand and talk to you some more maybe a bit later, but for now let's go on to the next board." I talked to the player who had been dummy once more, after reading Law 45D and looking at the hand record (in this game, boards are shuffled and I spend the first half grabbing idle boards and entering them into a program I've written so there are hand records at the end for the few who want one), trying to confirm what the ending was and what declarer had said. I continued to get responses to unasked questions and no indication that there had even been a correction. I went to the N-S pair and asked what had happened and they said the North player had won the A♣ and led to the next trick and declarer played a card from her hand, saying nothing more than perhaps some comment at some unknown point about "I should have ruffed."

Board results coming in on this one had several -680s: in eleven rounds one pair bid and made 7♠, two bid and made 6♠, one made twelve tricks in 3NT(!), and the remaining six were evenly divided between -680 and -710. Scoff if you wish, but that would not be very "friendly". It does mean that there are only four matchpoints or so riding on the decision I make, so I waited a while and hoped that it would not be relevant.

Meanwhile, another problem: a suspicious score on the Bridgemate screen. By now I have all the deals recorded and imported to the BridgeMate software, and I see that the North player has simply entered the wrong compass position. This happens often and is confirmed by the opening lead and I correct it without checking. And then I notice it happening again on the same board in the next round, which is...unusual: and, they've seen it in the results and are calling me over. I discover that the four hands have been rotated: North has West's cards, West has South's, and so on. Back to the previous table: yes, we played 3♠ by West. The one before that is the E-W sitout table, and the one before that is the table where the 6♠ making six or seven ruling took place. They played 3♠ by South.

"Is there any possibility," I ask with the most polite tone I can muster, "that the hands got put back into the wrong slots somehow?" The reaction is like both players suddenly remembering that they forgot to turn the stove off and their kitchen may at this very moment be in flames. Apparently this N-S pair feels that there isn't enough room for the dummy unless you rotate the board 90 degrees during the cardplay, and so maybe... "Not a problem," I say. "Happy to have it confirmed. Let's just not do this anymore, OK? If you need extra space for the dummy, move the table mat up or down, but don't rotate the board please."

So we have a fouled board at two tables. This is easily handled in ACBLscore and L90B6-7 suggests a procedural penalty to the North-South pair. I looked quickly and found a second board declared by South that might have been fouled and caught it after it was played once with the hands shifted 90 degrees. But this is no recurring problem, it seemed like an solution improvised today that had gone wrong, and both players immediately realized the problem and promised not to do it again (the second board fouled had been played before I told them about the first). In a "friendly game," I decided a warning was sufficient. The pairs affected were getting 65-55 (played twice fouled) or 60 (played once fouled) so they were unlikely to be harmed. I looked at the scores so far and discovered the N-S pair was actually leading the N-S field at the time by a few matchpoints, so a penalty would have dropped them down a place or two.

As for the ruling in 6♠ and whether it was going to be irrelevant....no such luck. The E-W pair spent most of the day trailing one other E-W pair by 5-8% but made a late charge and closed to within 1.55 matchpoints (scores factored due to a sitout and the fouled boards....), while the N-S pair won by just 0.73 matchpoints. I ruled that I had not been convinced that there was an attempt to correct the error within the time Law 45D allows. Declarer allowed North to win the A♣ and lead another and commenting that "I should have ruffed" is not an attempt to correct the premature play by dummy. Once declarer followed to the club lead at trick twelve, it was too late to correct.

I must credit the West player for accepting the ruling and immediately consoling her focused-on-winning partner by noting that they had played well. But at the same time, I think as a Director, even in a "friendly game," we need to be (inwardly only, of course) wary of instances where players ask for a ruling in private, rather than calling. Even when they ask for a discussion away from the table because partner has forgotten to alert or mis-explained, the confab often helps partner wake up, which is precisely what the Laws tell the player not to do! Another recent requested talk away from the table, in another "friendly game" resulted in this amusing situation and article on my webpage:

http://mcbruce.ca/dotw/dotw241114.html

Enough with this notion of a "friendly game" already. They all should be friendly, without the quotation marks. My fingers already feel tired from typing all these quote marks in this response.... But I should do one more set:


* The MPFC Michael Palin quote, after claiming to be Louis the Fifteenth, who died some time ago in the period assumed by the sketch, is "Look mate: when you're King of France, you got better things to do than remembering your bloody number!"

[blackshoe]

Good story, McB, but... "declarer has four spade tricks, two hearts, five clubs, and two diamonds: twelve tricks!" 4+2+5+2 is 13. Yes, I know, he has to lose the ♦A.