Correcting a mistaken ruling
Hi all
Last night I gave an incorrect ruling following an infraction - A card was accidentally exposed during the auction, which went:
Pass - 1S * dropped the King Hearts face up on the table and director called...
I ruled that this card was unauthorised information to their partner and authorised to the ops. That bidding continues as normal and that should call me back at the end of the auction in case of lead restrictions etc. I also mentioned that they can appeal, if needed, which has now happened...
The auction took place: Pass - 1S - Pass - 1NT - all pass
I was called and said that the card is not a penalty card as it is in dummy and so no restrictions in play.
I was obviously wrong in the initial ruling and the 1NT should have been a pass and it looks that 1S would have been final contract.
So - should I now correct the score to 1S, with perhaps weighting on the likely results, or 60:40 type result? I have a feeling it should be corrected to an actual result, perhaps 70% 1S making and 30% 1S -1, but should this be corrected a single result of 1S making or -1. If to a single result, should it automatically favour the NOS?
I have checked the hand double dummy and it makes according to the computer - looks likely to make to me too (there are a couple of bad defence plays to make it +1) and there are some bad plays available to go -1.
Hand has been added in the next comment
Comments
Law 82C on director's error says ;
If a ruling has been given that the director subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score, treating both sides as non-offending for that purpose.
Which would be Av+/Av+ if you wanted to go with an artificial adjusted score, and is a good pragmatic approach in these situations. While an adjusted score can be a result, law 12A2 calls for an artificial adjusted score (here, 60/60) if no rectification can be made which would permit normal play of the board, which I think can be invoked here.
So the play of 1S is probably of academic interest, although it certainly isn't obvious what might happen, I'd expect players to go -1 sometimes.
You do know what the contract would have been so I don't think you should give an artificial score. Treating both sides as non-offending and giving them the benefit of any doubt you could rule 1S= for NS and 1S-1 for EW, or give smaller percentages than 100% for each of those contracts.
Just need to update Scorebridge and redo the results now. Cheers
btw, well done for acknowledging the error and addressing it.
Errors happen and dealing with them is how one improves...
It has just gotten a bit more awkward... it seems that the card was exposed prior to any calls being made at all - they had a discussion at the table and agreed to leave it on the table and carry on regardless... then it went Pass - 1S - Pass - then the director was called.
So it is not eminently obvious that North would have opened 1S knowing that partner was going to be barred from bidding for a round. Perhaps they open 1NT perhaps they punt 3NT? It certainly opens up more question marks as to the final contract, so at this point I think that 60:60 would be the fairest outcome.
Does that sound reasonable? It seems to be the best approach to me, as it treats both as non-offending, acknowledges that the outcome with a correct ruling is not clear/obvious and also is not overly generous to either side.
Thanks again for your input.
Now it's their fault! Why do you think they are non-offending when it's their actions that made the board unplayable? I would give both sides 40% under Law 16D2d, and remind them that they are not allowed to make their own rulings. Draw their attention to Law 9B1a.