Can you look again please director?
N revokes, Director awards +1 trick (offender does not win the trick on which they revoked).
All at the table accept the ruling. So far so good.
Later, East (declarer) realises that without the revoke he would have made 2 extra tricks. He asks the director to look again, and the director refuses. (The ruling should definitely have been +3 tricks)
Presumeably, the director is obliged to look again, rarher than requiring the player to make an appeal. (Actually, the director didn't even say that E could appeal, contrary to law 83).
Also, how would you deal with a director who outright refuses to look again?
Comments
I think that Directors are normally volunteers and so that care should be taken with the approach.
Having said that, there are a number of roles/tasks that a Director performs on any given night:
Sorting the movement
Making for a friendly and welcoming environment
Dealing with any issues that arise, including possible infractions of the law - this requires that the laws of bridge are applied fairly and consistently for all.
So, I think that I would ensure that I have the law book and a list of relevant rules to hand and then approach the director to, thank them for their efforts and successes in making their sessions successful/well attended/friendly and sociable (etc) but say that their has been an appeal about his ruling:
Then have the details of the hand, the ruling and the appeal ready... say that the appeal has been upheld and that a further 2 tricks were transferred to the declaring side. Then point out the relevant laws about how it should have been handled.
For what it is worth, I normally get called at the time the revoke has been identified... I then determine if there is a 0, 1 or 2 trick penalty - sometimes it might be a case of the revoker winning the revoke trick (1 trick penalty) but their side is yet to win another - when I will rule that there is a 1 trick penalty already, but if their side win any more tricks to make that a 2 trick penalty. I always finish with, 'if anyone is not happy or unclear at the end of the hand to call me back.' I also state that, 'there might be further tricks if the revoke has (for example) cut off access to a long running suit.'
Being a playing director, I will also make interim calls with a promise to look at a board at the end of the night once I have played it. I find that this approach works well for me and there is no need to try and save face with upholding ones original decision, as your ruling automatically includes instructions that there can be an appeal/re-look/later decision.
As an aside, this is something that can negatively impact the less skilled players in that a ruling is made and they will take that ruling as being true. They may see that they made less tricks than everyone else, but being less skilled they will be used to making less tricks than others and may not question (or at least successfully question) why they made less on this occasion. So, as directors, should we be further investigating hands ourselves without a query from the players involved, or do we apply the standard penalties and only look further after an appeal?
Players can ask for a ruling within the correction period. This includes asking for a TD to rule again when there are additional/overlooked facts relating to a ruling already given.
If the director will not reconsider, appeal.