Disputed score
At an event a couple of weeks back, I was directing in an event where two pairs (N/S being a fair bit more experienced than E/W) were playing an 8-board match against each other. I was called to the table by E/W after the end of the round and as N/S were leaving (they could have waited but left to score up instead) - E/W's complaint was that they had not been given the opportunity to accept any of the scores in the Bridgemate as the round progressed, nor had they been given the opportunity to review the scores prior to the Bridgemate turning off for the end of the round.
I showed the E/W pair the traveller for the round and one of the scores came up with a difference to E/W's scorecard and they therefore requested that I speak to N/S to clarify the position. N/S were adamant that the original score in the Bridgemate was correct and were quite prepared to get the board back to explain trick by trick what had happened. E/W, understandably, said they wouldn't have been able to recall the events of the board so didn't see why they had to go with what N/S had put in the Bridgemate.
After starting the next round, I considered the following in giving a ruling:
- No TD call was made during the round with respect to the inability to accept scores; However, whilst roaming the room, I was aware that N/S had been guilty of auto-accepting their scores a number of times.
- There was a disputed score with E/W having scorecard evidence of their version of events
My ruling at the time was to follow Law 79B which states that, in the event of a disagreement in the number of tricks where the director was not called before the round ended, the score should be changed in one of the following ways:
- Changed for both sides if the TD is 'clearly convinced as to the result obtained at the table.'
- Otherwise, the TD should either allow the recorded score to stand or decrease the score for one side without increasing it for the other.
In all likelihood, N/S was right as to their entry into the Bridgemate. However, my view was that N/S had failed to give E/W their right to verify the scores and so I wasn't happy with letting the recorded score stand. My ruling was to reduce N/S's score to the score on E/W's scorecard and leave E/W's score unchanged (as I wasn't called during the round).
I'd be interested in hearing others' views on this. On one hand, N/S were somewhat intimidating to E/W in what they said the score was and I don't think that should be tolerated. On the other hand, it would set a dangerous precedent if every score not accepted on a Bridgemate could be reversed in this way. Of course, I might have also completely misunderstood the law as well!
Comments
The EBU Bridgemate protocol in the White Book (1.6.7)
If this can be deemed to apply then even if the ruling is that NS were correct, there could be a procedural penalty. But I think the failure of NS to follow this procedure creates enough doubt and the two sides should get the score their opponents think is right.
I think you did well!
I think N/S were not exactly complying with Best Behaviour at Bridge.
I’d be inclined to keep an eye on that pair and have a quiet word with them if you see similar experiences, with a potential for penalising future occurrences.
Unfortunately it’s these type of players who can intimidate and easily put less experienced players off the game.
Well done,
Kind regards Steve
Well, ruling aside...
LAW 82 - RECTIFICATION OF ERRORS OF PROCEDURE
A. Director’s Duty
It is the responsibility of the Director to rectify errors of procedure and to maintain the progress of the game in a
manner that is not contrary to these Laws.
As a player, I would prefer the TD to intervene when they know that 'opponents' have deviated from correct procedures. Not every E/W pair would have complained and a belligerent pair might have benefitted from their actions.
Equally, it is noticeable that the commentary does not say the E/W asked their opponents for the opportunity to review the Bridgemate score and were denied their right to so.
I would be wary that E/W had apparently allowed a situation to continue, particularly when they produce a record that shows a difference in scores.
It might appear at first glance that N/S were taking advantage of E/W, but it is equally possible that E/W allowed that situation to continue for their own purposes.
As I say, as a player, I would prefer the TD to intervene when they become aware of repeated violations of procedure by anyone.
I would almost always (in the absence of past experience with the pairs concerned) prefer not to infer nefarious intent, particularly on the part of the less experienced pair. It seems to me that N/S were most likely self-checking to save time contrary to White Book bridgemate protocol. I wouldn't want to suggest they were 'taking advantage' of any E/W pair in order to improve their own score. Obviously self-checking increases the likelihood of an error but I would hope the initial presumption by the TD is that it could go either way.
I would make the same ruling as you.