Director ruling at own table
This appeal came before me recently.
Declarer attempted to change a designation in dummy. Director was an opponent at the time, and ruled that it was lack of concentration rather than a slip of the tongue.
Of course declarer shouldn't have ruled at her own table, but she is a relatively inexperienced director and didn't even think of asking another director. She was also probably the best person to judge (apart from declarer) whether it was (or wasn't) a slip of the tongue.
I made my ruling, essentially not over-ruling a director's determination of fact and pointing out that director should not if at all possible rule at their own table.
I then get this from a "barrack room lawyer":
" [the] ruling that you were obliged to play the 7 is wrong on procedural grounds. She should not have given a ruling at her own table and in her own interests. That alone nullifies the decision."
Before I go back with a "WTF?" response, are there any comments?
Comments
No it doesn't.
Your proposed reply looks about right to me :) but you might mention the Law number (45C4b) from which the TD and you quoted. You could also ask rhetorically for the legal basis of "That alone nullifies the decision" as a reason to prohibit you from upholding the original ruling, especially given that it is recommendation and not requirement to avoid judgement rulings at your own table. Or you could just cut that bit short and use Gordon's words! :)
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
Isn't the next step an appeal to the national authority ...
Always best not to rule at your own table, especially if another director is playing elsewhere in the room. Book rulings you can get away with if you essentially get the other pair to make the ruling and what happened isn't in dispute.
Peter
Thank you everyone. Just making sure I wasn't missing anything.
Jeremy
The next step might appear to be to appeal to the National Authority (ie the L&EC), but White Book Para 1.7.2 should be checked first. It seems to me that such an appeal would not satisfy any of the requirements for the L&EC to hear the appeal and the deposit would be lost automatically, so I would not recommend this route.
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
I offer WB 7.6.2.6
This is not regulation (because the club is the Regulating Authority) but it is guidance approved by the National Body. The Law Book says someone has to rule, the first sentence of 7.6.2.6 says that might have to be the playing TD at the table: the ruling stands and is only changed by an application of Law 82C (Director's Error) or by an Appeals Committee.
Last night I had to give a ruling at my table on the last board. Unfortunately it was a late night and the other experienced director had gone home. All at the table were in a hurry to go home. But I promised one opponent (who was still there) that I would do a detailed check of the Law book when I got home.
The situation was that after declarer had carried out a successful finesse he then spread his hand and claimed the rest. To get the rest he had to repeat the Spade finesse (JTX opposite AQX). But not having said that, my partner claimed the KS. I ruled in our favour based on Law 70. Was I correct in my ruling? Here's what I wrote to the aggrieved claimer.
'In looking at Law 70 it would appear that article C3 would be applied if there was a trump outstanding (not the case here but similar). It's the footnote that I think should be considered because "normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved'.
The critical law, I think, is Law 70 E 1. ' The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card,....'
It was pretty obvious, but unstated, that declarer intended to repeat the finesse and my sympathy is with declarer.
Did I get it right?
Help!
I'm not convinced.
There have been cases where an outstanding trump was not mentioned but the claim still allowed because it was clear from the line of play that the declarer knew about the trump.
I suspect it is the same here. Assuming the finesse was immediately repeatable, there seems little doubt that was declarer's intention, and assuming declarer was aware he was finessing it would not be a "normal line of play" not to repeat it.
If the only way of making the rest was to repeat the finesse then I would allow it since there is no way RHO would hold up holding KX.
If repeating the finesse was 'obvious' then the following (from the White Book) may apply:
I imagine that as an opponent (and as a playing TD) I would agree to the claim.
But there doesn't seem to be a hard and fast ruling.
I perhaps should have mentioned that this was the club championship and a lot hangs on the decision.
From the 2019 commentary on the 2017 laws, not quite the same but pretty similar:
"Law 70 – Contested Claims and Concessions
When judging the validity of a claim it is important to follow and understand the reasons for the claim at that specific moment.
Example 51: 1096 AKJ87
The only problem on this board for declarer is to find the Q in this suit. He plays the 10 from dummy, RHO follows suit, the 7 from hand and LHO discards. Reaching for the 9 and claiming four more tricks in this suit now without further explanation might not be what the laws prefer but should not be penalized by awarding a trick to the defenders. If declarer does not play the 9 and does not have an entry to dummy, the defenders should be awarded a trick in the suit, unless declarer demonstrates that an endplay or similar stratagem would have almost surely developed."
Thanks everybody for your replies and the agreement from those involved is that the normal line would be to continue the finesse so all's well that ends well. This site is fantastic. Alan.
At the risk of stating the obvious, there are various types of ruling that a playing director may be faced with:
(a) book rulings involving no exercise of judgment and no problem in ascertaining the facts (e.g. the number of tricks for a revoke; the options on a LOOT);
(b) book rulings where some exercise of judgement or resolution of disputed facts is involved, but an immediate ruling is necessary to allow play to continue (e.g. the one in the OP; various possibilities which bring Law 23 into play; whether the auction can be rewound after MI comes to light); and
(c) pretty much anything else (e.g. judgment rulings involving potential adjustments for MI, UI etc.).
For (a) I always offer to get someone else to do the ruling, but opponents always tell me it's fine for me to do it. I then do it from the book and there is never a problem.
For (b) I get someone else to do it if I can; if not, then the element of the ruling that is necessary to allow play to continue pretty much automatically goes in favour of my opponents.*
For (c) I need do no more than check that everybody is happy with my recording of the facts, and refer it to someone else at leisure later.
*This is as a matter of personal philosophy, I guess. If I am directing, I am primarily there as director, and the fact that I am playing as well is incidental (and my partners know it), although I am perfectly well aware that some others seem to reverse these priorities. (I do try to avoid directing in any event where I am particularly anxious to do well as a player). It would be a perfectly acceptable alternative philosophy to endeavour to do one's honest best to give an impartial ruling, resolving in favour of one's opponents anything that one judges too close to call (and with the option of review by someone else later as a safety net).
This is an interesting one as it involves a decision of fact - was the calling of a wrong card from dummy a slip of the tongue or lack of concentration. Other than perhaps the player involved (whose opinion does not count), the director was by far the best placed to make a determination$$. If she had ruled against herself and then appealed, then she would have stated to the appeal that it was her determination that the call was as a result of lack of concentration, and I would on that basis allow the appeal, ruling in favour of the director (and against her decision).
What would be the point?
$$ based on both being a direct observer and understanding the basis on which directors are required to make such determinations.
I agree, none whatever. It is implicit in the stated philosophy that my side will not be appealing in such cases.
We need to remember in discussions like this that the rules about claims are there to stop people getting a second chance when it is pointed out that they were going to go wrong. Claiming to make the king in this case because of lack of a full statement is an example of trying to win the board through the Law Book rather than through the play of the cards - and is not something we should encourage.
It may also just be the result of ignorance. Many a player 'knows' you may not finesse after you make a claim. Is it that much different than applying the revoke laws even though the final number of tricks will be the same after the revoke is corrected (absent the automatic trick adjustment)?
We have cases discussed where the claimer has to take the finesse if wrong and play for the drop if the finesse is right - but it is frequently omitted that if the declarer knows (and can show that he knows) that playing for the drop isn't normal (because a count of the hand shows that the honour cannot drop), then we allow the (re)-finesse.
Although I agree, it is a pet hate of mine that people cannot be bothered to make the simplest of claim statements "Drawing trumps", "repeating the finesse", "unblocking the diamonds" are so short and simple to add to "I can manage the rest" or "you get a club at the end", that it is unfortunate when the omission to make such a statement causes a director call.
Whenever I am playing and the only director around I tell my partner, or team-mates, that any rulings at our table where the facts are not clear cut will go in favour of the opponents. We may lose out in our result sometimes (not the end of the world) but I believe that in the long run it adds to credibility. Which means that if I give a ruling against the opponents it will be accepted as not being biased.
After all, your partner is free to appeal the director's ruling.
Personally, I endeavour to give an impartial ruling, just as if I were called to another table, and advise the opponents that they may appeal if they feel that I got it wrong. It's a rare day, though, that there's not another director available.