[Cyberyeti]

So played a competition and won F2F.

Awarded prizes.

At the end of the event I said to the director "are the results final" he said yes, and I said that had we not won, I would have appealed a board where I had called him and reserved rights. (actually more the case that I would have asked for a ruling, playing director)

So a scoring error has come to light, which means that we have now not won, the scoring error is in time to correct, but I'm out of time to appeal. Is this right ?

[sanst]

According to Law 92B you can request a ruling within 30 minutes from the moment the final score is made available, unless the organiser has decided otherwise.
In this case I'm afraid you have to blame yourself. You should have asked for a ruling whether or not you had unofficially won. As we say in Dutch: 'When you burn your bum, you've to sit on the blisters'.
I know it's often said, but you can't reserve your rights. Once the director is called, (s)he decides what's going to happen, including postponing a decision for practical reasons, but the players can't do that.

[Cyberyeti]

 sanst, on 2024-November-22, 07:24, said:

According to Law 92B you can request a ruling within 30 minutes from the moment the final score is made available, unless the organiser has decided otherwise.
In this case I'm afraid you have to blame yourself. You should have asked for a ruling whether or not you had unofficially won. As we say in Dutch: 'When you burn your bum, you've to sit on the blisters'.
I know it's often said, but you can't reserve your rights. Once the director is called, (s)he decides what's going to happen, including postponing a decision for practical reasons, but the players can't do that.

Which the people who found the scoring error didn't do either.

I confirmed the score was final before I left. I effectively asked for a ruling but said I'd waive that if it wasn't needed. It suddenly became needed.

[pescetom]

 sanst, on 2024-November-22, 07:24, said:

According to Law 92B you can request a ruling within 30 minutes from the moment the final score is made available, unless the organiser has decided otherwise.
In this case I'm afraid you have to blame yourself. You should have asked for a ruling whether or not you had unofficially won. As we say in Dutch: 'When you burn your bum, you've to sit on the blisters'.

I like the saying
And of course you're right about 92B.

By one of those odd short circuits between the forum and played bridge (Kurt Vonnegut would have a name for the phenomenon), as TD I faced a somewhat similar case on Tuesday: just as I got home, a player came alive to point out a revoke by the pair that won the tournament. Fortunately I had the timestamp of the whatsapp message communicating the final score, sent 35 minutes previously. No adjustment.

 sanst, on 2024-November-22, 07:24, said:

I know it's often said, but you can't reserve your rights.

It may be so in NL, but I doubt it is in UK.

16B2 said:

2. When a player considers that an opponent has made such information available and that
damage could well result he may announce, unless prohibited by the Regulating Authority
(which may require that the Director be called), that he reserves the right to summon the
Director later (the opponents should summon the Director immediately if they dispute the
fact that unauthorized information might have been conveyed).

[sanst]

 pescetom, on 2024-November-22, 09:47, said:

It may be so in NL, but I doubt it is in UK.

Law 16B2 is valid here*, too, but 'I reserve my rights' is quite often misused. I'm of the opinion that, if the words are spoken, you should call the TD immediately at the first opportunity. Waiting till the tournament is over, won't do. The reservation can only be made in a case of suspected use of UI and that is very hard to investigate when all players involved have been busy with I don't know how many more hands.

*) I'm not quite certain, but I seem to remember that there was a discussion about forbidding it.

[pescetom]

 sanst, on 2024-November-22, 10:59, said:

Law 16B2 is valid here*, too, but 'I reserve my rights' is quite often misused. I'm of the opinion that, if the words are spoken, you should call the TD immediately at the first opportunity. Waiting till the tournament is over, won't do. The reservation can only be made in a case of suspected use of UI and that is very hard to investigate when all players involved have been busy with I don't know how many more hands.

*) I'm not quite certain, but I seem to remember that there was a discussion about forbidding it.

Law 16B2 is of course valid anywhere, it's the possibility it allows to not reserve rights (having to call TD immediately) that is RA dependent (as 16B2 says). FIGB allows reserving rights, although not all Italian players seem aware of that: I would only do it with A/E players (and a Director) that I trust, and even then ask "do we agree that <UI transmission> occurred?" rather than say "I reserve my rights", trusting they know what it means and have somehow conceded I am right.

I agree that waiting until the end of the tournament is not a good idea or how the Law was expected to work. This anomaly only arose here because of the other anomaly that Director was playing (I would have called him anyway, it's not my fault they preferred to pay prizes rather than a non-playing certified Director).

[mycroft]

Right, you reserved your rights, but chose not to ask for a ruling after the hand or at the end of the game. Yes, you ensured the results were final before you left, but didn't explain *why* you wanted to know. And only now that you haven't won, do you want a ruling. With your opponents not there to argue their side.

Chance of any change - near zero (effectively, I think it would have to be "TD looked at the hand and said 'unless he tells me there's no problem, there's a problem', and it's obvious to anyone.")

Now, if there had been a ruling given, and you chose to not appeal simply because it didn't matter, and now it does, that's a whole different cake. But that's not what happened. You reserved your rights to call the director if it turned out that the (potential) UI was actually used, and then chose not to exercise those rights after you knew the hand.

Now, all this is "just my opinion, man", but the longer it takes to "recognize a problem", and the harder it is to get all sides of the story (and resolve any disputes as to whether there was UI in the first place; but I assume "calling the TD and reserving rights" allowed the TD to determine to his satisfaction whether there was UI transmitted. If it was just "I reserve my rights", thus confusing both the opponents and the (non-professional) TD, that's another story (as you well know at least my opinion of), but I doubt that. Frankly, *because* the TD was called.

Remember, the full Law quote is (my emphasis throughout):

Law 16B, excerpts said:

2. When a player considers that an opponent has made such information available and that damage could well result this player may announce, unless prohibited by the Regulating Authority (which may require that the Director be called), their intention to reserve the right to summon the Director later (the opponents should summon the Director immediately if they dispute the fact that unauthorized information might have been conveyed(*)).
3. When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action suggested by such information, the Director should be summoned when play ends(**). An adjusted score shall be assigned (see Law 12C1) if, in the Director’s judgement, an infraction of law has resulted in an advantage for the offender.

(*) This is my problem with the use of the legal term - when they do call the TD after in high dudgeon, they also say *that the opponents didn't dispute the UI transmission because they didn't call the TD at the time*. When in fact the opponents, usually, didn't know WTF their obnoxious A-opponents were saying, or whyTF they'd say it then.

(**) Yes, the footnote says "it is not an infraction to call ... later." But the longer you wait, the harder it will be to bend the Director's judgement the way you would wish.

[Cyberyeti]

 mycroft, on 2024-November-22, 13:16, said:

Right, you reserved your rights, but chose not to ask for a ruling after the hand or at the end of the game. Yes, you ensured the results were final before you left, but didn't explain *why* you wanted to know. And only now that you haven't won, do you want a ruling. With your opponents not there to argue their side.

Chance of any change - near zero (effectively, I think it would have to be "TD looked at the hand and said 'unless he tells me there's no problem, there's a problem', and it's obvious to anyone.")

Now, if there had been a ruling given, and you chose to not appeal simply because it didn't matter, and now it does, that's a whole different cake. But that's not what happened. You reserved your rights to call the director if it turned out that the (potential) UI was actually used, and then chose not to exercise those rights after you knew the hand.

Now, all this is "just my opinion, man", but the longer it takes to "recognize a problem", and the harder it is to get all sides of the story (and resolve any disputes as to whether there was UI in the first place; but I assume "calling the TD and reserving rights" allowed the TD to determine to his satisfaction whether there was UI transmitted. If it was just "I reserve my rights", thus confusing both the opponents and the (non-professional) TD, that's another story (as you well know at least my opinion of), but I doubt that. Frankly, *because* the TD was called.

Remember, the full Law quote is (my emphasis throughout):

(*) This is my problem with the use of the legal term - when they do call the TD after in high dudgeon, they also say *that the opponents didn't dispute the UI transmission because they didn't call the TD at the time*. When in fact the opponents, usually, didn't know WTF their obnoxious A-opponents were saying, or whyTF they'd say it then.

(**) Yes, the footnote says "it is not an infraction to call ... later." But the longer you wait, the harder it will be to bend the Director's judgement the way you would wish.

I called as soon as I realised something was wrong, unfortunately when LHO bid 2♣ I missed it and by the time I noticed a few seconds later it had gone P-2H VERY quickly which was when I called the TD. I'm pretty sure it can't be wound back as partner had a bid. As we were running late, and had to move immediately after playing the hand, I only got to look at it properly at the end of the session.

I said I would have asked for a ruling at the end of the session (which was only a couple of boards later), but as we'd won and the director had confirmed the scores were final ...

[mycroft]

Okay, maybe. But I think you can call the director back at the end of the hand and say that there might be something there.

Or you can say at the end of the next round (which, okay, sure, is also the end of the game) that yeah, I think there's an issue, can you look at it?

But you confirmed that you won (which doesn't tell the director anything about the board you called on) and then later, when there was a score correction that changed things, then you bring up that you want a ruling.

Which I do absolutely understand.

But if this is the first the director knows there actually *was* (okay, could have been, you thought there was) a problem on the hand, it makes their ruling more difficult - especially as the opponents (who have gone home already) aren't available for their side of the story, and definitely aren't available for "we're adjusting the score on that board in the Tuesday game because" until next week, when they will Not Be Happy. So, if it isn't so clear that the director can't do anything else...

Hence my guess as to the chance of a change, from the previous post.

[Cyberyeti]

mycroft, on 2024-November-22, 18:34, said:

Okay, maybe. But I think you can call the director back at the end of the hand and say that there might be something there.

Or you can say at the end of the next round (which, okay, sure, is also the end of the game) that yeah, I think there's an issue, can you look at it?

But you confirmed that you won (which doesn't tell the director anything about the board you called on) and then later, when there was a score correction that changed things, then you bring up that you want a ruling.

Which I do absolutely understand.

But if this is the first the director knows there actually *was* (okay, could have been, you thought there was) a problem on the hand, it makes their ruling more difficult - especially as the opponents (who have gone home already) aren't available for their side of the story, and definitely aren't available for "we're adjusting the score on that board in the Tuesday game because" until next week, when they will Not Be Happy. So, if it isn't so clear that the director can't do anything else...

Hence my guess as to the chance of a change, from the previous post.

Opps had already gone home when I saw there was a problem. My issue was more that when he declared the scores final, I didn't expect him to accept any score corrections. I did tell him I had a problem, and he knew what the issue was, I told him I would have done something else at my second turn with the correct explanation, there was no issue with facts, opps acknowledged the failure to alert and that they should have at the time and no further input was required from them.

[sanst]

Cyberyeti, on 2024-November-23, 02:30, said:

Opps had already gone home when I saw there was a problem. My issue was more that when he declared the scores final, I didn't expect him to accept any score corrections. I did tell him I had a problem, and he knew what the issue was, I told him I would have done something else at my second turn with the correct explanation, there was no issue with facts, opps acknowledged the failure to alert and that they should have at the time and no further input was required from them.

It seems you didn't take in account Law 79C:

Quote

Error in Score 
1. An error in recording or computing the agreed‐upon score, whether made by a player or an 
official, may be corrected until the expiration of the period(s) specified by the Tournament 
Organizer. Unless the Tournament Organizer specifies a later25 time, this Correction Period 
expires 30 minutes after the official score has been made available for inspection. 
2. Subject to approval by the Tournament Organizer, a scoring error may be corrected after 
expiry of the Correction Period if the Director is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the 
record is wrong.

I've no idea what the rules were at this tournament, but I still think you should have called the TD immediately after the play. Now, with the opponents gone, it's impossible for a director to decide on a possible use of UI. In any case, the opps should be present during a ruling, unless they leave knowing that there will be a ruling by the TD, and with possible UI it's essential that the facts should be established to the satisfaction of the director, who should hear both sides.

[Cyberyeti]

sanst, on 2024-November-23, 03:29, said:

I've no idea what the rules were at this tournament, but I still think you should have called the TD immediately after the play. Now, with the opponents gone, it's impossible for a director to decide on a possible use of UI. In any case, the opps should be present during a ruling, unless they leave knowing that there will be a ruling by the TD, and with possible UI it's essential that the facts should be established to the satisfaction of the director, who should hear both sides.

This was not a UI question, this was an MI question and the MI had been established at the table, opps admitted their mistake to the TD at the table when he was first called.

My problem is not with the director accepting the change later, it was with him declaring the results as final, if he'd said final subject to scoring errors I would have pushed for the ruling.

[sanst]

Cyberyeti, on 2024-November-23, 03:43, said:

This was not a UI question, this was an MI question and the MI had been established at the table, opps admitted their mistake to the TD at the table when he was first called.

My problem is not with the director accepting the change later, it was with him declaring the results as final, if he'd said final subject to scoring errors I would have pushed for the ruling.

In a case of MI you can't reserve your rights if it didn't cause UI. That should have been solved either before the start of the play if the OS became declarer or after the play if they were defenders. The TD should have made that clear and should have told you that you should have called him or her directly after the play if you claim tbat you're damaged by the MI. Sorry about all the shoulds.
It looks that you expected the TD to announce the results with the clear proviso that you could appeal or still ask for a ruling. I've never hear or seen a TD do that, except only when the appeal period was shorter than the thirty minutes in the Laws. You're supposed to know the Laws and the Conditions of Contest.

[Cyberyeti]

sanst, on 2024-November-23, 05:30, said:

In a case of MI you can't reserve your rights if it didn't cause UI. That should have been solved either before the start of the play if the OS became declarer or after the play if they were defenders. The TD should have made that clear and should have told you that you should have called him or her directly after the play if you claim tbat you're damaged by the MI. Sorry about all the shoulds.

Eh - it deprived me of the right to make a bid I wanted to make, there was no redress that could be done at the time. With a playing director it's absolutely normal in club bridge to raise it at the end which I did.

Also I didn't know I wanted it looked at till after when I saw the hand records, as if 3N didn't make, we hadn't been damaged.

[mycroft]

So, at the end of the hand, you call the TD back and say that "we think we were damaged". You don't need to do anything else.

First, note that we keep getting more information. Some of this is "well, I know what I meant", and certainly answers to questions raised are critical, but you can see how the answers may be "wrong" when we're answering a different case than happened.

Initially you said you reserved your rights (therefore, use of UI) and then didn't call back. You checked to see the scores were final and left. When a score correction came in, and it changed the order, you then wanted a ruling (again, on the use of UI).

Now, it's a MI case, which you did call the TD on and the information of what would have happened with the correct information was clarified. You still didn't tell the TD there was damage, or check on the ruling - or anything that would make it clear that it wasn't "well, 3NT went down, we weren't going positive" or even "ah, it didn't matter, no worries then". So, to the TD, there wasn't an issue.

Should the TD have done the investigation anyway? Sure. I'd at least have come back after and asked what the final result was.

Is it more likely that you would get a ruling on known facts and already determined actions, in a MI case admitted by the other side? Yes. Did you help yourself? No.

If you're asking if you can get a ruling now (or even "then"), well, it's a question of asking the director. It's possible - after all, the complaint was raised and the facts were taken before, it's a matter of turning the crank. But it might be too late, for whatever reason. I don't think there's anything in the Laws that gives you a *right* to a ruling you didn't ask for at the time, after there was a score correction that makes it relevant.

You have every right to feel disappointed that it wasn't handled properly.

But asking the director "what was the ruling on the 2♥ call?" rather than "are the scores final?" would have avoided the problem, by actually making it clear what you were asking.

(Yes, I know you were asking "did we win without the ruling, or do we need to pursue it?" I - have an issue with that, as an SB. But it's a reasonable question. But in order to make it clear to the (rather stressed, at that specific time) TD, you should use those words, at least. Or "Listen, we don't need you to go through the work on that MI call if it doesn't matter; but if it does, I think we were damaged.")

[Cyberyeti]

mycroft, on 2024-November-23, 08:37, said:

So, at the end of the hand, you call the TD back and say that "we think we were damaged". You don't need to do anything else.

First, note that we keep getting more information. Some of this is "well, I know what I meant", and certainly answers to questions raised are critical, but you can see how the answers may be "wrong" when we're answering a different case than happened.

Initially you said you reserved your rights (therefore, use of UI) and then didn't call back. You checked to see the scores were final and left. When a score correction came in, and it changed the order, you then wanted a ruling (again, on the use of UI).

Now, it's a MI case, which you did call the TD on and the information of what would have happened with the correct information was clarified. You still didn't tell the TD there was damage, or check on the ruling - or anything that would make it clear that it wasn't "well, 3NT went down, we weren't going positive" or even "ah, it didn't matter, no worries then". So, to the TD, there wasn't an issue.

Should the TD have done the investigation anyway? Sure. I'd at least have come back after and asked what the final result was.

Is it more likely that you would get a ruling on known facts and already determined actions, in a MI case admitted by the other side? Yes. Did you help yourself? No.

If you're asking if you can get a ruling now (or even "then"), well, it's a question of asking the director. It's possible - after all, the complaint was raised and the facts were taken before, it's a matter of turning the crank. But it might be too late, for whatever reason. I don't think there's anything in the Laws that gives you a *right* to a ruling you didn't ask for at the time, after there was a score correction that makes it relevant.

You have every right to feel disappointed that it wasn't handled properly.

But asking the director "what was the ruling on the 2♥ call?" rather than "are the scores final?" would have avoided the problem, by actually making it clear what you were asking.

(Yes, I know you were asking "did we win without the ruling, or do we need to pursue it?" I - have an issue with that, as an SB. But it's a reasonable question. But in order to make it clear to the (rather stressed, at that specific time) TD, you should use those words, at least. Or "Listen, we don't need you to go through the work on that MI call if it doesn't matter; but if it does, I think we were damaged.")

Where are you getting this from, I never mentioned UI. It was always an MI issue, and (particularly if you'd read the other thread of mine also) that I'd have bid 3♣ over the XX of 1N rather than passing.

I didn't know whether we'd been damaged at the end of the hand AND we were half a board behind, so said nothing till the end of the next round, also the end of the event, when I saw the hand records.

The auction was 1♣ from me then round the table 1N-X-XX unalerted then removed by the 1N bidder because XX was single suited.

I would have bid 3♣ on my 6 playing trick plus some quacks if I'd known what it was, but having passed, when it came back to me, my bids meant other things so I was on a guess.

[pescetom]

Cyberyeti, on 2024-November-23, 03:43, said:

My problem is not with the director accepting the change later, it was with him declaring the results as final, if he'd said final subject to scoring errors I would have pushed for the ruling.

Now that is a more serious issue.
My take on this (as communicated to players, FWIW) is that when play has ceased and I have no pending decisions I publish the "final" results on the screen in the venue and in whatsapp to all players. That result is clearly subject to any Director errors and any other errors that I should correct within the next 30 minutes.
It would be better if we gave this kind of result a more meaningful name (is"putative result" meaningful to non Italian speakers?) as it cannot be really final.

There is a also the minor issue of whether one can keep the prize if it subsequently emerges that someone else should have scored better. This is of course a matter of regulations.

[blackshoe]

If I played in some competition and the director told me the scores were final, and then after I went home he changed a score and knocked us out of first place, I would if a member of the organization running the competition resign from that organization. Whether a member or not I would not have anything to do with that organization thereafter. And I would make sure everyone and his dog knows why.

OTOH if he told me the scores were final I'd ask him if the correction period had expired. If he said no, I'd insist on a ruling. If he said yes, see previous paragraph.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2024-November-23, 17:50, said:

If I played in some competition and the director told me the scores were final, and then after I went home he changed a score and knocked us out of first place, I would if a member of the organization running the competition resign from that organization. Whether a member or not I would not have anything to do with that organization thereafter. And I would make sure everyone and his dog knows why.

OTOH if he told me the scores were final I'd ask him if the correction period had expired. If he said no, I'd insist on a ruling. If he said yes, see previous paragraph.

IOW you too dislike the term "final" used before the correction period has expired.
The Laws talk about an "official score" before the correction period, but don't mention an alternative name afterwards.
I guess we could use "official score" for the score published at the end of the tournament and "final score" once the correction period has expired.
Not that it is intuitive (you would probably be equally unhappy if he changed the "official score") or that I like calling the tournament results a score in the first place.

[mycroft]

"Is this the final?" "No, there are two scores to come in."
"No, that's with one round to go; the final's just being printed now."
"Yes, and it's posted on the wall/TV/ACBL Live."

You see, I thought "final" meant "all the scores are in, nobody's playing any more." Because that's what it does mean!

Yes, I know what *you* thought it meant, and it is also a reasonable meaning. But again, you're talking to a playing director at the end of the game when there are a few things to wrap up, who might be more likely than at other times to not be able to work out three layers of subtlety.

I will admit, I don't understand the whole thing. I just haven't heard someone not use the magic word ("ruling") in this situation. Even to say "I was wondering about the ruling, but if we win anyway, don't worry about it."

You didn't know if you were damaged? Call the director and say that. If you're very late, the director is playing, and it's the last round, call when you see him stand up. You don't *have to know* if you were damaged, you just have to be not sure you weren't. It's the director's job to determine if there was damage anyway.

Because if you don't call the TD back when they say "call me back if you think you were damaged", and you interact with him later and never mention that you might have been damaged, then it's totally reasonable for him to think *you weren't damaged*. Frankly, the number of times nobody calls me back when I say "call me back at the end of the hand no matter the result", because "but we weren't damaged" (yes, I know that, but now I don't get to explain what did happen), someone not calling me back (and not checking later, or even mentioning it) means it wasn't a problem.

Was this a massive misunderstanding? Yes. Was it right to say "the score correction was in time, but your request for a ruling wasn't"? I don't know - I don't know the timing or the regulations. Was it right to say "yes, the scores are final" when what they meant was "all the results are in, they're not going to change barring score corrections or the like"? I don't know, but I'm sure I've done it and I'm sure every TD has done it.

Why did we think it was a UI case to begin with? Because like you did with the director, you were not clear with your language here. You "called the director to reserve your rights", and as I Law-quoted and sanst commented, you only get to do that in a UI case (because generation and transmission of UI is not in fact an infraction, only its use). So, it wasn't clear that what you actually meant was "I called the director and explained the facts, the director did his investigation, and we continued." Now, in the ACBL we're more willing to take you away from the table and get what you would have done at the time than the EBU (from memory of previous discussions), because that way you don't have to "know if you were damaged" (i.e. "if I had made this bid at the time, it would have worked on this lie of the cards"), you can just tell us what you would have done with the correct information.

Again, I am disappointed that the playing director didn't investigate on his own when he had the opportunity, expecting instead you to raise the issue if there was damage. And to you, especially with your question, you believed you weren't damaged - yes, your 63% should have been 65%, but you won, so who cares? But saying something l like "I'm not sure if there was damage, but I guess it doesn't matter" and letting the TD in on the joke may have made it easier for them to flag it as something to worry about after the score correction meant it did matter.

But my guess as to the chance that you could raise it and get the ruling after learning of the score correction hasn't changed - possible, but I wouldn't expect it.