[campboy]

If the TD has to rule on a UI case, say, and he misjudges, then he (or an AC) can give an adjusted score under 16B, or change the misjudged adjusted score he already gave to a different one. The TD error did not affect the table result.

Here, it is different. The TD's potentially incorrect judgement was in not allowing the change, and it is too late to get a normal result without that error. Also, he cannot use 25A to give an adjusted score of any sort, since it does not say he can. So in order to adjust the score he would have to use 82C.

[blackshoe]

Law 82C, which deals with director error, does not require an artificial adjusted score, so if the TD can reasonably determine an assigned adjusted score, that's what he should award.

To me, "incorrect" in 82C includes errors in judgment, if the TD later decides his judgment was flawed. Say, for example, he decides "I succumbed to the SB's argument, but I should not have done that". Now he can award an assigned adjusted score, if he can figure out what probably would have happened had he ruled the other way. I would think this would be a rare application of 82C, though - usually if the TD is unsure of a judgment ruling, he should submit it to committee himself.

Questions: can directors get "Appeal without merit" warnings? In England, does the director have to front the deposit if he submits his ruling to a committee?

If I just think the judgment is close, I will probably not submit it to appeal - the players can do so if they wish.

[lamford]

 campboy, on 2014-September-28, 17:17, said:

Here, in the same way, South clearly didn't intend to open a weak two in diamonds, but the question is whether he did intend to open 2♦ (albeit with some other meaning), or whether he intended to make a different bid but the 2♦ card ended up on the table.

We are told in the OP that South did not intend to open 2♦ and South also stated that he was aware his side was playing three weak twos, and that he intended to open 2♣. If we do not accept the facts in the OP, there is little point in including them. You are being asked to rule on the facts as stated, not some other set of facts. By all means present a different scenario as another thread.

[aguahombre]

 lamford, on 2014-September-28, 19:03, said:

We are told in the OP that South did not intend to open 2♦ and South also stated that he was aware his side was playing three weak twos, and that he intended to open 2♣. If we do not accept the facts in the OP, there is little point in including them. You are being asked to rule on the facts as stated, not some other set of facts. By all means present a different scenario as another thread.

No. We are told that South "SAID" he didn't intend. There is no indication he meant it in the sense of Law 25. South also said he was confused. If his confusion was about whether clubs are the rounded black ones, and diamonds are the pointy red ones, then he could just match the bidding card to the suit in his hand if it was diamonds.

If he meant an artificial 2C, and was confused about the color and shape of the club card we might have something to talk about.

[barmar]

Is SB trying for the ultimate double shot? First he convinces the TD that his interpretation of what was in South's mind is correct. Then when it turns out that this was unfavorable to him, he claims that the TD made an error by accepting his original argument!

Was SB just lying through his beak when he originally stated what he thought was in South's mind? Hmm, is lying to the TD a violation of any Law? I know you have to do what the TD tells you, so if the TD specifically compels you to tell the truth I suppose you must. But if SB was just offering up opinions spontaneously, do they have to be true opinions, or can he try to manipulate the TD to make rulings in his favor?

[blackshoe]

 barmar, on 2014-September-28, 20:18, said:

But if SB was just offering up opinions spontaneously, do they have to be true opinions, or can he try to manipulate the TD to make rulings in his favor?

I suppose any player can offer up opinions as to how the director should rule, but I think that no player should do that. I'm not sure I could find a legal basis for that opinion — in fact I think probably I can't — but it just doesn't seem right to me. You call the TD, you give him the facts as you see them, and you let him take it from there.

Trying to manipulate the TD may or may not be legal, but it feels like cheating. particularly if it's done deliberately.

Thinking about the SB's shenanigans in this case, I'm reminded of something Chuck Norris said: "If I want your opinion, I'll beat it out of you."

[campboy]

 lamford, on 2014-September-28, 19:03, said:

We are told in the OP that South did not intend to open 2♦ and South also stated that he was aware his side was playing three weak twos, and that he intended to open 2♣. If we do not accept the facts in the OP, there is little point in including them. You are being asked to rule on the facts as stated, not some other set of facts. By all means present a different scenario as another thread.

We are told that South said he intended to open 2♣. That is a fact. But the TD has to establish whether South actually did intend to open 2♣. This is a matter of disputed fact (it was certainly disputed by West), and so he rules on the balance of probabilities.

Now I might well have ruled differently to this TD in the first place, but whatever the TD decided at that point about South's true intentions, the only piece of extra information he has at the end of the hand is that he can now see South's cards. That information doesn't seem to help SB's case, since it is consistent with 2♦ being intended.

[weejonnie]

"No, no", protested South, "I realised that we were playing three weak twos, but in my confusion I opened 2♦ anyway"

Much as I dislike SBs I have to say that this suggests a non-mechanical error. However I would tell the SB to STFU while I ascertained the facts. (And be prepared to issue a DP for breaching the EBU BB@B guidelines.)(Best Behaviour @ Bridge - similar to the ACBL Zero tolerance)

In England there is no such thing as an AWMW - ACs take the money!

In a judgement case TDs are also expected to confer. (If more than one - at club nights this may not be the case.)

[lamford]

 aguahombre, on 2014-September-28, 19:42, said:

If he meant an artificial 2C, and was confused about the color and shape of the club card we might have something to talk about.

There is another thread where a defender thought a 2S bid was a 2H bid, even though it is also a different colour and shape. If South had mistakenly thought he was opening a strong 2♦, then your (and campboy's) ruling would be correct, as he then intended to open 2D. However, this South, remembering he was playing three weak twos and that 2C was his only strong bid - and note that he made the claim that he had pulled the wrong card before even West could pass - intended to open 2C. However something in his brain caused him to pick 2D. He did not miss by one card, but his intended call was still 2C. Let us assume that those are the facts. To decide South is lying on the balance of probabilities is also the wrong approach. If South wanted to lie, he would just say "I missed by one bidding card." I think we should assume that someone is telling the truth in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Let us consider another scenario. SB is South, and diamonds break 4-1. You have forced him to keep his 2D bid because he is SB and you always tend to rule against him in marginal cases, don't you. SB now claims there is director error and his side should get 3NT=, an exact average. Do you rule against him again?

[campboy]

 lamford, on 2014-September-29, 04:42, said:

There is another thread where a defender thought a 2S bid was a 2H bid, even though it is also a different colour and shape. If South had mistakenly thought he was opening a strong 2♦, then your (and campboy's) ruling would be correct, as he then intended to open 2D.

I did not say I would have ruled that 2♦ was intended, just that this TD appeared to have ruled that way. And assuming it is the same TD who is present at the end of the hand, I see no reason why he would not continue to believe the same thing.

[lamford]

 campboy, on 2014-September-29, 05:11, said:

I did not say I would have ruled that 2♦ was intended, just that this TD appeared to have ruled that way. And assuming it is the same TD who is present at the end of the hand, I see no reason why he would not continue to believe the same thing.

Because he would realise that he made an error? Because a more senior TD told him that he was wrong originally?

[nige1]

 campboy, on 2014-September-28, 18:49, said:

If the TD has to rule on a UI case, say, and he misjudges, then he (or an AC) can give an adjusted score under 16B, or change the misjudged adjusted score he already gave to a different one. The TD error did not affect the table result. Here, it is different. The TD's potentially incorrect judgement was in not allowing the change, and it is too late to get a normal result without that error. Also, he cannot use 25A to give an adjusted score of any sort, since it does not say he can. So in order to adjust the score he would have to use 82C.

Thank you campboy. At last, I think I understand. I learn a lot from on-line discussion

[blackshoe]

 weejonnie, on 2014-September-29, 04:41, said:

"No, no", protested South, "I realised that we were playing three weak twos, but in my confusion I opened 2♦ anyway"

Much as I dislike SBs I have to say that this suggests a non-mechanical error. However I would tell the SB to STFU while I ascertained the facts. (And be prepared to issue a DP for breaching the EBU BB@B guidelines.)(Best Behaviour @ Bridge - similar to the ACBL Zero tolerance)

In England there is no such thing as an AWMW - ACs take the money!

In a judgement case TDs are also expected to confer. (If more than one - at club nights this may not be the case.)

I know English ACs take the money. That's why I worded my questions the way I did. Do they in fact take the money from the director if he's the one to submit the case?

I tend to confer with other players at club games. These will be known to me to be good players, and often known also to be good directors. Some players who also have director cards I would not consult unless I had no other choice.

I want to know what South meant by "in my confusion". And I agree with your handling of the SB.