Law 82C [Director's Error] revisited

by David Stevenson and Ben Schelen, Netherlands

Ben Schelen wrote:

As nobody reacted to my post I approach you. In the meantime you know that I am eager to act as a good TD. My knowledge is built up in the Netherlands mostly with Dutch material. On BLML I just started this year, so I do not know if Law 82 has already been discussed.

I replied:

Many things have been discussed, but not always do we reach sensible conclusions!

L82C is one that a lot of TDs get wrong. If you read the American responses on BLML and RGB I think they just have not read it properly!

L82C requires a TD to give an adjusted score in case of Director Error. That Law does not say whether it should be an Artificial or an Assigned adjusted score so we have to look at L12C to find out. Now it becomes simple: if the board was played out and a result obtained, then the TD gives an Assigned adjusted score: if the board could not be completed then the TD gives an Artificial adjusted score.

Despite this, a lot of TDs automatically give an Artificial adjusted score - and they are wrong.

Ben Schelen wrote:

In the Dutch book of the TD course I find two cases of TD errors:

1) A player must pass whenever it is his turn to call but it was ruled incorrectly. Now both pairs get A+.

I replied:

This is a good example of the wrong ruling under L82C. Imagine if the other side had got a top and you cancelled the board!

The bidding should be considered as favourably as possible to each side separately from the moment of the error and assuming the player was allowed to bid. Then each side would receive a L12C2 ruling [or even L12C3 these days] and these would often not balance.

Ben Schelen wrote:

2) Team play. W was dealer. N took a bidding card from the box but only E could see 1. The TD ruled that W could start the bidding without restrictions for NS. NS reached and made game but EW appealed. The AC decided that no rectification would allow to obtain a normal result.

I replied:

That is reasonable.

Ben Schelen wrote:

So EW obtained +3 Imp's but NS were not damaged and could keep the result.

I replied:

That is not. Both sides should receive an Assigned adjusted score assuming they were non-offending.

North would have to make the bid out of turn, of course, for the assignment, but East might have condoned it - let us say that N/S would then get the table score - or not, in which case South would be silenced, North would have to guess, and a likely result would be 3NT-1 or something.

So we would give N/S table score, E/W +50.

Ben Schelen wrote:

I also studied the book "Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1987" by GE and BKH. Issued by the EBL in 1992. On page 267 I read:

82.5 Where a result can be (or has been) obtained on the board, the director awards an assigned score as between two contestants each of whom is entitled under Law 12C2 to his most favourable result from amongst those that were likely had the irregularity not occured.

I replied:

Still correct. The EBL guide was written for an earlier Law book, of course, but L82C and L12C1 and L12C2 have not changed [though L12C3 has].

When they call the TD and he does not follow the Law book, let us give both sides a good score under L82C.

Ben Schelen wrote:

Does this mean that E/W get 4 minus 4 and that N/S get 4 made? Is that what you mean with good scores?

I replied:

Yes!

Ben Schelen wrote:

What is a good score? I know TD's always giving both sides A+.

I replied:

By a good score I mean an Assigned adjusted score assuming they were non-offending.

Ben Schelen wrote:

But in this case one may ask what the influence is of TD's fault. What is the chance that North let the double stand in case the TD offers him to change? The TD is not allowed to apply Law 12C3 here. So there is a final pass and play starts. The result may be minus 4. What is wrong with that as an adjusted score? No influence on the bidding, no influence on the play.

I replied:

There might have been a difference - and that is enough to adjust.

Editor's note:

• If you want to comment on this article, why not write direct to Ben Schelen?
• Or write direct to David Stevenson?
• We shall be pleased to hear from you!

Last article	Laws menu	Main index	Top of article	Local menu	Next article