[blml] Chicago regional case 11: Director's error

[David Grabiner]

It's good practice for the Panel or AC to cite the Law that is being 
applied, particularly in the case of an obscure Law like L82C.  In Chicago 
regional case 11, the Panel seems to have misinterpreted the Law, most 
likely by not reading it properly.

Initial ruling:

With West on lead, South made a statement which could have been a claim. 
The TD ruled that it was not a claim.  South had a losing diamond in hand, 
but West led a club, allowing South to take all the remaining tricks for 
+420.  The Panel ruled that it was a claim, and that South would have gone 
down one on a normal line of play; however, it ruled +420/+50 because there 
was a TD error at the table in allowing play to continue.

It is correct to apply L82C here; both sides should be considered 
non-offending *for purposes of awarding an adjusted score* if normal scoring 
is not possible, and the TD error prevented South from making a claim 
statement (or even claiming a number of tricks) and prevented E-W from 
acquiescing or objecting.

However, L82C still requires an adjusted score to be awarded by the normal 
rules; both sides get the best score that was likely without the TD error. 
Since South made a claim, the score must be awarded under the claim rules. 
If South had claimed down one, he would have scored only -50.  If South had 
claimed all the tricks and faced his hand, revealing a losing diamond, it is 
not likely that West would acquiesce to the claim when he could cash the 
setting trick.  Thus it is not likely that South would score +420 without 
the TD error.  (It may be likely that South would score +420 without his 
faulty claim, but his faulty claim had already happened before the TD made 
any error.)

Subsequent ruling:

The Panel discovered a day later that the table ruling had been changed 
to -50/+50, but the TD did not report that changed ruling to the panel. 
Again the Panel ruled TD error, this time in giving the facts to the Panel, 
and said that it would have ruled -50/+50 with the correct facts.  And again 
it misused L82C; the TD error, once corrected, should not affect the Panel 
result, since -50/+50 was the best score likely for both sides.

Here, the Panel could make an equity case for letting the previous ruling 
stand, and it might have to let the previous ruling stand if it were too 
late to undo.  But it has no L82C case for letting the previous ruling 
stand.